Within the broad Buddhist world, Tathāgatagarbha—often rendered as “Buddha-nature”—does not function as a universally shared, core tenet in the same way that the Four Noble Truths, dependent origination, or non-self do. Early strata of Buddhist teaching, especially those preserved in the Pāli Canon and related Nikāya materials, do not employ the term Tathāgatagarbha and instead emphasize impermanence, suffering, and the absence of any enduring self. For traditions that remain closely aligned with this early framework, such as Theravāda, Tathāgatagarbha is not treated as a formal doctrinal pillar, even if language about a “luminous mind” or the potential for awakening may appear in other ways.

The picture changes markedly in later Mahāyāna developments, where Tathāgatagarbha becomes a powerful and often cherished theme. In many East Asian and Tibetan Mahāyāna lineages, Buddha-nature is presented as the innate potential for Buddhahood present in all beings, and in such contexts it can function as a central organizing idea. Yet even where it is embraced, the doctrine is not monolithic: some interpreters regard it as a skillful means for speaking about emptiness and the path to awakening in more affirmative language, while others read it in a more ontological way, as pointing to an ultimate, luminous mind. This diversity of interpretation has led some Buddhist thinkers to worry that “essence-like” understandings of Buddha-nature might conflict with the foundational teaching of non-self, whereas others see it as a profound expression of the very heart of Buddhist soteriology.

From a pan-Buddhist perspective, then, Tathāgatagarbha occupies a liminal space: deeply influential, spiritually evocative, and central in many Mahāyāna environments, yet neither universally accepted nor uniformly defined. Its status depends on the doctrinal landscape of each school—some treat it as indispensable, others as provisional or metaphorical, and still others largely set it aside. To engage with Buddha-nature is therefore to enter into an ongoing intra-Buddhist conversation about how best to articulate the possibility of awakening without reifying a permanent self, and how to balance the language of emptiness with a vision of the innate capacity for liberation.