When I first became aware of Chew's approach to understand

ing nature not as an assemblage of basic entities with certain fundamental properties, but rather as a dynamic web of in­

terrelated events, in which no part is more fundamental than any other part, I was immediately attracted to it. At that time, I was in the midst of my study of Eastern philosophies, and I realized right away that the basic tenets of Chew's scientific philosophy stood in radical contrast to the Western scientific tradition but were in full agreement with Eastern, and espe­

cially Buddhist, thought. I immediately set out to explore the

parallels between Chew's philosophy and that of Buddhism,

and I summarized my results in a paper entitled "Bootstrap

and Buddhism."

NO FOUNDATION 53

I argued in this paper that the contrast between "funda­

mentalists" and "bootstrappers" in particle physics reflects the contrast between two prevailing currents in Western and East­

ern thought. The reduction of nature to fundamentals, I pointed out, is basically a Greek attitude, which arose in Greek philos­

ophy together with the dualism between spirit and matter, whereas the view of the universe as a web of relationships is characteristic of Eastern thought. I showed how the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and events have found their clearest expression and most far-reaching elaboration in Ma­

hayana Buddhism, and how this school of Buddhist thought is in complete harmony with bootstrap physics both in its gen­

eral philosophy and in its specific picture of matter.

Before writing this paper I had heard Chew speak at sev­

eral physics conferences and had met him briefly when he came to give a seminar at UC Santa Cruz, but I did not really know him. In Santa Cruz I was very impressed by his highly philosophical and thoughtful talk, but also rather intimidated.

I would have loved to have a serious discussion with him, but I felt that I was far too ignorant for it and merely asked Chew a rather trivial question after the seminar. Two years later, however, after writing my paper, I was confident that my thinking had now evolved to a point where I could have a real exchange of ideas with Chew, and I sent him a copy of the paper and asked him for his comments. Chew's answer was very kind and extremely exciting to me. "Your way of de­

scribing the [bootstrap] idea," he wrote, "should make it more palatable to many and to some, perhaps, so esthetically ap­

pealing as to be irresistible."

This letter was the beginning of an association which has been a source of continuing inspiration to me and has decisively shaped my entire outlook on science. Later on Chew told me, to my great surprise, that the parallels between his bootstrap phi­

losophy and Mahayana Buddhism had not been new to him when he received my article. In 1 969, he told me, he and his family were preparing to spend a month in India, and during this preparation his son, half-humorously, pointed out the par­

allels between the bootstrap approach and Buddhist thought.

"I was stupefied," said Chew. "I just couldn't believe it, but

then my son went on and explained it to me, and it made a

lot of sense." I wondered whether Chew, like so many physicists,

felt threatened by having his ideas compared to those in mys-

54 UNCOMMON WISDOM

tical traditions. "No," he told me, "because I had already been accused of being on the mystical side. People had often com­

mented that my approach to physics was not grounded in the same way that most physicists approached things. So it wasn't such a shock to me. It was a shock, but I quickly realized the appropriateness of the comparison."

Many years later, Chew described his encounter with Bud­

dhist philosophy in a public lecture he gave in Boston, which was, to me, a beautiful demonstration of the depth and ma­

turity of his thought:

I

remember very keenly my astonishment and chagrin-I think it was in 1 969-when my son, who was then a senior in high school and had been studying Oriental philosophy, told me about Mahayana Buddhism. I was stunned, and there was a sense of embarrassment in discovering that my research had, somehow, become based on ideas that sounded terribly unscientific when they are associated with Buddhist teachings.

Now, of course, other particle physicists, since they are working with quantum theory and relativity, are in the same position. However, most of them are reluctant to admit, even to themselves, what is happening to their dis­

cipline, which is, of course, beloved for its dedication to ob­

jectivity. But for me, the embarrassment that I felt in 1 969 has gradually been replaced by a sense of awe, which is combined with a sense of gratitude that I am alive to see such a period of development.

During my visit to California in 1973, Chew invited me to give a lecture about the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism at UC Berkeley, where he received me very graciously and spent most of the day with me. Since I had not made any significant contributions to theoretical particle phys­

ics for the previous couple of years and was well aware of the workings of the academic system, I knew very well that it was absolutely impossible for me to obtain a research position at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, one of the most prestigious physics institutes in the world, where Chew headed the theory group. Nevertheless, I asked Chew at the end of the day whether he saw any possibility for me to come here and work with him.

He told me, as I had expected, that he would not be able to get

a research grant for me, but he added immediately that he

NO FOUNDATION 55

would be delighted to have me here and to extend his hospi­

tality and full access to the Lab's facilities whenever

I

chose to

come. I was, of course, very excited and encouraged by this

offer, which I accepted happily two years later.