I whole-heartedly support the moderator's request for mindfulness in
discussions.
However, I should like to comment on this "When a Mahayana concept such as
antaraabhava ...." as there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here,
also found in some other messages.
The antaraabhava concept is not specifically Mahayana -- in fact it is
hardly ever mentioned explicitly and some schools within Mahayana may even
reject it, depending upon their doctrinal antecedents. As Bhante Kumaara
has kindly listed, there are many suttas in the Nikayas (and Agamas) which
clearly seem to endorse this idea. Whether these are accepted at face value
or interpreted in another manner seems to depend upon various factors --
mainly I suspect due to Abhidharmic considerations. The pre-Mahayana
schools varied in their acceptance or otherwise of an antaraabhava.
According to the data we have on hand, the idea was accepted by the
Purvasaila, Sammatiya, Sarvastivada, Vatsiputriya and late Mahaisaka but
rejected by Theravada, Mahasanghika, early Mahisasaka. So it is likely that
the anataraabhava doctrine was accepted by the majority of pre-Mahayana
Buddhists in India based on rough numerical estimates of the followers of
each school. It is therefore inaccurate to charcterize antaraabhava as a
Mahayana doctrine -- not that this will deter some from "getting heated up".