Is there a separate or an artificial boundary?

Is there a separate or an artificial boundary?
In inquiring about our relationship in the universe and the objects around us, it raises a question of relationship. The West and the East conceive this relationship differently. The split between the subject and the object is typically Western. The Non-Western view sees this distinction as artificial. In this paper, I will expand on these two views and attempt to come to a conclusion to this question.
Epistemology in the Western world assumes a distinction between the knower and the known. According to Rene Descartes’ Cogito, he was sure that he existed as a thinking thing. Descartes said he could only be sure of the contents of his own mind. Once this theory was established, he went on to prove the existence of a non-deceiving God. As a result he had the reliability of his perceptions in regards to “known” objects in the material universe. Western rationalists have agreed with Descartes that by thinking we can know. On the other hand, empiricists have argued that it is the sense experience rather than reason which is the way to knowing. Both rationalists and empiricists acknowledge the distinction between the knower and the known.
The pre-Socratic cosmologists assumed the distinction between the knower and known originally. This idea was not created by Descartes and was first thought of when these philosophers took the first steps in inquiring what everything in the universe was made of. Even though they had their differences, Plato and Aristotle shared an assumption that the world of Form and matter was separate from the human self. They believed the power of reason would allow for the use of methods of inquiry and logic to unlock mysteries of the universe. Basically every Western philosopher accepts this division of knower and known.
According to the Buddhists, our attachments
…