The Science of Nonduality

"All suffering is caused by the illusion of separateness, which generates fear and self-hatred..."

Perhaps it is telling that, when I try to type 'the science of nonduality', it invariably comes out 'the science of nonlocality'. I'm not that familiar with the mystical/metaphysical concept of nonduality. So if I'm going to do this (though that is entirely contingent on certain as-yet-unobserved outcomes), I should become more familiar with the notion of nonduality, and how anything I have to say supports or contradicts the idea.

My idea seems most applicable to further illuminating the underlying unity of two particular dichotomies - thought/observation (which can also be called 'external observable world'/'internal mental world', or mind/matter), and self/other. The most convincing observations and methods of testing each of these unities/dichotomies differ, so it is worth dealing with them separately, though some may argue that they are, in fact, the same unity/dichotomy.

Indeed, to understand this point - "To the Nondualist, reality is ultimately neither physical nor mental." (W) - it may be necessary to understand the interplay between the self/other unity/dichotomy and the thought/observation unity/dichotomy, as this maybe the only way to achieve a concept of reality that is neither physical nor mental. Much of what I've talked about so far deals with multiple-observer interactions, and so the self/other dichotomy is perhaps the more-important of the two when it comes to understanding the ultimate nature of reality. But for now I seem better-positioned to argue for a unity of thought/observation.

Reading the Wikipedia entry on nondualism reminds me of how much of this literature I have not read. I have the sinking feeling that I'll get hit with 'well, that's the (something) tradition of (something) as written about by (someone)'. Probably. But then if this reflects something real, it stands to reason that many others have observed it as well. Perhaps the challenge is to say something new, rather than to demonstrate how much you know about what others have said. But I digress...

If we are attempting to establish the nonduality of thought/observation, it will be necessary to show the ways in which thoughts and observations are indistinguishable. But more than is also required. The argument for the inseparability of thought and observation would be greatly strengthened if the relationship that pure thought has upon 'observation' (T --> O) could be further explained. The relationship that observation has upon pure thought (O --> T) is currently more accepted and understood by science. We generally believe that observation feeds thought and provides the material from which thoughts are conceived. But if there is a demonstrable reciprocal relationship, wherein thoughts impact observations (as is the general gist of my theory/idea), then we have moved closer to a nondual model of thought and observation.

And so the question becomes - How best to support this particular idea about thought determining observation? At this point, I would ask the readers - What was the most convincing argument/evidence you've seen so far? (Though I don't expect that you will answer me directly... (sigh))