--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McClure" <alanmcclure3@...> wrote:

>
>
> > Dear Alan,
> >
> >> Everyone seems to realize the orthodox position, but some
> >> people believe in an antaraabhava anyway.
> > Orthodox to Theravada but not to the majority of other Indian

Buddhist

> > schools.
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Point well taken, and thank you for this list. It is much

appreciated!

>
> +++++++

Dear Alan and Stephen,
Here is some history on the matter.

This article is by a Sri lankan who rejects
Theravada, and argues that the Puggalavaidn sect are equally old (and
doctrinally superior) I quote over half of it as I think it helps to
se what the
controversy is about. Generally the groups who favour anatrabhava
will reject Abhidhamma and possibly have somthing in common with The
Puggalavadins and other matters.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Starship/7077/Aloka/journal7.htm
Puggalavada and Theravada Buddhist teachings
by D. Amarasiri Weeraratne

Between the 2nd and 3rd Councils 236 years after the Buddha the
Conservative Elders (The Theras) broke off into two sects, viz:
Vibjjavadins and Sautrantikas. Almost simultaneously the Mahasangikas
also broke off into a sect called Puggalavadin. (Believers in
persons.) The Vibjjavadins broke off into three sects, one of which
was the Theravada - the Buddhism we have in Sri Lanka, Burma,
Thailand, Cambodia, Laos etc. Thus you will see that the Puggalavada
Sect and the Theravada Sect were the earliest of the sectarian
divisions in Buddhism.

Controversy on Abhidhamma

The chief characteristic of the Puggalavada Sect was their rejection
of the Abhidharma Pitaka as a teaching of the Buddha. They maintained
that Abhidharma is apocryphal scripture cooked up by the Theravada
Elders between the 2nd and 3rd Councils and adopted at the 3rd
Council. The Puggalavadins as well as Sautranitikas rejected the
Abhidharma Pitaka and had only 2 Pitakas viz: Sutta and Vinaya
Pitakas.

In the Suttas the Buddha speaks of a person who fares on in Sansara,
performs good and bad deeds and receives reward or distribution for
them. In fact the entire Sutta Pitaka is based on the assumption that
there is a person (puggala) who is subject to the sufferings in
Sansara. The purpose of the Buddha-Dhamma is to eliminate this
suffering and help them to attain Nirvana.

The Anatta concept

The Abhidharma denies the existence of a person or an individual. It
accepts only fleeting thought moments which arise and flash
instantly. In this process there is no person or being. The Buddha
taught the Suttas to men on earth, referring to a person. In the
Abhidharma he is supposed to have preached to the gods in which he
denies the existence of a person or an individual. In order to bridge
the gulf of this inconsistency the Abhidharma scholars invented the
theory of two truths. The Puggalavadins could not accept the theory
that the Buddha had taught two kinds of truth. Nowhere had he done
so. The Theravadins cannot quote from any part of the Sutras where he
has taught that there are two truths called Sammuti and Paramartha.
Thus they refuted this contention and asserted that the Abhidharma
Pitaka is a fabrication and required another concoction to maintain
its validity. It is with the help of this fabrication that Abhidharma
scholars reconcile the inconsistency in the Sutra and Abhidharma
teachings.

The Southern School of Buddhism

Theravada Buddhism is Abhidharma oriented. All its commentaries and
ancillary literature are written in a way to accommodate the
Abhidarma. Ven. Buddhagosha asserted that the Abhidharma Pitaka is a
teaching of the Buddha. But he himself admitted in the Atthasalini
Commentary that there were ancient Sinhala Elders at Anuradhapura who
challenged the validity of the Abhidharma Pitaka.

They pointed out that the Buddha had taught in the Mahaparinirvana
Sutra that we should not accept teachings presented to us in his name
if they are inconsistent with the Sutra and the Vinaya teachings.
They also asserted that in the Anagatabhaya Sutra the Buddha
envisaged a time when monks will cook up doctrines and scriptures not
taught by him and present them as the Buddha-word. He admonished his
followers to carefully compare such teachings with the Sutras and the
Vinaya and accept them only if they are compatible and consistent.

Therefore Abhidharma being incompatible with the Sutra and Vinaya
teaching was rejected by the Puggalawadins. The Sautrantika teachers
too rejected the Abhidharma on the same grounds. The very name
Sautrantika Sect means those who take only the Sutras as
authoritative.
The controversy on Antarbhava
They accepted Abhidharma only to the extent that it is found in seed
form in the Sutras. Another important teaching of the Puggalavadins
was the doctrine of Antarabhava. The interim spirit existence between
one life and another. This was denied by the Therevadins who asserted
that the acceptance of Antarabhava by the Puggalavadins was due to a
misunderstanding of some passages of the Sutras. The Puggalavadins
maintained their position and showed that the misinterpretation of
key passages is the work of Abhidharma oriented Theravada teachers,
who tried to cut and hack the Buddha-word to suit their Abhidharma-
oriented views. Their teaching was that their was no person, or
being, but a mere flux of fleeting thought moments which are
impersonal. The Puggalavadins considered this a bovine folly.

The Puggalavadins taught that to deny the existence of a person is to
bring down the whole edifice of the Buddha-Dharma. It is absurd to
say that the burden carries itself, that mere suffering exists and
there is no sufferer, or that the Path exists without anyone to tread
the path. This is not Buddhism, it is the Buddhaghosha brand of
Abhidharma Buddhism.

The self and no-self
The Puggalavadins point out that if there are no beings, the practise
of Metta would not be possible, Karma and Rebirth would be
meaningless, without a person faring on in Sansara. Memories of
previous lives, the preaching of the Satipattana Sutra for the
purification of beings and overcoming their sufferings would be
meaningless, if there is no person.

The Buddha said, "One person is born among men for the welfare and
happiness of beings". Hundreds of such texts can be quoted from the
Sutras. To deny a person in the ultimate sense (the highest truth)
and accept him in a conventional sense is to talk with two tongues
and dilute the truth of the Buddha-word. The Sutta Nipata says
that "Buddhas have no two words." "Truth is one and not many". (Ekam
hi saccam na dutiyamatthi). Two contrary truths is foreign to the
Buddha¡¯s teaching.

The chief difference between Puggalavada and Theravada comes with the
acceptance and non-acceptance of the Abhidharma Pitaka as a teaching
of the Buddha. Theravada is steeped in Abhidharma and is abhidharma
oriented. The Puggala vadins have only two Pitakas namely Sutra and
Vinaya Pitakas. The Puggalavadins took care not to use the word Atman
or soul as is understood in Vedanta, i.e. an immutable self
characterised by permanence, bliss and substance.

The Puggala of the Pudgalavadins is a self that is subject to
impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and is not to be considered as the
essence or core for those reasons. This appears to be a halfway house
between the Vedantic soul and the no-soul doctrine of the
Theravadins. The Buddha is neither an anatmavadi nor atmavadi.

The Puggalavadins teach that the puggala arises simultaneously with
the five aggregates, is not within or outside them, but forms a
structural unit with them."" end quote


==================
RobertK