That's some helpful background, but the question is whether nature pushes the enlightened sage in a moral direction. I don't see why that should be so, based on scientific objectifications that take nature to be amoral. Buddhist sages should be as amoral as nature, as I say in the article: they go with nature's flow, having lost the fortress of their egoistic attachments. They unite with nature as a whole, becoming as inhuman as a Nietzschean Ubermensch.