Eu cito

The reduction of nature to fundamentals is basically a Greek approach, which arose in Greek philosophy together with the dualism between spirit and matter. The view of the universe as a web of relationships without any fundamental entities, on the other hand, is characteristic of Eastern thought.

The bootstrap hypothesis not only denies the existence of fundamental constituents of mater, but accepts no fundamental entities whatsoever – no fundamental laws, equations or principles – and thus abandons another idea which has been an essential part of natural science for hundreds of years. The notion of fundamental laws of nature was derived from the belief in a divine lawgiver which was deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Our science and our technology are based on the belief that an understanding of nature implies domination of nature by man. I use the word man here because I am talking about a very important connection between the mechanistic worldview in science and the patriarchal value system, the male tendency of wanting to control everything. In the history of Western science and philosophy this connection is personified by Francis Bacon who, in the seventeenth century, advocated the new empirical method of science in passionate and often outright vicious terms. Nature has to be ‘hounded in her wanderings,’ wrote Bacon, ‘bound into service’ and made a ‘slave’. She is to be ‘put in constraint,’ and the aim of the scientists is to ‘torture nature’s secrets from her’.

The Cartesian paradigm was based on a belief in the certainty of scientific knowledge, which had been clearly stated by Descartes. In the new paradigm it is recognized that all scientific concepts and theories are limited and approximate. Science can never provide any complete and definitive understanding. Scientists do not deal with truth (in the sense of a precise correspondence between the description and the described phenomena); they deal with limited and approximated descriptions of reality.

Although their theories are leading to a world view which is similar to that of the mystics, it is striking how little this has affected the attitudes of most scientists. In mysticism, knowledge cannot be separated from a certain way of life which becomes its living manifestation. To acquire mystical knowledge means to undergo a transformation; one could even say that the knowledge is the transformation.

The actions of the Taoist sage thus arise out of his intuitive wisdom, spontaneously and in harmony with his environment. He does not need to force himself, or anything around him, but merely adapts his actions to the movements of the Tao. In the words of Huai Nan Tzu, ‘Those who follow the natural order flow in the current of the Tao’.

A Bodhisattsva is a highly evolved human being on the way to becoming a Buddha, who is not seeking enlightenment for himself alone, but has vowed to help all other beings achieve Buddhahood before he enters into nirvana. The origin of this idea lies in the decision of the Buddha – presented in Buddhist tradition as a conscious and not at all easy decision – not simply to enter nirvana, but to return to the world in order to show the path to salvation to his fellow human beings. The Bodhisattsva ideal is also consistent with the Buddhist doctrine of non-ego, because if there is no separate individual self, the idea of one individual entering nirvana alone obviously does not make much sense.