Many misunderstandings cluster around the idea that this scripture is concerned primarily with sensational or transgressive practices. It is often reduced to a manual of sexual rites, black magic, or unrestrained hedonism, when in fact its stated orientation is toward liberation through the realization of Śiva–Śakti non-duality. The text does treat powerful and sometimes transgressive rituals, including the well-known pañca-makāra, yet it repeatedly subordinates these to inner purity, devotion, and disciplined sādhana. Sexual union and other striking images are framed as means to spiritual transformation and recognition of the unity of jīva and Śiva, not as ends in themselves. When these passages are read only at the literal level, the deeper metaphysical and contemplative dimensions are obscured, and the work is miscast as a handbook of indulgence.

Another frequent misconception is that it advocates a wholesale rejection of ethics and social norms, as if it were an antinomian charter for nihilism. The text certainly presents a path that can be transgressive in relation to conventional standards, yet it does so within a strict initiatory framework of guru-disciple discipline, compassion, and inner renunciation. Rather than promoting moral chaos, it reframes dharma from the standpoint of non-dual realization, insisting that outer transgression without inner transformation is spiritually dangerous. Its emphasis on secrecy, initiation, and qualified guidance is sometimes mistaken for elitism, but is better understood as a safeguard against misuse of potent methods that are explicitly said to be unsuitable for the uninitiated or unprepared.

There is also a tendency to see it as nothing more than an elaborate ritual manual or, conversely, to dismiss it as mere “left-hand path” exotica without philosophical depth. In fact, it integrates detailed prescriptions for pūjā, mantra, and yantra with a sustained vision of non-dual Śaiva–Śākta metaphysics. External worship is repeatedly linked to internal worship, meditation on kuṇḍalinī, and the recognition of one’s own consciousness as the deity. To read it only as a catalogue of rites is to miss its character as an initiatory teaching text, where many verses function as upadeśa aimed at transforming perception rather than simply regulating outer behavior.

Finally, there is confusion about its place and authority within the broader Tantric landscape. It is sometimes assumed that its injunctions are universally normative for all Tantric traditions, or that later interpretations stand on the same footing as the original text. In reality, it is a central scripture for particular Śākta–Śaiva Kaula circles, and different lineages have historically adapted or reinterpreted its teachings according to their own paramparā. When it is flattened into a generic symbol of “Tantra” as such, its specific synthesis of rigorous ritual discipline, devotion, and non-dual realization is lost, and the subtlety of its guidance to qualified practitioners is overshadowed by stereotype.