Tathāgatagarbha, or Buddha‑nature, is often described as the inherent potential for awakening present in all sentient beings, a luminous purity of mind temporarily obscured by defilements. Within Buddhist thought this is not understood as a separate, permanent soul or creator, but is closely linked to emptiness and the mind’s deepest capacity for wisdom and compassion. Because of this, it can be approached both as a profound metaphysical teaching and as a way of speaking about the mind’s healthiest, most awakened possibilities.

When placed alongside other religious and philosophical systems, this doctrine shows both resonances and tensions. Traditions that speak of an inner divine reality or spiritual core—such as certain forms of Hinduism with the Atman–Brahman identity, Christian mysticism’s “divine spark” or “image of God,” Sufi teachings on the pure heart, and even Neo‑Platonic ideas of the soul’s connection to the One—often find a natural point of dialogue with Buddha‑nature. Likewise, humanistic and universalist philosophies that emphasize the inherent worth and potential of every person can recognize in Tathāgatagarbha a kindred affirmation of universal dignity and capacity for moral and spiritual growth.

At the same time, the doctrine stands in a more complex relationship to strong doctrines of an eternal, independently existing self or soul. Classical Buddhist teaching on non‑self and dependent origination resists reading Buddha‑nature as a metaphysical ego or an unchanging essence, and many Mahāyāna interpretations explicitly stress that it is “empty of self.” This creates friction with religious or philosophical systems that insist on an eternal, substantial soul or a strictly independent divine essence. There is also tension with strictly materialist worldviews that reduce consciousness to physical processes and deny any meaningful depth to awareness beyond neurochemistry, since Tathāgatagarbha speaks of an innate luminous potential that such views typically do not recognize.

Even within Buddhism, the place of this doctrine is interpreted in different ways. Some Mahāyāna authors treat Buddha‑nature language as a skillful means for speaking about emptiness and for encouraging faith in the possibility of awakening, while others lean more heavily into its affirmative, quasi‑ontological tone. Certain Theravāda voices have regarded it as a departure from the central emphasis on non‑self, whereas East Asian and Tibetan thinkers have sometimes used it as a bridge for dialogue with non‑Buddhist ideas of original goodness. Overall, the compatibility of Tathāgatagarbha with other paths depends less on labels and more on how each tradition understands the nature of the self, the ultimate, and the depth of human potential.