Elohim, By introducing Abhidhamma as an 'authority' (Lat. autcoritas = validity) it almost draws battle lines for academic paintball because some of us are not entirely convinced in Abhidhamma's claim to be the words of the Buddha.
It is pretty well accepted that the Theravada sect developed Abhidhamma (= Abhivinaya) presented in seven books. There is a great deal of dispute, however, as to its authenticity as being a true basket. It is more than likely apocryphal. As Warder notes, "It is doubtful...whether any Abdhidhamma texts...were recited at the First Rehearsal (Indian Buddhism, 218). Indeed, The first Abhidhamma was probably compiled after the first major schism between 250 and 50 B.C.E. (H. Akira, History of Buddhism, 129). On the same track Pande sums Abdhidhamma up by saying that "Abhidharmas are in fact a systematization and development of the doctrines of the sutras alone sectarian lines. Their growth belongs to post-Nikaya period" (Origins of Buddhism, 2).
Personally, I find Abhidhamma thought to be an attempt to pass off the Buddha's teaching as being a systematic refutation on the notion of attâ or the self by deploying enumerations, summaries, and Q&As. But it hardly works out that way. What Abhidhamma presents, instead, is a schematic understanding of anattâ—largely organizational and unconvincing.
Those who support the Abhidhamma as being genuine see it as being superior to the Nikayas. It markets a two truth theory not found in the Nikayas. Roughly stated, the Suttas preach the truth in common language (P., vohâravacana) while Abhidhamma teaches ultimate meaning (P., paramattha). According to the proponents of Abhidhamma we are to regard the Abhidhamma as the ipsissima verba of the Buddha.
Not ambiguous in what it wants to do, Abhidhamma makes the referent the five khandhas after which it makes a concerted effort to annihilate any possibility of a referent other than the five khandhas. Therefore, the apophatic method is altogether lacking in it unlike in the Nikayas in which the self, which is the referent, is not to be identified with the five khandhas. Consequently, Abhidhamma appears to stand Nikayan Buddhism on its head in which an indissoluble referent is missing. What we are asked to believe is that the world of samsara is the true world since there is no other which could not be analyzed into virtual nothingness.
Elohim, I can certainly understand your position with regard to a controller. And there are some important reasons that I don't purchase Abdhidhamma; one of which concerns QM (quantum mechanics) and the place of O+L (objectivity and locality) which it refutes in favor of subjectivism and universality (nonlocalness). This, as you may have guessed, is a position in which we are all controllers. In truth, we are all builders of our house, but we are trapped in a Kafka-like house as a result, which we can't seem to get out of. The hidden orders which bind us are not those of God or some kind of evil demon, but come from us—but we do not know him! (And we should know him.)