I do believe I am not alone in finding the preceding discussions very
interesting however acrimoneous, and a huge temptation to jump
in...either to push one's own opinion or to attempt a resolution. I
am yielding here to the later impulse.

From where I sit it would be a shame if in the high degree of
knowledge and understanding of the individuals here this series of
dust-ups were not seen as an opportunity to forge a force for peace
that could have an influence far beyond this group.

This is the over-arching problem as I see it: each of the
protagonists here has a vested interest in maitaining a position that
falls outside actual personal interest in attaining the goals of the
system or in assiting others to attain those goals. Worldly vested
interests: fame primarily (however much couched in terms of saving
the world; and however petty and insignificant the actual status).

Hard, beggars, are fame, favors and gains;
cutting, rough, obstructions
to securing the ultimate refuge from bondage.

Wherefore, beggars,
train yourselves this way:
"when fame, favors and gains come to us,
we will let them go,
and not let them take lasting hold on our heart."
--SN NV 17.1

The cover is the Buddha's various instructions concerning what to do
when confronted with statements that denegrate either him or his
system or his manner of teaching.

"Beggars, if those of other views should speak about the Tathagata in
disparaging terms you should not for that reason get riled up, worked
up, or upset, for if for that reason you were to get angry,
resentful, and bear ill will, that would be an obstruction for you.
If those of other views should speak about the Tathagata in
disparaging terms and for that reason you were to get riled up,
worked up, or upset would you then be able to determine how far what
was said was well or badly said?"

"Well then, Beggars, when those of other views should speak about the
Tathagata in disparaging terms you should simply break down the
matter and explain that just this and that are not correct statements
about the Buddha; just this and that are not to be found in him."
--DN1

We are told that when we understand our own skills to be sufficient
to the task, we should, even if it means an uncomfortable exchange,
take the trouble to make the effort to bring someone from the
darkness to the light.

What is being ignored to a great extent, (and no amount of sadhus and
mettas and wish-you-well sigs at the end of emails will counter-act
this) is the Buddha's own instructions about how to resolve these
sorts of conflict.

These guidelines are largely known:

Primarily:

First: Reflect on yourself before you utter criticism! "Is this fault
also to be found in me?" Doing this you will find it is possible to
eliminate almost all nasty remarks as, as a careful reading of the
posts of late will show, virtully everyone in the debate could be
said to be speaking about themselves.

Do not accept as true or act upon advise simply because:
It is the word of some authority; the pronouncement of some
authority, the law of the land.
It is tradition; the custom of my people, is found in some book.
It appeals to one's reason.
Because one has heard that it is true.

Compare Sutta with Sutta:

Do not accept the statement of individuals or groups of whatever fame
or status as to the fact of a statement having been made by the
Buddha, but resort to original documentation found in the suttas.

Well then, beggars, what this Beggar says is neither to be accepted
nor rejected, but without bias, the words and syllables are to be
carefully examined, placed side-by-side with the Suttas, side-by-side
with the Vinaya. If after having been placed side-by-side with the
Suttas, side-by-side with the Vinaya, there is disparity and lack of
agreement between what is compared with Sutta and what is compared
with Vinaya, then it is fair to conclude: This is not the word of the
Bhagava, that Arahant, the Number One Wide-Awakened One. This has
been misheard by that Begggar. And one should reject it.

Face to face/agreement accept it

An order said/disagreement/reject it
Agreement/accept it

Some Monk/disagreement/ reject it
Agreement/accept it

A great number of elder monks/disagreement/reject it
Agreement/accept it

A single elder monk/disagreement/reject it
Agreement/accept it

Now what, exactly, constitutes a sutta is then debated which
complicates matters, but if the recommended method is followed, we
compare the commentaries with the word of the Buddha as found in the
core suttas (Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara), and the Vinaya
that should, with debators interested in their own and the greater
good, be sufficient to accomplish an agreement that the following may
be accepted from the commentaries and Abhidhamma: any statement that
is in complete agreement with any statement made in the core suttas.

In other words, it is NOT a valid argument to say that: "This is in
the Abhidhamma, vouched for by 2000 years of tradition and scores of
elders, and is therefore the word of the Buddha."

Put simply: If we only have a 'between-thoughts' (a term for this
life) to get our stuff together here, the supreme authority is the
utterance of the Buddha as found to be unconflicted throughout the
literature, and that will always and only first be found in the core
suttas. To go to some other authority first is a highly dangerous
side trip, and to asert that it is a necessary one because of the
complexity of digging out the Dhamma from the suttas is to ignore
another statement made by the Buddha: "Well taught by me is the
Dhamma."

This study is almost by definition the hardest, most complicated,
most subtly deceptive mental work we will ever do in our lives; live
with it -- this Dhamma is not for the lazy. Do a little actual
thinking about things. The Buddha is saying that it can be done with
just what he gave us in the suttas.

If this group is going to achieve cohesion, those from the orthodox
Theravada tradition are going to have to give up on pushing this
reliance on authority. It is just simply wrong method to approach
teaching others this way.

Put forth your arguments concerning doctrine, not concerning the
medium. When challenged, your ONLY resort is the core suttas.

If there is no willingness on the part of the orthodox Theravadans to
do this, then there is only one thing that is going on here: the
teaching, by example, of not-dhamma, and those who take exception to
this are wasting their time.

How come?

Because it is precisely for this sort of situation that the Buddha's
instructions have been given! If there is no following the Buddha's
instruction at the gate, what will there be to learn from those who
do not practice? Rest assured, their bias is reflected even in their
study of the Pali as a language.

On the other side, the side I personally find more flexible, is the
side that asserts doctrine and practices intollerance of the
orthodox. This side needs to learn some manners. For that I suggest a
careful read of: AN 3:67: Boundries of Debate.

Three, me beggars, are the fields of debate.
What three?

How it was in a period of time in the past may be debated, saying:
"Thus it was in a period of time in the past."
How it will be in a period of time in the future may be debated,
saying:
"Thus it will be in a period of time in the future."
How it is in a period of time in the present may be debated, saying:
"Thus it is in a period of time in the present."

It may be determined from debating experience, beggars,
whether or not a man is say'n something or just talking.

If, beggars, a man,
asked a direct question
does not answer similarly
with a direct answer;
asked an analytical question
does not answer analytically;
asked a counter-question question,
does not answer with a counter-question;
and does not stand aside from a question
that should be stood aside;
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has just been talking.

If, beggars, a man,
asked a direct question
answers similarly
with a direct answer;
asked an analytical question
answers analytically;
asked a counter-question question,
answers with a counter-question;
and stands aside from a question
that should be stood aside;
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has been say'n something.

It may be determined from debating experience, beggars,
whether or not a man is say'n something or just talking.

If beggars, a man
asked a reasonable question,
does not stick to set conditions,
does not stick to conclusions,
does not stick to known experience,
does not stick to the point,
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has just been talking.

If beggars, a man
asked a reasonable question,
sticks to set conditions,
sticks to conclusions,
sticks to known experience,
sticks to the point,
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has been say'n something.

It may be determined from debating experience, beggars,
whether or not a man is say'n something or just talking.

If beggars, a man
asked a reasonable question,
retorts with another on another
turns the discussion to externals
gets upset, angry and unresponsive
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has just been talking.

If beggars, a man
asked a reasonable question,
does not retort with another on another
does not turn the discussion to externals
does not get upset, angry and unresponsive
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has been say'n something.

It may be determined from debating experience, beggars,
whether or not a man is say'n something or just talking.

If beggars, a man
asked a reasonable question,
berates,
crushes,
derides,
and fault-finds,
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has just been talking.

If beggars, a man
asked a reasonable question,
does not berate,
does not crush,
does not deride,
and does not fault-find,
in this case, beggars,
it can be said that that man
has been say'n something.

It may be determined from debating experience, beggars,
whether or not a man is well-grounded or not well-grounded.

He who does not lend ear, beggars
is not well-grounded;
he who lends ear
is well-grounded.

He who is well-grounded
is cognizant of one thing,
comprehends one thing,
lets go one thing,
is eye-witness to one thing.

He who is cognizant of one thing,
comprehends one thing,
lets go one thing,
is eye-witness to one thing,
touches the highest freedom.

This is the point, beggars, of talk,
this is the point of meditation,
this is the point of being well-grounded,
this is the point of listening to the experienced,
that is to say the hearts release from getting involved.

When reasoned talk by arrogance is blocked,
by ignoble bias, carelessness, and bickering back and forth,
And each in the others confusion, errors, and perplexity takes
delight,
not then does the Aristocrat debate.
If he would talk, the wise man knows the time
and speaks directly to the Dhamma goal
talking talk, well-grounded, unfaultering, and modest,
uninvolved, unhesitant, and without injury.
Contributing without complaint as best he knows,
not glad to catch up one who slips,
not seeking to reprove nor finding fault
not berating, not crushing, not speaking misdirected thoughts.
Knowing, attained to vision, recollected
Thus the Aristocrat counsels and such the way he speaks.
Thus the clever speak without hypocracy.

-------------------------

Some words from the voice of experience:

When you see someone making an asertion with which you find yourself
in disagreement and you sit down to type a response (or to respond in
some other way), that flow or force of heat you feel and recognize as
anger and rationalize as being under control (or not to bother), is a
result of contact.

That sensation is not 'your' anger.

That sensation is in actual fact concern for the fate of the
individual you are confronting and for the individuals that person
may be influencing, and, of course, concern for the fate of the
Dhamma as you have come to understand and appreciate it.

It could have been a good thing.

If you take that sensation, and the energy it controls, and you make
very sure your response sticks to discussion of doctrine following
the Buddha's guidelines, and you actually have something more to say
about the understanding of the issue than that: "You don't understand
this doctrine and discipline, I do!" "How could someone such as you
understand this docrint and discipline?" Etc. you will find that at
the least you can walk away from the situation feeling other than
that you have made a terrible ass of yourself.

Finally, a PS: Antarabhava. It doesn't matter the subject, what is
being argued here is "is", "is not", "both is and is not", "neither
is nor is not"; and this should be sufficient to show that none of
those who have aserted a position (including venerable elders of old)
with regard to the existance or non-existance of the Antarabhava have
a clue concerning the point of the system: The existance or non-
existance of things depends on point of view, and point of view is
always at least partly wrong. Whether or not there is or is not an
antarabhava state, there is dukkha. It is always only dukkha, it's
origins, it's end, and the way to it's end that is being taught here.
How does the existance or non-existance of an antarabhava move that
story forward?