Within the Tathāgatagarbha or Buddha‑nature teachings, intellectual study and direct experience are seen as related yet not equivalent modes of understanding. Scriptural study and philosophical reflection provide a conceptual framework: they clarify what is meant by Buddha‑nature as an inherent potential or already‑present enlightenment obscured by defilements, and they help to dispel extreme views such as nihilism or crude eternalism. This kind of understanding is often regarded as provisional or indicative, functioning as a map rather than the territory itself. It orients the mind, inspires confidence, and offers guidance for ethical conduct and meditative practice.

At the same time, these traditions consistently maintain that Tathāgatagarbha is ultimately to be realized directly rather than merely thought about. Buddha‑nature is described as the fundamental enlightened nature that must be “seen” or “uncovered” through non‑conceptual wisdom, not constructed or produced by study. Such realization is portrayed as a transformation of consciousness, a direct insight into the nature of mind that transcends discursive thought. Without this experiential awakening, understanding remains at the level of having correct ideas about Buddha‑nature, rather than the liberating knowledge that actually discloses it.

For this reason, study and practice are treated as complementary but asymmetrical. Intellectual inquiry is necessary as preparation: it refines view, guards against misunderstanding, and points out the direction of practice, much like a finger indicating the moon. Yet meditative cultivation, mindfulness, contemplation, and ethical discipline are regarded as the means by which the obscurations covering Buddha‑nature are actually removed. In this perspective, Buddha‑nature is not created by any method; it is recognized as what has always been present once the veils of confusion are lifted.