Critiques of Tathāgatagarbha often begin with its apparent tension with foundational Buddhist doctrines. Many readers, both traditional and modern, have observed that speaking of an inherent, pure Buddha-nature can sound like reintroducing a subtle ātman, a permanent self that stands at odds with anatta. This concern is sharpened by descriptions of Buddha-nature as eternal or unchanging, which can be read as a substantial essence rather than a contingent process. Closely related is the perceived conflict with śūnyatā: if all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, then positing an intrinsically existent Buddha-nature seems, to some, to undermine the very heart of Madhyamaka analysis. Hence the long-standing debate over whether Tathāgatagarbha is simply another way of speaking about emptiness and suchness, or whether it smuggles in a metaphysical ground that Buddhism otherwise rejects.

These doctrinal worries are intertwined with historical and textual questions. Tathāgatagarbha teachings appear relatively late in the Buddhist literary record, and some scholars and practitioners regard them as later Mahāyāna developments rather than direct expressions of the earliest teachings. On this reading, the doctrine may reflect interaction with non-Buddhist ideas, especially those that affirm an ultimate self or absolute principle, and this raises questions about its authenticity as a Buddhist formulation. Not all Buddhist traditions accept these scriptures as authoritative; some schools embrace them as central, while others downplay or reject them, leading to enduring lineage and sectarian disputes. In East Asian and Tibetan contexts, differing interpretations of these texts have generated further controversy over whether they faithfully convey the intent of earlier Indian sources.

Another line of criticism focuses on the practical and ethical implications of how Buddha-nature is understood. If Buddha-nature is taken as a fully complete, inner Buddha already present and guaranteed, some fear that this can foster passivity, weakening the sense of urgency around ethical discipline and meditative practice. From this perspective, the doctrine risks encouraging complacency, as though liberation were automatic rather than dependent on rigorous cultivation and causal conditions. The very richness and poetic ambiguity of Tathāgatagarbha language—oscillating between talk of an already-present enlightenment and a potential to be realized—has contributed to divergent interpretations about what it actually demands of practitioners.

Finally, the concept has been a focal point for philosophical and sectarian polemics. Certain Madhyamaka thinkers, including influential figures in the Gelug tradition, have criticized strong Tathāgatagarbha interpretations as veering toward eternalism and substantialism. Others, especially in Yogācāra- and Buddha-nature–oriented currents, defend it as a skillful, affirmative way of describing emptiness and the possibility of awakening, rather than a literal metaphysical self. Modern scholars continue to debate whether Buddha-nature represents a fundamental doctrinal shift or a pedagogical strategy designed to make the path more accessible by emphasizing an innate capacity for awakening. The enduring controversy itself testifies to the depth and complexity of this teaching, which has inspired both profound devotion and searching critique within the Buddhist world.