From early on, the Lotus Sutra has been surrounded by questions of authenticity and historical origin. Many traditional schools, especially those aligned with early Buddhist teachings, have regarded it as a later composition rather than the literal word of the historical Buddha, noting its likely emergence centuries after the earliest discourses. The text’s own claim to be a hidden or ultimate teaching has therefore been viewed with suspicion, as if it were a theological strategy to legitimize a new scripture. Modern scholarship has reinforced these doubts by analyzing the sutra as a composite work, compiled from multiple sources over time, and by highlighting its distance from earlier, more austere forms of Buddhist expression.

Doctrinally, the sutra’s bold assertions have been both inspiring and divisive. Its teaching of the “One Vehicle” presents earlier paths—such as those of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha—as merely provisional, which has been criticized as triumphalist and dismissive of other lineages and scriptures. The portrayal of arhats as ultimately destined for Buddhahood challenges the status of arahantship as final liberation in early Buddhism, and some have seen this as a misrepresentation of that ideal. Likewise, the doctrine of an immeasurable Buddha-life and an apparently eternal Buddha-presence has raised concerns that it departs from earlier understandings of the Buddha as a historical figure and risks tension with more rigorously emptiness-centered interpretations.

The Lotus Sutra’s rich mythic imagery and miraculous narratives have also been a source of controversy. Its jeweled stūpas rising from the earth, Buddhas appearing in the sky, and vast cosmological time scales have led some critics to regard it as excessively fantastical. Devotional passages promising immense merit, protection, or eventual Buddhahood through faith, recitation, and veneration have been read by some as encouraging a quasi-magical or overly easy path, in contrast to traditions that emphasize disciplined meditation and ethical rigor. These elements have generated ongoing debates over how literally such scenes and promises should be taken, and whether they are best understood as symbolic or allegorical.

Historically, the sutra has also been implicated in sectarian conflict, especially where it has been interpreted in an exclusivist manner. In East Asia, certain schools elevated it as the supreme or sole valid teaching, and in Japan, Nichiren’s uncompromising devotion to the Lotus Sutra led to sharp polemics against other Buddhist movements and to political confrontations. Critics have argued that such uses of the text foster division rather than the universal compassion it proclaims. At the same time, the very intensity of these disputes reveals how powerful and compelling the sutra has been, inviting both deep reverence and searching critique across the Buddhist world.