In sum, the division of the duration of the Dharma into two distinct and sequential periods is found in only a small number of canonical sūtras. And of these, only a tiny minority associate such a division with the career of Śākyamuni Buddha. It is particularly noteworthy that several of the sūtras that in East Asia became most closely identified with the division of the Buddha’s Dharma into sequential periods —in particular, the Pure Land and Lotus sūtras — do not apply a distinction between saddharma and saddharma-pratirūpaka to the teachings of Śākyamuni Buddha himself. The reading of these texts as if they contained such a distinction (supplemented by a third period of mo-fa, to be discussed below) is thus a contribution of later commentators, who in interpreting these texts through such a lens gave them an entirely new meaning.

We can distinguish, then, between two distinctive (though not entirely separate) uses of the term saddharma-pratirūpaka, which seem to have emerged in roughly the following sequence:

• a first phase, during which the term refers to the total duration of the Dharma after a given Buddha’s death; and
• a second phase, during which saddharma-pratirūpaka is restricted in meaning to only the latter part of this period, the second of two sub-periods in the lifetime of the Dharma.

In neither case, however, is the saddharma-pratirūpaka referred to in explicitly pejorative terms. Rather, it refers to the real and ongoing presence of the saddharma, whether it is used to refer to part or all of the period when this will be the case.

In light of the analysis given above it now seems quite peculiar that the translation of saddharma-pratirūpaka (and of its Chinese counterpart hsiang-fa) most frequently encountered in English-language studies is “counterfeit Dharma.” For in none of the passages cited above would such a translation make sense. In none of these texts is there any implication that the saddharma-pratirūpaka is a fake or a forgery of the True Dharma; rather, it refers to the presence of the True Dharma itself, in all or part of its duration. Even when a clear-cut distinction between periods of saddharma and saddharma-pratirūpaka begins to emerge, the latter period is still viewed as positive (if slightly less so than that in the preceding versions), and is credited to the account, so to speak, of a given Buddha as part of the total duration of his teachings.

The term “semblance,” then, serves as a suitable equivalent of the Sanskrit term pratirūpaka, and conforms in meaning to Chinese hsiang and Tibetan gzugs-brnyan as well. The term “counterfeit” should clearly be abandoned, as it represents a radical misunderstanding of the significance of this expression in Mahāyāna usage.