text:
How do I proceed to seriously study Buddhism?
I have been sincerely studying Buddhism for the last 6-8 months.

I have covered most of the famous authors and teachers namely Ajahn Brahm, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Tenzin Palmo, Alan Watts, D.T. Suzuki, Sharnyu Suzuki.
I watched a few youtube videos of Ajahn Brahm to get some idea of Buddhist outlook towards life.
I read most of the books available out there to cover the history of the Buddha written for the beginners. But I am not much interested in the history, specifically the progress of sangha and spread of Buddhism in East.
I have read a few topics that interest me on this stack.
I completed 2 10 days Vipassana retreat and one-month long Zen retreat which included a mini shesshin.

But now as I see the amount of literature is simply enormous. The Tripitaka, itself is massive. For an e.g., I tried reading an article on 12 nidanas on the wiki but it's difficult to read it that ways. It just feels like information overload.
Can you guide me how should I proceed from here studying Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana?
Give an answer based on the school you are following. In your answer also include the source from where to study, for e.g. 'Read about 8 fold path from this website'.
Please answer in the following format:
Theravada
Study in following order.

4 Noble Truth
8 fold path
10 paramis

Also kindly include the recommended retreat and study centers world over that you know of.
Imagine that I will be studying this dedicatedly for the next 3 years or so. Also, include the online resources and paper books if required.

So you're asking for a study syllabus? For Theravada, you can take a look at AccessToInsight.org's "Path To Freedom: self guided tour to the Buddha's teachings".

@ruben2020 yes something like this, but you can make it more personalize by including books, study centers, retreats and excluding what you think is trivial. I will appreciate if you put it as an answer.

https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/11/should-lay-buddhists-teach-dhamma.html and https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-to-find-right-dhamma-teacher.html

Read books by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw

@Dhammadhatu I will appreciate your answer about going about studying Theravada. Thanks.

Maths is a big subject too. And so is German Literature, or Engineering, or Roman History. Perhaps people aim to become competent rather than all-knowing.

I noticed this about the Gelug curriculum (a school of Tibetan Buddhism) -- Geshe:

The Gelug curriculum, which lasts between 12 and 40 years, centers around textual memorization and ritualized debate, and is invariably taught through the medium of the Tibetan language.

And 14th Dalai Lama:

In 1959, at the age of 23, he took his final examination at Lhasa's Jokhang Temple during the annual Monlam or Prayer Festival. He passed with honours and was awarded the Lharampa degree, the highest-level geshe degree, roughly equivalent to a doctorate in Buddhist philosophy.

The Dlaia Lama's training started when he was a young child:

According to the Dalai Lama, he had a succession of tutors in Tibet including Reting Rinpoche, Tathag Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche and lastly Trijang Rinpoche, who became junior tutor when he was nineteen.

After you read an anthology like In the Buddha's Words, I recommend the answers to these questions, about resources for studying the Pali suttas online:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners (i.e. sequence of the Pali suttas)

I think of this i.e. the Sutta Pitaka as "elementary Theravada doctrine, for lay people".
If you're interested in studying themes you might like Dhammafarer's Sutta Discovery series -- see SD 1 through SD 50 or so of the navigation bar on the right-hand side of this page. Not everyone agrees with everything he writes, but it is well formatted and annotated and cross-referenced.
I find that enabling the Pali translation/dictionary tools of Ven. Sujato's translations on SuttaCentral is helpful too (because part of my initial confusion is from using English words that have several meanings, and from different translators giving different English words, so being to understand what the Pali says is helpful; for that reason I like buddha-vacana.org too, e.g. here or here).

I wish I could tell you how to approach Mahayana. Some of the changes seem big (e.g. the Heart, Diamond, or Lotus Sutras seem to me very different from the Pali suttas), but some other differences seem to me so slight or incremental as to be hardly noticeable.
I think that the suttas (or the Chinese equivalent, i.e. the agamas) are seen as fundamental (or maybe elementary or introductory) by Mahayana schools.
Since finding the Pali suttas I've tried reading some Tibetan texts, and found that (with some knowledge or understanding of what Buddhism is, from the suttas) the Tibetan doctrine/text seems to be easier to make sense of than I think they would have without that.
Maybe you should beware of modern or semi-modern authors who explain things in their own words (e.g. the popular books which introduced "Zen" to American readers, 50 years ago and more) -- perhaps not as clear as studying earlier/original texts from each school.
Also you might be handicapping yourself by studying alone (without someone else), or by study alone (without 'practice'). The Buddha was explicit about depending on and learning from people you admire -- learning "morality" perhaps, in person -- and even if you only consider doctrine (as if it were a subject like Maths or Latin) people usually say it's beneficial to have a good teacher.
I did once read a (non-Buddhist) aphorism, "Don't just study the subject -- study the teacher."

Having warned against modern authors, the meditation instructions/descriptions I've found have tended to be modern authors (or e.g. the Visuddhimagga which itself must have been relatively modern when it was first authored) -- perhaps details or meditation practice were always meant to be taught person-to-person, or by example, or studied/discovered for yourself, anyway there are suttas which describe meditation, and maybe or maybe not that's enough -- anyway many forms (of meditation) are described in old texts, and there's more than one modern school as you know.
If you're trying to create a new habit (your having completed 10-day and month-long retreats, perhaps you're past that) maybe it's better to practice for 5 minutes every day than to practice for half an hour but only once a week.

Finally sila is important, fundamental. I've seen it described as a basis or root -- I wonder if it's a goal or fruit as well. Anyway not just book-learning, not just teachers, and not just meditation either, IMO.
Maybe not just negative too (e.g. "self-restraint" and "silence" and "harmlessness"), but also positive (e.g. "generosity" and "right speech" and the brahmaviharas).

Thank you for answer. The place where I live does not have any Buddhist monasteries or Theravada or Mahayana teacher. In India we have a different school of Buddhism called Navayana, but it is more of a political offshoot rather than a tradition practicing for nirvana.  So I am seriously handicapped on that part. I was hoping to read all this stuff because many questions pop up in day to day life, many are also related to the environment and society you are from, for e.g. the answer I received about the rihnocerous sutra cleared many doubts, otherwse it was difficult to find those answers.

@FriedrickNietzsche Have you been to http://www.panditarama-lumbini.info/ ? One of my current teachers (see my post) lives there for most of the year.

@Medhiṇī thankyou for the link. I haven't been there, but it's still too far away from me. It's in Nepal, do you live there, in Nepal?

@FriedrickNietzsche No, I don't. Ven. Vivekananda fortunately travels around the world. I know of another place in Ladakh. That's even further. Sorry, those two places are the only Theravada places I know in India.

@Medhiṇī its funny how its completely wiped out from the place of its origin.

@Friedrick You could always mail them. Maybe they no someone near you. :)

This directory lists 400+ centres in India.

@ChrisW thankyou for the link. I have visited two of the places there. Its difficult to find a monk/techer who is simultaneously well acquainted with both the practise as well as complexities of modern life. Besides its written as theravada but in reality there are hardly 100-200 real theravada people in india. In reality most of them are political converts. Till date I haven't met a buddhist here who is calling him/herself buddhist because he/she wants to attain nibbana. The matter is extreamly complex. my be I'll have to go to Bodh Gaya for this.

no offence to anyone but that is truth.

@FriedrickNietzsche I don't mean to criticise you. Where I live, too, at least for now, is far from any monastery.

@ChrisW ahh no no, I didn't take it that ways, it didn't crossed my mind, sorry if my reply felt that ways. I just tried to explain the situation, I was assuming you are in the US, I just meant to explain the situation.

For those (relatively) new to Buddhism here is what I'd (generally) advise in order:

Read Bikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as this will ground you in the Buddha's own words.
Read HHDL and Thubten Chodron's Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions which will give you a respectful overview of the different traditions extant today and where they agree and where they disagree. Note this book is product of extensive consultation with experts in other traditions and their viewpoints are included. Among those other experts are some that you cite above such as Bikkhu Bodhi, Thich Nhat Hanh.
Find a local community of practitioners and sangha that follow one of the traditions outlined in #2 that fits your interests and predilections. In particular, research the community and the teachers to make sure they are valid. After you've made some investigation you can ask others here which communities do a good job representing the various extant traditions.
Really buckle down and try to understand whichever tradition you've picked in #3 and concentrate on that tradition. Don't go picking different ideas from different traditions until you've first really grokked your own tradition otherwise this will likely lead to a lot of confusion.

I am partial to the Mahayana as taught by the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that is authentically taught in the West by the FPMT community and the community at Sravasti Abbey in Washington State. However, there are very good Theravada traditions and teachers and some individuals will be better off with them. Not everyone is the same and you'll have to make your own decisions as what is best for you. Trust yourself to do so.
Hope this helps!

As an aside, this is the course that I followed with the exception of #2 since it was written much later. However, I think I lucked out in finding the community I did as it really was a very good fit. I think #2 is good because it will let you know what you are getting into with #3 with some foresight.

Thank you for the answer. It provided a lot of resources.

You are quite welcome @FriedrickNietzsche and best of luck.

It will be a short answer to your question about studying Vajrayana, but I will tackle it fully only theory-wise. Practise bit will be more relaxed advice.
If you'd like to study Vajrayana step by step, there isn't a better single source than:

Study Buddhism project

Order of steps I won't provide here since it has order formulated there in form of a designed path of learning.
Practise-wise, it depends where are you based. I could help more with London, I presume you're not UK based so I will list some global communities options. So, there are many global organisations, world-wide, some controversial ones due to past/recent misconduct, like Shambhala or Rigpa, and others controversial due to the nature of teachings (or unclear transmission), like Diamond Way. I would possibly stay away to be on the safe side and pick something authentic that is local.
In terms of the latter, in Vajrayana, it is generally speaking best to get involved in a place with a resident Lama that at the same time also conducts plenty of teachings and events, courses. You will always start from a generic course on meditation and then continue on developing Shamatha, then after some time proceed into Vajrayana refuge, and then preliminaries. It takes a couple of years to finish prelims until you start doing some real deal stuff, so be warned.
I hope it helped.

Theravada
In the first year I read a lot. Nowadays, practice comes before study.
My advice would be do practice and look into the texts to figure out what you experienced in practice, if need be. Don't read and try to experience what you've read. That will only lead you to wrong places and will become a hindrance on the path.
Literature
The Noble Eightfold Path, by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Just Seeing, by Cynthia Thatcher
Amazing book which I've read several times already. Cynthia Thatcher was also a meditation teacher.
A Discourse on the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, by Mahāsi Sayādaw
Well, basically all books by Mahāsi Sayādaw are advisable since he was not only a meditation teacher but also a scholar. Good combo, imho.
The Tree of Wisdom, the River of No Return, by Bhante Sujiva
He was one of my first teachers. He is amazing and incredibly wise.
One of my current teachers is Venerable Vivekananda. Very wise, a lot of humour.
Great teacher.
As far as I know he didn't write anything yet. But a lot of talks can be found here.
Practice
I practice a lot, three retreats a year and of course daily meditation at home. Reading comes second.
Further daily practice includes taking and practicing the five precepts. In addition I cultivate the ten parami and watch one of the four satipatthana in daily life. That's about it.

Thanks for all the great info. I'll go through all of it.

If you do not wish to become a Buddhist scholar, I would suggest to stay away from too much literature.
You do not need retreat centers and gurus either. If you are interested in practical Buddhism, i.e., personality change, I suggest you focus on meditation.
Talking about meditation, again, it is easy to get caught up on technique and irrelevant details. Try to remember that you should not look for anything complicated. True revelation is subtle, simple, calm, and mostly independent of the method.
Meditation is the mind observing how the mind works. There is nothing more to it. It thus follows that there are many ways of meditation. Sooner or later, all of them leads to insight. The trick is to be efficient enough so that it happens within your lifetime.
This is the guy who kickstarted my investigation. I recommend him for beginners, because of his no-nonsense, to-the-point attitude. Expect that your path will diverge after a while but that is OK.


text:
What is Buddhist doctrine on the question of counterfactual definiteness?
Counterfactual definiteness is, "is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed."
The classic question to illustrate is, "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?"
Another classic example is Einstein asking Bohr whether he really believed that, "the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?"
What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?
The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined. However, doesn't this procedure implicitly rely upon the supposition that existing things can be found if one investigates and looks for them? That which can't be observed must not truly exist?
Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all? -- are you asking what can we say as Buddhists or you are asking for sutra references.

Both are welcome

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?
That's easy to answer: the only good use of mano ("mind") for anybody who want to stop dukkha is the yoniso manasikara ("appropriate attention"), which is, in one word, phrasing sati (awareness, mindfulness) and what you do with sati, in terms of mano. This is the first step of the path (after, of course, hearing the doctrine to remember) -- the famous "proper attention" on the source and ending of whatever is dukkha, from the reply "you need a good friend and proper attention" of the buddha, when he was asked what is required to reach nibanna.
Also, The standard procedure for understanding anatta has nothing to do with "investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined." Leave drawing conclusion to the toxic puthujjanas (wordlings): the logicians, the daydreamers, the creators of views, the people who love to argue about views.
Use mano only for ascertainment, for attestation, for witnessing, of the source and fall of phenomena, of vedana (feelings), of sanna (perceptions) and so on -- and of course, for the ascertainment of the failure or the success, from the activities you have done so far, of your practice (then you pursue successful activities and you abandon failing activities).
Here is what happens when a puthujjana uses mano for something else than yoniso manasikara:

Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention (SN 9.11)
I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:
From inappropriate attention
  you're being chewed by your thoughts.
  Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
      contemplate
      appropriately.
Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
  the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues
  you will arrive at
      joy,
      rapture,
      pleasure
      without doubt.
Then, saturated
      with joy,
  you will put an end
  to suffering & stress.
The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

Here is the proper use of mano:

Natumha Sutta -- Not Yours (SN 12.37)
Channa Sutta -- With Channa (SN 35.87)

Use mano for striving to find the sources of what comes to be, and the ending of what came to be -- of how things arise and how they pass away (and not "see things as they really are", contrary to the worst translation ever, created by a puthujjana craving to cram the word "real").
Now, tHe standard procedure to "understand anatta" is the one to become an arahant -- and the standard procedure to become an arahant is for the citta to have samadhi, and once the citta has stable samadhi, to use sati to focus on anatta through the sequence anicca, dukkha, anatta -- or to just hear the discourse by a Buddha which will be about this sequence anyway.
Since the bikkhus  do not know what is anicca, but are already more or less good at getting the citta in samadhi by being good ascetics, they once more rely on a discourse, this time directly from the Buddha, like the second one (Anatta-lakkhana-sutta -- The Not-self Characteristic) where as usual the five aggregates that any human knows and experiences are anatta -- so no need to go deep looking for anatta.
Now atta is  only a word, so what experience is there behind this word?
Well as usual the answer is given, and it is:

This is mine, this is I, this is my self

... and what does this apply to? The 5 aggregates -- which is the sakya-ditthi (i.e. the view that the aggregates are self) and the only ditthi (view) that you must care about and reject, once you want to stop dukkha --- which of course has nothing do with eternalism or annihilism, and the fantasy of some puthujjanas that the dhamma is some middle way between the two, because those people love to (very dubiously) tack their favorite  words like "existence", "real", "self" on their experience and these words are even more meaningless when they are used to talk about the Buddha.
The (non-ascetic) lay people who stop being puthujjanas do so by listening to the Buddha, and they become stream-enterers. After that the remaining work no longer concerns views. Instead the remaining task is to destroy various lusts, and the energy spent fueling those lusts. A puthujjana is done with views as as soon as the puthujjana become a sotapana.

Thanks @RuthLydia, but I can’t make heads or tails of this and have no idea how it answers the question.

I thought this answer was clear: It addresses what it considers to be some misconception in the question. it disputes the OP's assertion about what "the standard procedure for understanding anatta" is -- instead that's done by seeing the three characteristics, and not by logic about existence or reality. It says that discarding sakya-ditthi (the view that the aggregates are the true self) is necessary and sufficient understanding of anatta -- and that after that any progress is not about views any more but about destroying lusts and energies which fuel those lusts (e.g. asavas, effluents).

Perhaps I skipped or shortened a step, it should say, after discarding sakya-ditthi (a.k.a. Sakkaya Ditthi) and listening to the Buddha, then people develop confidence in the Dhamma (and hopefully sila too), after which point progress is no longer about "views", but about lusts and related energies (and "attending appropriately", mindfulness and so on).

The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined.
Anatta is not-self. It is not no self. From MN 148:

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be
  tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when
  its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My
  self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone
  were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone
  were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus
  the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say,
  'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...
  Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye
  is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,'
  that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are
  not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is
  not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't
  be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self,
  consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self,
  feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,'
  that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are
  discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would
  follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be
  tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is
  not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self,
  contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is
  not-self.

Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?
I've heard Advaita adherents saying that the one cannot see his own eye, because the eye cannot see itself, but it doesn't mean that the eye is not there. Here, the self is equated with some kind of universal consciousness (the same "I" in every being, the silent witness). But the Buddha debunked this by his analysis on consciousness in MN 38.
Now back to the context of what's useful in Buddhism. The question as you ask it does not contribute to the cessation of suffering. It will simply result in a lot of philosophical speculation and intellectual gymnastics. Why? Once suffering has ceased for an enlightened one, it doesn't matter whether there is still a self sneakily hiding somewhere or not, because he has already understood through wisdom how dependent origination works.
But the analogy of the unobserved tree can be re-purposed and reframed to make it useful for the ending of suffering.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there are no observers, would there still be the sound of it? The answer is NO. Why? When a tree falls, it simply causes air molecules to move as waves. It only becomes a sound when there is an observer i.e. the movement of air molecules have to have contact with the ear drum to cause the stimulation of the auditory nerves, which in turn causes the brain to perceive sound. The same applies to sight and photons.
Similarly I can ask, if there is no clinging to what is felt through the six senses, would there still be the experience of suffering? The answer is NO. There is only the experience of suffering, when there is clinging to what is felt through the six senses. When there is no clinging to what is felt through the six senses, there would be no experience of suffering.
This is based on MN 148:

"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
  The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or
  neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure,
  one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then
  one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a
  feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's
  breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't
  get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor
  pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination,
  passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's
  ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through
  abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure,
  through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of
  pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling
  of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving
  rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the
  here & now: such a thing is possible.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds...
"Dependent on the nose & aromas...
"Dependent on the tongue & flavors...
"Dependent on the body & tactile sensations...
"Dependent on the intellect & ideas ...

And clinging to what is felt through the six sense bases, is based on association of the five aggregates with the self:

"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification.
  One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
  what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
  at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
  about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
  my self, this is what I am.'
"One assumes about the ear...
"One assumes about the nose...
"One assumes about the tongue...
"One assumes about the body...
"One assumes about the intellect ...

I'm not sure of the last paragraph, whether that's right -- maybe that's stretching the analogy too far -- because semi-enlightened noble ones still perceive suffering, and because dukkha is a characteristic of (inherent in) the "thing" (i.e. of sabbe sankhara)..

@ChrisW I have updated the answer to be more sensible.

Thank you. So that associates dukkha with "passion-obsession" or "tendency to desire", rāgā + nusaya ... IMO reminiscent of the 2nd noble truth, which doesn't talk about "self" as such, but which identifies "craving" as well as the "clinging-aggregates".

When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound?
I think Buddhism says something about "contact" between sense-object, sense-organ, sense-consciousness.
the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it
Maybe this calls for a joke, about enlightenment (of which the moon is a symbol) being non-self.
The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined.
That's not how I interpret the Anattalakkhaṇasutta -- I interpret it as saying that the aggregates don't obey our will, are impermanent, are dukkha, and are therefore not fit to describe as self -- not that "self doesn't exist" but that "it's not clever, healthy, proper" to describe the aggregates as self.
Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say ...
Yes it sounds to me like back-and-forth argument.
Quoting again from 7 Things the Buddha Never Said:

“There is no self.”
This is the other Big Lie. The one time the Buddha was asked point-blank if there is or isn’t a self, he refused to answer (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10). In Majjhima Nikaya (the “Middle-Length Discourses” of the Buddha) 2 he stated that the views “I have a self” and “I have no self” are both a thicket of views that leave you stuck in suffering. When the Buddha taught not-self (anatta) — as opposed to no self — he was recommending a strategy for overcoming attachment, a way of cutting through the mind’s tendency to cling to things by claiming them as “me” or “mine.”
The Buddha never said that “There is no separate self” either. He declined to get involved in the issue of whether any kind of self exists or doesn’t exist.

See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
I think that "the self exists" and "the self doesn't exist" and so on are all categorised as "views of self" and a "thicket of views".

Thanks @ChrisW. I notice that you often turn to the “thicket of views” sutta. I do not think it means what you think it means :)

The quote above is from Ven. Thanissaro -- who quotes the phrase more than once in his essays. The word ("diṭṭhigata") appears in more than one sutta, e.g. MN 2 and MN 72, in a phrase or formula for which I don't find much commentary (perhaps because the meaning is obvious?), which e.g. the PTS dictionary gives as "groundless opinion, sophistical speculation".

Yes, I have seen if referenced many times on Accesstoinsight.

I agree with the accepted answer in that thread namely, “This nature of the self is beyond the level of understanding of Vacchagotta.” ie., this was a teaching specifically for one person and to cite it as definitive or a teaching for everybody is incorrect.

@YesheTenley IMO the Pali suttas tend not to pronounce on this kind of topic ("do things exist?") in that way. Instead they explain how things are things are perceived, and define views as "right" when they tend towards disenchantment -- and denounce e.g. "there is no teacher" as one of several wrong views, an extreme. In MN 2, question about the self are described as an asava (see What is effluent?).

If the Pali canon doesn't really answer the question you're asking -- if this is a question about Mahayana doctrine -- then it would be good of you in future to add the [tag:mahayana] tag to your question, which would exclude answers which aren't based on Mahayana doctrine.

Hi Chris, it was not specific to Mahayana I just wanted to know what others thought or if anyone could find a Sutta that could provide some insight into the question.

I don't have sutra reference but I am going to answer this as a personal understanding of the universe.
"the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?"
The black-holes cannot be seen, even if someone is looking at it, you cannot see them. The existence of a black hole was first predicted mathematically on paper. So did it exist then? Later its existence was confirmed only as an inference from the trajectory of nearby stars. So it does exist. Everything exists irrespective of a human or sentient entity of observation.
And also the tree does make a sound even when no animal is around to hear it.
But that is just one aspect of reality.
Actually, in a way, the moon does not exist when no one is looking at it. When you are not looking at it, the whole lump of matter called moon is just probability waves of subatomic particles moving in empty space. At that level of reality its just a distortion in space, a changing entropy. There really, in reality, is no moon.
Similarly, when the tree falls, there is no sound, just longitudinal waves which are a disturbance in the air. There is no sound. The sound is a mental construct of a sentient entity which can hear.
But there is also another twist in this.
According to recent work of scientist and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, something like the color is inherently there. It's not because of the photon of particular frequency strikes on your retina and your brain interpreting in a particular way, but the information of the experience of green is inherent. So with or without the sentient entity, there are green trees.
So, maybe even if no animal is there to hear, there is sound which is heard by trees around, and even if we are not looking at the moon, the earth is looking at the moon.
So the short answer is it depends upon the vantage point of reality you are in, it depends on the frame of reference from which you are cognizing the reality.
Adding the Buddhist twist to this,

eye produces eye consciousness, ear produces ear consciousness and so on...
so consciousness is human experience product of senses.
                      OR

There is a plane of infinite consciousness and it being the aggregate it has an independent existence. So consciousness is just there.

So based on what you choose to believe you have your version of reality. it's not absolute.

Hi @FriedrickNietzsche, does not confuse me at all although I have a background in physics so that might explain it :). FWIW, I think Carlo Rovelli has it mostly right with Relational QM interpretation and I do not think conyerfactual definiteness is asserted.

No, Carlos interpretation does not infact support conterfactual definiteness i think it does the oppisite. I am saying the conclusion largely depends upon the nature you ascribe to Consciousness.  RQM entails that “a complete description of the world is exhausted by the relevant [Shannon] information that systems have about each other.” However, according to Shannon, information isn’t a thing unto itself. Instead, it is constituted by the discernible configurations of a substrate.

excuse me about the 'confuse' remark, I edited it out, I meant to say that, I had made arguments for both sides.

The Pali suttas say not-self (anatta) is the true nature of all things; even when there are no Buddhas in the world to reveal this truth. In other words, just because there is no mind to experience something (such as a sound or anatta) does not mean that something does not exist. The idea that a sound only exists when it is heard is Theism; the belief a God creates the world. It is Brahmanism.
Below is quoted the difference between Buddhism and Brahmanism:

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the
  Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches
  it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it & makes it
  plain: All phenomena are not-self.
AN 3.136

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the
  Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens
  to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through
  to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He
  reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as
  a requisite condition comes aging & death....From becoming as a
  requisite condition comes birth...
SN 12.20

Theistic Brahmanism:

'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be.'
DN 11

About the arising of sense contact, the Pali sutta say:

sense-object, sense-organ, sense-consciousness.

However, the Pali suttas do not say if there is no consciousness there is no sound.
Unlike the dodgy Buddhists who assert consciousness comes first, the Pali suttas say sense objects, such as sounds, come first:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises....
Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact.

I try to warn people about the danger of "Phenomenology" but the Phenomenologists trapped by the Phenomenological Spell of Mara believe Dhammadhatu (rather than Phenomenology) is Mara.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are there any Buddhist charities or organisations funding education in Buddhist studies?
Further to answers to this question, I am looking for any Buddhist organizations or charities that may offer to fund for pursuing a higher academic education in Buddhism, all over the world.
I searched but I don't really get proper keywords. So if you know any such institution...

Maitripa College in Portland, Oregon has scholarship opportunities available: https://maitripa.org/event/scholarship-applications-are-available/

Thank you for the answer. As much as I would like to come to US, the entry requirements are stringent.

http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/buddhism.htm
https://www.woninstitute.edu/
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/index.htm
https://tricycle.org/magazine/where-to-study/

Please see the The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies. It says:

The American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) announces the sixth
  year of an initiative supporting research and teaching in Buddhist
  studies, funded by The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation. In
  cooperation with the Foundation, ACLS offers an integrated set of
  fellowship and grant competitions supporting work that will expand the
  understanding and interpretation of Buddhist thought in scholarship
  and society, strengthen international networks of Buddhist studies,
  and increase the visibility of innovative currents in those studies.
These are global competitions. There are no restrictions as to the location of work proposed, or the citizenship/residence of applicants.
  The final products of research supported may be in any language.

In order to qualify for this, you can be doing your studies in any country in any language.

There are no real behind the Buddhas (re-)ligion, the "institution" of his monks, the Sangha. What ever other ways outside the Vinaya and tradition, one should know as corrupt in measures of Dhamma-Vinaya, not able to transport the Sublime Buddhas heritage, simply ways of livelihood and eager tries to make copies and deprive the world of the existence of his heritage.
The Buddhas "economy" is based on goodness with no interest to bind or increase and nurish debts to the world and not tending to leave home and stands.
Dhamma-Vinaya is nothing that can be studied in schools and out of books but requires proper cirumstances so that it is not hurtful at least.
Nothing to fear to get not really enough founded once having joined an upright Sangha and to life exclusively on generosity without objectives and impure motivations toward world but straight to liberation.
If not able to join the Sangha, the Ven. are usually open for serious questions any time. Also this, how ever, requires temporary leaving home and ones stand.
So you may be informed that such ways, either not knowing(aware) or deliberatly organised, are neither proper nor respectful but always "greedy" or "harmwishing" motivated. Be special careful if Monks join such improper undertakings.
There is only one "Buddhist organization" and this is the Sangha of the Buddhas good Bhikkhus. What ever organe else presented, one should know as "fake" and harmful for many.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is it true that arahants don't have sati?
A couple of months ago someone tried to convince me that arahants no longer have sati.
He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached. To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).
I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati. But, I'm neither a scholar nor an arahant. So, I can be wrong. I also don't understand the link he makes to the 10 parami.
Does someone have a reference or source from the tipitaka that would support or deny his claim without a doubt and put my mind at ease? And does someone understand the link he makes to the perfections?

He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached.

Sati is "non-forgetting" of the Dhamma Truth.

To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).

This does not make sense because effort, determination, patience, etc are parami. Why would a mind that has destroyed/uprooted the defilements need effort, determination, patience, etc? Regardless, the Buddha never taught the 10 parami; particularly for Arahants.

I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati.

When the defilements are destroyed/uprooted; naturally the sati of a non-arahant (which includes the abandoning of wrong view) is not required. The sati of a non-arahant or learner is described as follows:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
MN 117

This being said, the mind of an arahant obviously cannot forget the Dhamma Truth. Thus MN 117 also says:

Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.
MN 117

In short, the sati of an arahant is automatic because an arahant can never forget the Dhamma Truth.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that the link to the parami didn't make sense in this context. And thanks for the sutta text. (Accepted as answer to question since it was response to all points of my oq.)

Maybe your friend meant to say that an arahant no longer has to consciously make an effort to develop sati? An arahant has developed all 8 limbs of the Noble Eightfold Path to perfection such that they've become second nature. To him, sati's no longer an effort to be developed. It's become his way of life. It's like a novice martial arts student at first has to constantly practicing many drills to build up his reflex and awareness. Once he's become a martial arts master, it'd be absurd to say he "no longer has reflex and awareness", but reflex and awareness have become second nature to him.

The Blessed One said, "Now, what are the eight thoughts of a great person? This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. This Dhamma is for one who is reclusive, not for one who is entangled. This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy. This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused. This Dhamma is for one whose mind is centered, not for one whose mind is uncentered. This Dhamma is for one endowed with discernment, not for one whose discernment is weak. This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-objectification, who delights in non-objectification, not for one who enjoys & delights in objectification. ~~ AN 8.30 ~~

I don't know what he (not my friend) meant. It's also not really of that importance, I think. I do very much like your explanation of sati basically being a second nature to an arahant. At least, that's how I look at it as well. Thanks.

That's not what DN 16 appears to say. The Buddha, who is also an Arahant, endured his physical pains mindfully (sati) according to DN 16.

After the Buddha had commenced the rainy season residence, he fell
  severely ill, struck by dreadful pains, close to death.
Atha kho
  bhagavato vassūpagatassa kharo ābādho uppajji, bāḷhā vedanā vattanti
  māraṇantikā.
But he endured with mindfulness and situational awareness, without
  worrying.
Tā sudaṃ bhagavā sato sampajāno adhivāsesi avihaññamāno.

And also:

But the mendicants who were free of desire endured, mindful and aware,
  thinking:
Ye pana te bhikkhū vītarāgā, te satā sampajānā adhivāsenti:
“Conditions are impermanent. How could it possibly be otherwise?”
“aniccā saṅkhārā, taṃ kutettha labbhā”ti.

To add, from DN 16: But the bhikkhus who were freed from passion, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflected in this way: "Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?"

Thanks, @ruben2020. I went through the DN 16 just now. This one caught my eye as well: "So at the Cāpāla tree shrine the Buddha, mindful and aware, surrendered the life force.
Atha kho bhagavā cāpāle cetiye sato sampajāno āyusaṅkhāraṃ ossaji." Great source, thanks.

In my understanding, The Five Powers develop in progression:

Faith/Conviction (saddhā bala)
Energy/Effort/Persistence (viriya bala)
Mindfulness (sati bala)
Concentration (samādhi bala)
Wisdom/Discernment (paññā bala)

Each Power supercedes the previous, subsumes it and makes it obsolete.
First, the only Power helping the neophyte move forward on the Path is Faith in Buddha and Dharma.
Then the student, inspired by Faith, develops the power of Effort or "Working Hard", which, while not necessarily removing Faith, certainly supercedes it as the main factor of moving forward.
As the student applies Effort again and again, failing and trying again to overcome ignorance, desire, aversion, and the habitual pathologic mindstates - the power of Mindfulness (=remembering the Instructions during daily activities) develops and becomes the main engine and guardian of one's practice, superceding both Brute Effort as well as Blind Faith.
When the power of Mindfulness fully matures, it grows into ability to maintain the Dharmic perspective, which is a certain choice of interpretation of what's going on. It's not just remebering the teaching anymore, it's a kind of Focus or Concentration, keeping the mind on reality of Dharma-world. When this power fully matures it makes one a different person living in a very different world and supersedes the power of Mindfulness.
Finally, as the student acquires the wisdom of seeing "how things are", the power of Samadhi, or fabricating and maintaining a certain perspective, gives way to Prajna, also known as The Knowledge of All Modes - which is the power of seeing all realities beyond conceptual limitations and skillfully navigating them.
As you see, according to this model at some point sati is overgrown, subsumed and superceded by samadhi.

I have no references to texts, only personal experience. I hope I can still shed some light on your question though. Only so much can be learned through teachings. We must look to personal experience to answer these types of questions. You will never know the true answer until you experience enlightenment for yourself.
I am an arahant, if I can say that. There is no perminant, separate self to be an arahant. But enlightenment occurred, and the paradigm shift occurred.
Sati is translated many ways.
If you translate it as "Mindfulness", you are talking about keeping the teachings in mind to guide your mind towards enlightenment. Once you have awoken completely, there is no need for guidance.
I think what you may be hung up on is the concept of effort. I believed I was working hard to do the "right" thing. I thought I was making choices, and pushing myself where I wanted to go.
It was just belief though. When enlightenment occurs, you see there is no such thing as effort. It stems from a belief that the permanent, separate self makes choices and acts. We do not have free will. We do not choose and we do not act.
What is choice? Choice is a thought. Take the question, "Would you like soup or salad?". You might repeat the question as a thought in your mind. Then there is a pause. Then the thought "I would like salad" comes and goes. Then a thought occurs, "I made a choice".
There was nothing between the question and answer. Did you choose the answer to the question, or did it just appear? Perhaps you have a preference? Did you choose to prefer salad over soup? With the thought "I made a choice", the belief in choosing is created. A choice always appears after it has been made in the form of a present thought.
Why do we believe we have free will? It stems from an innate understanding of what we truly are. We are the universe, creating all minds and experiences. The freedom is in the infinite possibilities of what we can experience. We have no control over our experiences. I don't choose the colors of the trees or the sounds of traffic. All experience is uncontrollable and ever changing. How could effort exist without control?
I do not have sati. There is no I to possess sati. Nothing becomes. All things are.

Downvote because it's not an answer to my question. For the record: I'm not hung up on the concept of effort, as you put it. There is also no confusion about the nature of choice or free will. Thanks.


text:
What is (so special) different about Dzogchen?
In relation to the comment in this answer '... regular Buddhism is college - Dzogchen is like a PhD.' Also, Sam Harris seems to endorse Dzogchen.
I am reading online like the wiki page etc. Does not seem to be any massive difference or something out of ordinary.
Can somebody please explain.

Dzogchen is taking mind and mind only as the path. From mind, both Bodhicitta and realisation of Emptiness have to rise naturally. In standard Mahayana you are asked to develop relative Bodhicitta in tandem with developing realisation of Emptiness and then it gives Buddha nature; ultimate Bodhicitta, which is non conceptual realisation of Emptiness. You might achieve one of the other sooner but completion is when you realise both, that is how ultimate Bodhicitta (Rigpa, in Dzogchen terms) arises. In Dzogchen - it is backwards, one is asked to delve deep past conceptual realisation of Emptiness  and Bodhicitta in order to get in touch with ground of all consciousness. From Rigpa, both realisation of Emptiness and relative Bodhicitta will arise without any effort and that supposed to be a lot faster.
Moreover, it might be, a non-gradual approach. For example, all Sutric and Tantric practises can be done in tandem with Dzogchen without a very strict order or progression (but not without any progression). Approach takes every possible technique from Sūtra or Tantra that might help one in a given moment.
Techniques in Dzogchen are different and many, even Shamatha is done differently than the standard way; in Dzogchen, Shamatha is focusing on space around you non conceptually with eyes wide open rather than going for breathing. It is said that from such Shamatha technique, practitioners of greater capacity might develop realisation of Rigpa alone, and they don’t need further techniques, for they went far beyond simply realising three vajras to be of one taste which is the regular goal of Shamatha.

If I were to draw out a simile between another Buddhist tradition in Mahayana, I would choose Soto Zen. Zazen in this tradition is gazing at the space in front without focusing on breath while having eyes wide open. Technique is simply "thinking non-thinking" as what Dogen Zenji said, and so the result is pretty much the same to Dzogchen's gazing - only that Dzogchen has many more techniques coming under Atiyoga. Similarily, in Soto Zen, experience and minimalism is stressed before knowledge or conceptually intellectual approach. Major difference is in Dzogchen's utilising Tantric techniques freely - whenever necessary.

Thank you for your answer. The first part is hard to grasp but I got the overall direction. What is this 'ground of all consciousness'. Also can you recommend a book or a site to just have a look.

Ground of all consciousness is Rigpa, which is also called primordial consciousness or ultimate bodhicitta or suchness. Shortly it’s nonconceptual experience of Emptiness. Dzogchen uses three tiered model of mind; ordinary mind, substrate/storehouse consciousness and ground (Rigpa). Each deeper level is the ground for the level above.

As for the book or explanations, I recommend Alan Wallace's book on Shamatha or Namkhai Norbu's introductory books on Dzogchen. Alan Wallace also has introduction to Dzogchen on wisdom pubs site which is a learning course.

Thank you very much for the recommendations. That helps a lot to give me a head start.

Actually, I have a lot of doubts about your comment on Rigpa but I think that will make for another question. I did better read those books first.

Dzogchen teaches a non-dualistic state of one's own primordial nature, with nothing to reject or accept, that is pure from the beginning in the nature of a light body. -- Khenpo Palden

In simple words:
Original Buddhism introduced many new concepts to describe 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. Theravada's approach is to preserve these teachings as closely as possible without alterations. From Theravada's perspective it is the student that must adapt to the Teaching - not the other way around. So the student is expected to learn the exact original definitions, ideally in the Pali language. However, for many students this approach makes it difficult to see the forest behind the trees.
Mahayana Buddhism prefers to stay away from repeating the rigid concepts from Pali suttas and instead tries to re-tell the same meaning in its own words. This is why Mahayana often prefered writing new texts instead of quoting original suttas. So Mahayana's approach is more focused on conveying the "point" of the Teaching, rather then the "letter". In Mahayana, the teaching adapts to the spirit of times and places, to explain Dharma in the way the students can relate to. Still, just like Theravada, Mahayana Buddhism is mostly about 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. But this is not all there is to Dharma, it also has the third part: Result!
In Dzogchen speak, the three parts are called Ground, Path, and Fruition - and Dzogchen focuses 100% on the third. Truth be told, some parts of Mahayana like Madhyamaka do approach Fruition in their teaching about Emptiness - but they mostly try to explain it conceptually, in terms understandable to the unenlightened mind. In contrast to that, Dzogchen directly teaches how the Enlightened mind sees and acts. Dzogchen focuses directly on what it feels like to be Enlightened or to be in Nirvana. After all the teachings of Theravada and Mahayana are learned, and all the practices fulfilled - after the Raft has been used to cross over to the other side and left behind - what remains at that point? That's what Dzogchen is about.
So Dzogchen is even more "to the point" than Mahayana - in its purest form it throws away all those teachings and explanations, and goes: "here is what Enlightened mind is like, now you do it". This is what makes it so radically different from everything else.

Do you think it possible to grok Dzogchen while seemingly being averse to, "how much Buddhist religiosity one will be asked to imbibe along the way" as Sam Harris apparently is?

IMO that depends both on the student's capacity for intuitive understanding and on the teacher ability to establish a rapport with student. The stronger the student's intuition, the better the rapport -- the fewer religious elements are required on the teacher's part to deliver the student across.

I guess what I'm getting at is that this aversion to Buddhist religiosity is predicated on a belief that there is a concrete and real ontological reality that scientific practice illuminates and Buddhist religiosity is contradictory to this objective world that science illuminates. I am pretty sure that this is what Sam Harris thinks. What I'm asking is do you think one can have fully grokked Dzogchen while still holding to the belief in this ontological realism of the default scientific worldview?

Not in its naive (Newtonian) form, no. But perhaps in the true open-minded scientific spirit of inquiry - yes, I think that is possible.

I am referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism and  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism To be clear, I'm not talking about science as a practice... I think that is entirely compatible with Dzogchen, but my understanding is that Dzogchen is not compatible with scientific realism or scientific materialism as described in these links and that Sam Harris espouses these. Thus, I doubt Sam Harris really understands what Dzogchen is about.

see here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28970/is-scientific-realism-materialism-and-or-historicity-compatible-with-mahayana as I guess this is a separate question

"Dzogchen focuses directly on what it feels like to be Enlightened or to be in Nirvana" - I don't mean this in a derogatory sense, but this sentence sounds to me very much like the English aphorism "fake it till you make it"

It really raises more questions that it answers. For starters as I understand its not possible for 'mind' to grasp end result of the path. As Lao Tzu said, the real Tao cannot be spoken. But any way can you provide me a link about what it exactly speaks about this end result. The articles I am getting online are giving lot of details.

@ruben2020 - yes, that's a good way to put it. This is called "taking Result as the Path" - acting "from within" the enlightened perspective until it sticks.

@FriedrickNietzsche it wouldn't be "the PhD of Buddhism" if it could be explained in one online link, would it? ;) Dzogchen is not "speaking" about result, it's living it - and this is when the actual live teacher (a former student who got it) is the critical element.

@YesheTenley I would agree that it is unequivocally not possible to have realization of rigpa and still believe that space/time/matter are fundamental (as metaphysical naturalism posits).


text:
Is Scientific Realism/Materialism and/or Historicity compatible with Mahayana?
In my estimation the answer is decidedly no, but I am interested to hear what others think from a Mahayana or Madhyamaka perspective.
First, to try and clarify terms I am using scientific realism/materialism as described here:

Scientific Realism
Scientific Materialism
Historicity

While the above links do a pretty good job of describing these worldviews I don't think they are perfect. In my own imperfect language I'd say these worldviews presuppose an objective world that exists in an independent and inherent manner. I think this is the default worldview of most lowly beings and certainly of western or modern society. The idea is that the practice of science gets us ever closer to the true and fundamental underlying material reality with the presupposition that there is a true and fundamental underlying material reality that exists in the first place.
In this worldview, the laws of physics inherently exist and everything can be reduced to some fundamental building blocks of nature evolving in time according to those laws. That there is a truth of the matter about every historical event that is independent of any subjective consciousness. In short, that things exist inherently and not as mere conventions.
To my mind, anyone who believes in these worldviews has not fully grokked the deep and subtle meaning of Mahayana/Madhyamaka emptiness. To be clear, I am not talking about the practice of science which I see as distinct from the worldviews above.
To define by way of contrast, consider this alternative scientific worldview that does not presuppose an underlying observer independent physical reality. By the way, here is an article written by the author of Relational QM on the comparison of his work to Nagarjuna.
Is this correct? What have I gotten wrong?

I don't know these philosophies. The 2nd link you quoted says, "Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, ..." -- doesn't that say that these (including laws) don't exist -- i.e. that really only the material (and energy) exists?

Also I don't understand what the 1st link (about scientific realism) is saying, but it says that it's "as opposed to instrumentalism" -- and Wikipedia's Instrumentalism article says, "instrumentalism is largely the prevailing theory that underpins the practice of physicists today" -- so maybe that contradicts your assertion that it's scientific realism that's "the default worldview of most lowly beings and certainly of western or modern society".

Hi ChrisW, the links are imperfect descriptions of the underlying philosophies. To my mind, the typical western lowly being walks around unknowingly assuming many of the facets of these underlying philosophies. But if you don't grok what this question is about, then I take the blame as it is not a very well crafted question.

What follows is not an "answer", but just some ideas or frames of interpretation from discussions with fellow Buddhists with a Western scientific background. So please don't crucify me :-) but tell me if I'm wrong.
The Scientific Method is Compatible with Mahayana Buddhism
Let's first appreciate the success of the western scientific method to explain certain parts of conventional reality that were previously within the religious domain. There is no need to believe in a god of thunder anymore in order to explain certain meteorological phenomena. I believe that this success was just extrapolated to the metaphysical realm somehow unintentionally or without much thinking, so that "scientific materialism" just formed once there was no need for specific divinities anymore. Scientific models just don't talk about metaphysics (for exceptions see below).
Scientific models used to fail completely to deal with "mind" (as the structure of a perceiving subject), at least until a few years/decades ago. Psychology is either considered "unscientific" (early psychology with Freud, Jung etc.) or doesn't actually talk about the mind anymore (focusing on what is measurable). So I would argue that "science" is actually not talking about the mind or any metaphysical concepts like Karma or Sunyata. So I don't see any hard incompatibility here with early Buddhism. This would also hold for most Buddhists schools, if you'd strip of the mythological elements and/or interpret them as psychological images.
Neuroscience, Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence
A few decades ago things have started to change, and that is where I believe things get interesting with respect to (in-)compatibility with Buddhism. The disciplines start to talk about the mind and the structure of the perceiving subject. However, current models are very basic and typically limited to specific brain functions. For example, there has been quite some progress to model the processing of images from the eyes in the visual cortex, and artificial intelligence (AI) has become successful performing such tasks automatically, as everybody can see first-hand when using the image processing functions of recent mobile phones. We can expect further progress in this area.
The current results imply that "thoughts" and other cognitive states are represented in the brain as patterns of neuronal activity. This is a pure materialist view of the mind. There are philosophical and religious schools that deny this, but given the success record of the scientific method and the amount of resources invested in this research area, I predict important advances in the upcoming years that will make this view more and more popular.
Areas of Conflict
It may be interesting to examine the specific areas or concepts that might conflict with such material view:

Karma: Maybe we could live with "Karma in this one life"? Karma could also be seen as related to neuroplasticity and neural pathways that accumulate/aggregate habitual reactions.
Devas, Nagas and other divinities: I interpret them as personification of states, traits or properties.
Nihilism: Nihilism gets in the way of Sunyata. There is no answer on this one yet.
Mind: See below.
Other areas? Let's discuss.

Materialist View of Mind Preserving Buddhist Properties?
I'm an active researcher in the area of AGI and have published a very technical paper on the subject.
Here is a summary using a simile: The mind relates to the neurons of the brain like a YouTube video on a computer to the silicon logic that only works with 0's and 1's. You can't explain the quality of the video on the level of silicon logic. You will have to talk about applications, libraries, operating systems, programming languages, microprocessors, digital logic and many other "layers" that build on each other in order to produce a video. In a similar way I could imagine that the phenomena of "mind" appear at the highest layer of the "layer cake" of the brain.
Is ... Materialism ... compatible with Mahayana?
To summarize these views: The wealth of mental phenomena in and outside meditation is perfectly compatible with a materialist base of the mind. The physical laws governing the simple neural building blocks don't limit the mind in any way. Nihilism may be a problem. We also may have to "tweak" the interpretation of some concepts in order to avoid conflict. Strict followers of certain Buddhist schools may find this not acceptable.

Hello fraber, your answer is fine for what it is. Unfortunately, with the focus on mind and some of the other perceived conflicts the answer is sidestepping the question. I think it is likely that the question is not phrased well enough or written well enough to get to the heart of what I'm asking. I'll think about it and see if I can edit the question to be clearer.

@Yeshe, thanks for the upvote. Interesting question. I just wanted to point out that neither the Buddhist nor the materialistic sides are "monolithic". Instead, there are "clouds" of variants. Consider the >100 different views on Sunyata / Prajnaparamita by various schools. Some are more compatible with a "pure materialism" than others. The same holds in the materialistic side. I tried to argue that a materialistic substrate may produce phenomena that appear to be non-materialistic.
Maybe also post the question on Daniel Ingram's Dharma Overground.

I agree with you. These are material World views and can’t explain mind or karma. But I am glad that you added that you see these as different to other scientific methods which are compatible with Buddhism.
The basic scientific process of observing cause and effect can be applied to religion, and using logical reasoning to establish phenomena that cannot be directly observed is common to both.


text:
What are the Tibetan sketches in the movie Samsara called?
In the movie Samsara by Pan Nalin, an older monk shows some sketches to the protagonist monk. The sketches are erotic in nature but when held in front of flame reveal true nature as skeletons. It's a very powerful teaching.
Do these sketches have any significance? What are they called?
This is the youtube link for the movie (look @44:37).
Screenshots from the movie are copied below -- they are hidden using 'spoiler' tags because they are "erotic in nature", so mouse-over the image if you want to make them visible.

And after changing the angle of the 'paper' (there's light from a candle on the other side):

After a little more research, to me this looks like Vajrayana version of akusal bhava. but still not sure

"This video contains content from Miramax, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." - for USA

Isn't this simply Heat-Activated Invisible Ink - not specific to Tibetans?

@AndreiVolkov I think it's more likely different drawings with regular inks on the two sides of the page -- the drawing on the reverse becomes apparent when light comes through the page from behind.

For those in the US who are getting the YouTube notice that Andrei mentioned, google “watch” and the title of the documentary and “online”, there is a free link.

@Andrei I am more of interested in the sketches as used by the monk to teach the truth of indulgence. I want to know are those sketches used by monks in Tibet or it was just the film. If yes what are they called?

The sketches you refer to are a combination of three influences: the core Buddhist teaching of impermanence, the Hindu imagery association of sex and death, and the Chinese drawing style for depictions of sexuality. The sketches are clearly from a non-Tantric school, because in Tantric Buddhism, sexual pleasure is seen as a beneficial act representative of the union of female and male Buddhas (when done correctly). The sketches seem to borrow from the 3 influences mentioned above to communicate the impermanent view on sexuality. This is not a common practice. In fact, strict guidelines existed on how to create the "correct" imagery. AFAIK there is no specific name for the sketches and their intent.
The strong association between sex and death stems from Indian culture. Buddhist cosmology is strongly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant religion at the time of the Buddha, and more generally Indian culture. Historically, Indian culture is almost diametrically opposed to the West in its liberal depiction and description of sexual pleasure and techniques (just think of the Kama Sutra). There is a very strong association between sex and death in Hinduism in the form of Kali, who is often depicted in coitus:

Another goddess depicted in the same way in Hinduism is Chhinnamasta in Kundalini Yoga, which uses techniques westerners refer to as Tantrism. There are Tantric forms of both Hinduism and Buddhism, with very similar imagery in the form of Dakinis.

Another factor to consider is a statement from Robert Thurman, a Tantric Buddhist scholar in his translation of the Pancakrama:

Sexual union between coarse bodies is the only situation, other than
  death, in which all the neural wind-energies dissolve into the central
  channel.

The drawing style of the sketches however is definitely Chinese - the hair style is a "dead" giveaway. Like Indian culture, the Chinese were much more liberal in the depiction of sexuality. We find many images like this as early as the Yuan dynasty.

Thank you so much for the answer. This helps a lot.


text:
Too much Dhamma in modern age
Ajahn Brahm’s quite interesting position on "too much Dharma" and studying Abhidharma might be conveyed in this citation:

I think of our modern age is that too much Dhamma. So much Dhamma that
you get really confused. So, just keep it easy Four Noble Truths,
Eightfold Path. Keep it simple and if you keep it simple - it [is]
much, much, much easier.
(…)
That gets too much, it gets so much that
people get confused. So, that's reason why they don't get enlightened.
Keep it simple.
(…)
You can actually see that [in Abhidhamma] language - those concepts they didn't arise until a couple of centuries after the time of the Buddha. So, even the language shows you it's much
later.  You know that's great relief you don't have to study all of
that very very difficult stuff. You have to be like a professor to
learn the Abhidharma sometimes. It's so complex. Keep it simple - Four
Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, meditate. That's all the Gunpowder you
need, so keep it going.
Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha -- YouTube

Not only Ajahn Brahm, but also Ajahn Sumedho seem to also reduce the Buddhist practise to bare minimum, to repeating “Let go” for the first number years of his practise, which is similar to general teachings of Zen/Chan and experiential Dzogchen approach as well.
Given that obsession is clinging and clinging is suffering - then, truly, for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, Dharma cannot be realised and experienced merely through reason. Thus, theoretically, sets of teachings might be double edged sword for own progression.
There seems to be common ground in Mahayna with Ajahn Brahm’s claim. Quoting important piece that is a complementary reading to Heart Sutra, a Diamond Cutter sutra:

Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does
not rely on any object—any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object,
or dharma—to practice generosity. That, Subhuti, is the spirit in
which a bodhisattva practices generosity, not relying on signs. Why?
If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the
happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.
(…)
In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in
that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of
signs, you can see the Tathagata.
(...)
Subhuti, a bodhisattva who still depends on notions to practice
generosity is like someone walking in the dark. She will not see
anything. But when a bodhisattva does not depend on notions to
practice generosity, she is like someone with good eyesight walking
under the bright light of the sun. She can see all shapes and colors

We know that Buddha didn’t coin a great deal of technical terms and vocabulary that did arise as attempts of explanation. As such, many things were imputed to Buddha, according to many scholars. The extent of it I don’t dare to bring up as such is not a nature of this post. Yet, we can deduce that most of the practitioners that attained Arahantship in Buddha’s times had in majority followed practical and minimalistic Buddha’s advice. That is at least what Suttas depict intuitively, rather than operating in terse sets of lexical and intellectual frameworks.
In conclusion, several questions arise:

What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn Brahm?
Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ? Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment?  Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple teaching” of Four Noble Truths?
Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields greater benefit to us?
Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

See also Questions asking for an answer to a controversy -- there's one answer there which asks people not to be disrespectful to "the abhidharmic tradition", for example. I suppose a good answer to this question might explain or outline the controversy (if there is one), i.e. present "both sides" or several views -- or explain why some one approach or tradition is necessary or sufficient, but without disparaging another.

@ChrisW Thanks for the link. I think here it only tangentially refers to the case of Abhidhamma. At least I didn’t intend to delve into this quarrel too much (I tried!).

I had written a big detailed answer but later I realized it was not related to Abhidharma, but I will just like to pitch-in that, 'THE PITFALLS ARE MANY'. You need to know right things at the right state of practice. That is why Ajahn Brahm has so many videos on youtube and not just few on basic teachings.

@FriedrickNietzsche I may be wrong but maybe "abhidharma" was just an example, in the question -- that the question was about "too much dharma" of any type, for example but not necessarily the abhidharma -- instead of a minimal core of doctrine (e.g. the 4NT and N8P and meditation and little else). So an answer doesn't have to be about the Abhidharma, specifically.

@ChrisW Thankyou for the clarification. I edited a little and undeleted. Thanks :).

Great question OP.

I marked the question down because it is too long to read. It is "too much dhamma". It is important to be aware than esoteric philosophy can also be merely intellectual. Also, since AB gives hours and hours of low grade dhamma talks, i doubt AB is an authority on "too much dhamma".

@Dhammadhatu -- lowgrade*, seriously! please guide us simpletons towards high-grade Dhamma talks.

The problem arises due to a misunderstanding of how Buddhism is supposed to be practiced.
Especially in the West people tend to study the teachings in a greater degree than practicing it. The depth and profundity of Buddhism can never be understood by intellectual thinking alone. It will only lead to mental proliferation and more questions. Its an unending spiral.
A scientist will never understand reality if he only theorizes about it. It will only lead to more questions. He has to personally experience reality by performing experiments and thereby gaining feedback from reality, that can correct his (wrong) views/theories.
A person sitting in a restaurant reading the menu card will never understand the taste of the food unless he actually orders and eats it. Merely reading and thinking about the food will never result in a personal, emphirical experience of tasting.
Buddhism has to be practiced in order to personally experience the nature of reality. When practice deepens, a lot of the previous questions and doubts will subside.
There needs to be a balancing of the faculties, i.e. more Wisdom, gained from meditation practice.
TL:DR: Less thinking, more practicing!

Nicely put. Question now: is Four Noble truths and Eightfold path completely sufficient then in your opinion (referring to Ajahn Brahm's claim) ?

Ajahm Brahm is correct. The Noble Eightfold Path is a complete teaching in and of itself. It needs nothing added to- or subtracted from it. Our Buddha got enlightened by following this Path, so did countless of other beings before him and so will countless of beings in the future.

My teacher said, this happens for two reasons:

students don't meditate and
students read books without talking to live Buddhist teachers (former students who got it) to get a sense of high-level meaning and practical real-life implications.

Because of this, students don't see how the teaching connects with real life.
Since they don't see how the teaching connects with real life -- all they have is theory (=a bunch of concepts).
Since all they have is a theory, they try to extract some knowledge by speculatively analyzing the available concepts.
Without connection to real life, the concepts can no longer be simple approximate pointers to the most important "gist" of what is really happening. Instead, the students are forced to try and keep the concepts precise - with all the details, exceptions, and endlessly recursive definitions.
This is how speculative analysis leads to further conceptual proliferation.
When students meditate and talk to live teachers, their theory connects with practice in real-life. Then the concepts can be simple (even if imprecise) pointers to what happens in real-life. These pointers do not need too much elaboration, exceptions, and definitions. Then Dharma is embodied in practice instead of proliferating as concepts.
Intellectual understanding is important. I don't agree that Enlightenment is something irrational, completely beyond the intellect. In my opinion, Enlightenment is attained through understanding. However, it has to be live, practical -- and not just theoretical -- understanding, that goes hand-in-hand with implementation.

Whereas I agree with most part, the last paragraph not so much. Ordinary, speculative mind (Manas) is unable to touch the lower levels of mind and intuition (or the ground). It is just not possible to grasp the idea intellectually, and whatever the idea - the idea isn't real and doesn't reflect anything real, thus it's samsaric delusion. Through samsara there is liberation - I agree, but samsara is not liberation itself, rather, it's an important part of achieving Nibbana.

Ah, this is where I go wrong. I talk to dead teachers instead of live ones. (Really had to laugh at that one. ;) ). The dhamma has to be lived, I agree with that one. However, for the realisation of Enlightenment what has to be understood is reality as it is. That goes deeper than understanding of real-live, as you put it.

In my humble opinion;
For a person who is not so stupid as to realise his tiny-puny EGO, these six nails of Tilopa will be enough to reach the promised land.
Bare minimum Buddhism

Don't recall    : Let go of what has passed
Don't imagine   : Let go of what may come
Don't think     : Let go of what is happening now
Don't examine   : Don't try to figure anything out
Don't control   : Don't try to make anything happen
Rest            : Relax, right now, and rest

You forgot about the conditioning and latent tendencies of past lives. :) I don't agree with your statement that everyone needs to study everything (to avoid the entire list). Not every mind is capable of holding all that info, let alone make sense of it. Also, it really is not necessary. As a famous Bhikkhu said several times: "A Buddha needs to know everything; an arahant has to let go of everything."

@Medhiṇī yes I deliberatly left out the past lives, some people are averse to that argument. I agree with you that not every one needs to know everything, it is much easier when there is a teacher around. Its that, what I have experienced makes me need to know lot of things to make sense of my life. Thanks for your comment :).

The suttas are more than "Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path" -- maybe they're still relatively simple, though, when compared to the Abhidhamma.

If the doctrine were only the first three noble truths, that would have been a good beginning.
You can't have the fourth noble truth without asking or explaining what the eightfold path is -- then the existence of eightfold path raises further questions -- like, "what is 'right view'?", or, "what method of meditation?"
I think the anatta doctrine is helpful (and so, may be worth teaching) but apparently it's difficult to explain or to understand. I'm not sure where it fits into the 4NT or N8P: "right view", perhaps.
A lot of further doctrine is consequent to teaching anatta:

Te doctrine of the 12 nidanas for example, in my opinion, exists to explain what the "self" even is, if it isn't "me" ... and maybe as a prescription towards ending craving and attachment (i.e. by guarding the senses) ... and some doctrine about "birth" and so on.
Similarly the doctrine of the 5 aggregates also, IMO, exists to explain what is or isn't the "self" ... and it introduces doctrine about impermanence (after which, dispassion, etc.).

I hadn't mentioned "virtue" yet -- but the suttas do, in some detail, at least a book's worth. Not to mention the vinaya.
Something else which pervades the suttas -- the notion of skillful versus unskillful, the fact that some things tend toward suffering and some things tend away. Maybe it's necessary, to begin to draw distinctions like that, in order to say anything specific or prescriptive at all, and not only truisms? Once you begin, though, to analyse reality into dualities, perhaps there's a lot to say.
Other topics in the suttas include:

Social interactions (friends and brahmaviharas)
Contradicting (or correction) of other (non-Buddhist) contemporary doctrines.
Success stories
Various lists -- fetters, hindrances, stages of enlightenment, factors of awakening
Answering FAQs -- "isn't desiring enlightenment a type of desire?" for example

Are the suttas enough or not?

Maybe not -- for example in the Noble search (MN 26) it says,

And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth etc.

At least two of the suttas record for us what he told this first group of five monks, but (according to the quote above) there were more teachings that weren't recorded.
But maybe -- the Punna sutta for example tells of a monk who the Buddha instructed "with a brief instruction" and who then (successfully) went to practice alone.
According to that sutta, his "brief instruction" was dispassion towards sense objects (associating delight and attachment with dukkha)
I guess that "the Dhamma and the Discipline" were originally all there were -- except the Sangha as well -- I'm not sure why the Abhidhamma was developed too so I can't address that.

"What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect?"

"Intellect" as opposed to what? Isn't dukkha and craving and so on maybe a statement about "emotions", and not just intellect? So emotions, at least, too.
And there's an extent to which mind conditions the body and vice versa, so that as well.
And society too; or seclusion.

But ... if you're studying Maths, for example -- which I guess is an example of an "intellectual" exercise -- I think you're not going to learn how to do Maths just by reading Maths lectures or watching videos.

You may need a live teacher for some reason
What about motivation, what's to motivate you?
You may have questions
You may benefit from a teacher's advice, correction, or example
You need some kind of practice or exercise, you need to practice applying what you learn (and learn to apply)

I am not sure I agree with Math example; Math cannot be experiential and intuitonal, but purely logical and knowledge-progressive, also regarding exercises etc. As we know Dharma is the opposite - it is the art of letting go. For example in Mahayana terms, Arya (Arahant) is person coined as having completely non-conceptual and hence intuitional cognition of Four Noble truths. So, I think Four Noble truths are necessary to understand intelelctually, but do we really need more then?

I used Maths as an example of "merely reading/hearing isn't enough". Perhaps the Buddha used "playing a lute" as an example of a practice -- rather than Maths, playing the lute is another example of a skill for which intellectual learning alone is insufficient.

I think the parable of the lute is an example of the intensity of practice, not the type of it. But nonetheless, I cut on nitpicking; I get what you mean.

To revert back to the topic -- why do you say "four" instead of "three"? Is just three better, sufficient, for the practice of letting go? Do you agree that teaching "four" requires a whole lot of further doctrine? Is the anatta doctrine necessary, and, sufficiently implied by the mere mention of the clinging-aggregates in the 4NT? How about just two noble truths, i.e. "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress"?

See also e.g. this comment -- it can be challenging to try to explain, identify, summarise what's essential doctrine.

You are right, realising three or even two is enough, for the fourth is the path to it.

What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn Brahm?

These questions are impossible to answer since any answer would involve knowledge of any persons conditions and conditionings.
I don't know what you need to know and let go of to become enlightened. Nor do I know how your mind works and in what way information should be brought to it. In my case, f.i., the way information is structured in the Abhidhamma makes more sense to me than how it is presented in the suttas.
So, a definite No to the last question. Every mind simply works differently.
Wisdom comes in three levels. The first I don't remember, I believe it was conditioning. The second kind of wisdom is gained by study and the last one is wisdom gained through experience (thus practice). All three are needed.

Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ? Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment? Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple teaching” of Four Noble Truths?

You know how many arahants there are? I have no idea. And therefore I'm unable to say that those numbers are more or less than in the old times.
Really, who knows how many arahants there are? And also: why would the amount be in any way relevant to your own path?
I don't see the point.

Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields greater benefit to us?

No, not everyone's mind is capable of understanding the Abhidhamma. Again, every mind works differently.
However, practice is something everyone can do. Abandoning any reliance to whatever will then be happening naturally.

Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

How about letting go of ideals and imagined realisations? Whether knowledge has to be broadend slowly or not, depends again on how the individuals mind works, and also of what kind of knowledge we speak.

What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a
  simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn
  Brahm?

Since Ajahn Brahm seems to believe the 4NTs are about "rebirth" or "reincarnation", obviously AB's version of the 4NTs cannot lead to liberation.

Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ?

There aren't more arahant because of genetics. The arahant gene pool becomes exhausted because arahants don't reproduce children. The lack of arahants is due to inherent ignorance of "Mara-Nature". Most beings do not have "Buddha-Nature" but have "Mara-Nature". Refer to verses 59 and 174 of the Dhammapada.

Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment? Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple
  teaching” of Four Noble Truths?

Mara-Nature is the impediment.

Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of
  sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields
  greater benefit to us?

No. The Buddha did not merely abandon reliance on signs and concepts yields. This idea is Hinduism or Mahayana.

Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet
  expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that
  we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with
  progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

The Buddha taught the aspirant practises like if their head/hair is on fire. What is necessary is the aspiration to end suffering. This aspiration arises from when it is discerned there is no happiness in this world. But most Western Buddhists still delight in sensuality & worldliness.

I'm not sure it's because of genetics, though -- "Not by birth", says the Dhammapada.

Dhammadhatu, could it be that sensual pleasures are of strongly pursued by humans not solely because they are 'worldly', but because spiritual happiness requires cultivation? Also, most people do not experience happiness that is independent of the senses so they have no comparison really. I personally doubt that people have an inclination towards dhamma, celibacy etc. It is mostly training. If one believes one's personality is the reason one isn't advancing then that's victim mentality.

Interesting point with Ajahn Brahm, can you provide the source of him saying that? Many thanks.