An examination of the contexts in which Skt. Paścimakāle and its Tibetan and Chinese counterparts are found in the Buddhist sūtra literature provides further evidence that this phrase was originally intended to be read in the sense of a “latter” or “future” age, not as a “final age” in the superlative sense. Most telling is the fact that this “latter age” is never contrasted with any earlier period other than the lifetime of the Buddha himself, where such a contrast regularly takes the …”after the death of the Tathāgata, in the latter time, in the latter period, in the latter five hundred years.” Just as the expression saddharma-pratirūpaka regularly refers simply to the duration of the Dharma after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, so in these instances paścimakāle (and its more extended equivalent) seems to refer simply to the period following the Buddha’s death.

Most interesting from the point of view of the historian of Buddhism, however, is the evident agenda that seems to have led to the use of this expression in sūtras produced by Mahāyāna writers. For the expression is used, in the vast majority of cases, in contexts where the Buddha is described as recommending “this sūtra” (i.e., the Mahāyāna sūtra in which the expression appears) for circulation among Buddhist believers after his death. The expression Paścimakāle serves, in other words, as a kind of “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval,” certifying the sūtra in question for acceptance and dissemination in the latter (i.e., the post-Śākyamuni) age.

In light of this evidence it is particularly interesting to recall where the expression mo-shih does, and does not, appear in the Chinese translation literature. It does not appear (according to the Taishō index) anywhere in the Āgamas (i.e., the non-Mahāyāna sūtras) or in the abhidharma literature, and only two occurrences are registered in the vinaya texts. The overwhelming majority of appearances of the term are found in the Mahāyāna sūtras, with another sizeable group of occurrences in the mi-chiao (tantric) literature. The term seems to have been most popular, in other words, in the Mahāyāna sūtras, where—by stating explicitly that the Buddha promised vast merits to those who would accept and transmit the sūtra in question after his death —it served as a certification of their legitimacy.

This evidence concerning the motive for the use of the term, together with the fact that this “latter age” is never explicitly contrasted with any earlier period in the history of Buddhism (other than the lifetime of the Buddha himself), brings us to a rather unexpected conclusion: that the expression “in the latter age” (Skt. paścimakāle) was originally introduced into Buddhist discourse simply as a reference to the time after the death of the Buddha. Just as in the case of saddharma-pratirūpaka discussed above, it would seem that the idea of a “latter time” originally implied no periodization whatsoever within the lifetime of the Dharma after the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa, but simply referred to this era as a whole.

It is noteworthy that a substantial proportion of the traditions in this category [external causes for the decline of Buddhism] are found in Mahāyāna texts, while those in the internal causes category are found almost exclusively in Nikāya Buddhist works. It is tempting to draw doctrinal conclusions from this asymmetry; yet the more important distinction, perhaps, is that the Mahāyāna sūtras in fact almost never predict the actual demise of the Dharma, except where they have inherited (and maintained) certain pre-Mahāyāna accounts. Even in these cases the Mahāyāna texts frequently modify these accounts, indicating that the Dharma will only appear to die out, but will not actually do so.