user19156: It is said that the next Buddha will arise when the Dharma will have been forgotten by most. Forgetting about the time period, which seems to be around 5000 years after the previous Buddha, what does "by most" actually mean? It there a definition of most, or is it open to interpretation?

user16635: This is subtle, and difficult. As I see it, the suggestion that the dharma has been 'forgotten by most' doesn't mean that the dharma has been 'literally' forgotten. It means that the proper sense of the dharma has been lost; that people still (in good faith) teach and learn what they call the dharma, but that the 'dharma' they teach and learn is the wrong path, leading astray and accomplishing little.
This is something that happens to every faith, given enough time. It's an aspect the 'perennial philosophy', in which a single, common, deep understanding of the world consistently blooms, decays, and blooms again, each time different and each time the same. This perennial philosophy flowers as inspiration, then it bears fruit as goodness and rightness, then the fruit falls to the ground as rigid moral precepts, which then decay and die. But out of that decay a new flower blossoms.
Do we really learn these days what the Buddha taught? Do we really 'know' what that might be? The nature of being tathagata is to set an example that others can follow — to be the one who has 'gone' so that others can see the path ahead — but how long after the passing of a there-goer can we still 'see' him? And when his example has lost all force, what can we do except blindly follow what we think we know, until a new tathagata arises and corrects our course?
Meh, I'm waxing metaphysical, and that's never a good sign. Enough said...

user43: The definition of "most" is indeed rather ambiguous. But if you think about it, the very notion of "Dharma have been forgotten" is also rather ambiguous, too: should we consider it forgotten when there's no-one left who can clearly explain phases of gradual arising of self-centred consciousness? Or is it when most Buddhists don't understand the unifying theme behind the steps of the Noble Eightfold Path? Or is it when only a few understand the nature of Dukkha and the exact conditions when it arises? Or is it when no-one seem to remember what Liberation and Nirvana actually refer to and what the word 'suchness' supposed to mean? Or when even the most of the so-called monks can't clearly explain the progression of Jhanas and how it fits with the rest of the teaching?
It seems to me, based on these basic criteria, I can hardly say that Dharma hasn't been forgotten already. I wish I was wrong but it will take some serious effort to convince me.

19156: <p>It is said that the next Buddha will arise when the Dharma will have been forgotten by most. Forgetting about the time period, which seems to be around 5000 years after the previous Buddha, what does &quot;by most&quot; actually mean? It there a definition of most, or is it open to interpretation?</p>
 16635: <p>This is subtle, and difficult. As I see it, the suggestion that the dharma has been <em>'forgotten by most'</em> doesn't mean that the dharma has been 'literally' forgotten. It means that the proper <em>sense</em> of the dharma has been lost; that people still (in good faith) teach and learn what they call the dharma, but that the 'dharma' they teach and learn is the wrong path, leading astray and accomplishing little.</p>
<p>This is something that happens to every faith, given enough time. It's an aspect the '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">perennial philosophy</a>', in which a single, common, deep understanding of the world consistently blooms, decays, and blooms again, each time different and each time the same. This perennial philosophy flowers as inspiration, then it bears fruit as goodness and rightness, then the fruit falls to the ground as rigid moral precepts, which then decay and die. But out of that decay a new flower blossoms.</p>
<p>Do we really learn these days what the Buddha taught? Do we really 'know' what that might be? The nature of being <em>tathagata</em> is to set an example that others can follow — to be the one who has 'gone' so that others can see the path ahead — but how long after the passing of a <em>there-goer</em> can we still 'see' him? And when his example has lost all force, what can we do except blindly follow what we think we know, until a new <em>tathagata</em> arises and corrects our course?</p>
<p>Meh, I'm waxing metaphysical, and that's never a good sign. Enough said...</p>
 43: <p>The definition of &quot;most&quot; is indeed rather ambiguous. But if you think about it, the very notion of &quot;Dharma have been forgotten&quot; is also rather ambiguous, too: should we consider it forgotten when there's no-one left who can clearly explain phases of gradual arising of self-centred consciousness? Or is it when most Buddhists don't understand the unifying theme behind the steps of the Noble Eightfold Path? Or is it when only a few understand the nature of Dukkha and the exact conditions when it arises? Or is it when no-one seem to remember what Liberation and Nirvana actually refer to and what the word 'suchness' supposed to mean? Or when even the most of the so-called monks can't clearly explain the progression of Jhanas and how it fits with the rest of the teaching?</p>
<p>It seems to me, based on these basic criteria, I can hardly say that Dharma hasn't been forgotten already. I wish I was wrong but it will take some serious effort to convince me.</p>
