I wondered if I use some "untouchable" words. Let me clarify it as
clear as possible.
1. Piya's efforts, contributions are well-known to modern leaning
environment, both in accademies and open learning environment. I would
like to express more that I admire and respect his knowledge in both
linguistics and Buddhism.
2. My previous e-mail describes that "Piya just use 500-years
segmentation for the convenience to explain his stand and opinions", I
know very well that Piya did not say his judgement about "500-years
segmentation" is a proper one or not.
3. The intension of my previous e-mail is trying to say " 500-years
segmentation is not a new invention or new idea, it was there maybe
since AD 100 or even BC 100." I do not think the mordern one or the
traditional one is proper or helpful in explaining or summarizing
the history of Buddhism. I know the traditional one is trying to
arouse the crisis-sense of Buddhist to protect and speak out the value
of Buddhism which they loved and was benefited from.
4. I simply wanted to say, as a reader of PaliGroup/Yahoo, I am
the one who do not like this kind of 500-years segmentation--both the
traditional one and new one. (and under the understanding of item 2,
above-stated). For the new one, it is not precise. For the tradtional
one, nobody cares about its original intension now, and the mis-
interpretations and abuse of it make me concern. Most of people take it
as "Buddha's original teaching". They treat it as Buddha's "real"
presage. This kind of approach has been leading the
"Puttajjana Buddhists" to more "Faith-orientatd" instead of learning
and practicing the "basic and core" teaching of Buddhism.
5. I may not know "Nay" is "rude" word. If it is not nice to say "Nay",
I feel sorry to spell it. But, the actual words I said is " I think the
500-years segmentation is not precise and helpful for the new beginners
of learning Buddhism."