A recurring misunderstanding is that this tradition represents a corruption or rejection of early Buddhism or of Theravāda. In fact, it understands itself as a development within the same stream, incorporating foundational teachings and reinterpreting them rather than discarding them. Individual liberation and arhatship are not denied as valid attainments; they are reframed within a broader bodhisattva vision that orients practice toward full Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings. Historically, this current did not appear as a single, unified movement that swept away earlier forms, but emerged gradually through various schools and texts, often preserving and transforming earlier practices rather than replacing them outright.

Another persistent misconception centers on the bodhisattva ideal and the nature of practice. It is sometimes imagined that the bodhisattva path means endlessly postponing awakening, or that it is somehow “easier” because it emphasizes compassion. In the classical understanding, bodhisattvas can be fully awakened beings who continue to act for others, and the path itself involves rigorous ethical discipline, meditation, and study. The notion that practitioners focus only on helping others and neglect personal cultivation overlooks the way compassion (karuṇā) and wisdom (prajñā) are cultivated together. Far from being mere sentimental kindness, compassion is portrayed as a deep, insight-based commitment to liberate beings from suffering.

The teaching of emptiness (śūnyatā) is also frequently misunderstood as nihilism, as if it claimed that nothing exists or that moral causality is meaningless. In this tradition, emptiness refers to the absence of inherent, independent existence, not to the denial of conventional reality or karma. This view is intended to loosen rigid clinging and reifying views, rather than to negate lived experience. Philosophically, the tradition is far from a simple, uniform stance; it has given rise to sophisticated systems of thought, while still affirming the reality of ethical responsibility and karmic consequence.

Devotional and ritual dimensions give rise to further misconceptions. The presence of celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas is sometimes taken as evidence of a theistic religion or the worship of creator gods. Instead, these figures are honored as enlightened beings and embodiments of awakened qualities, serving as objects of refuge, gratitude, and aspiration rather than as omnipotent creators. Devotional forms, such as Pure Land practices, are not presented as mere faith without wisdom, but as integrated with insight into emptiness and dependent arising. Within this framework, karma is not rejected but understood in light of the profound interconnectedness of all beings and the power of intention.

Finally, there is a tendency to imagine this tradition as monolithic or restricted to monastics. In reality, it encompasses a wide range of schools and cultures—Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and others—with shared themes but diverse practices and interpretations. Lay practitioners are explicitly affirmed as capable of profound realization, and many scriptures highlight advanced lay bodhisattvas. Monastic discipline remains central in many contexts, yet lay practice, ethics, and meditation are treated as integral rather than peripheral. To view all East Asian Buddhism as identical, or all forms of this tradition as the same everywhere, obscures the rich variety that has developed around a common bodhisattva and emptiness-centered vision.