Even if you say Buddhism in a nutshell, specifically what Buddhism is, it differs depending on the era and denomination.
Relatively old (only in chronological order. There is no negative meaning.) In Buddhism, there are nuances such as “the possibility of enlightenment,” “the possibility of becoming a Buddha,” and “the ability to gain enlightenment.” In other words, “the ability to notice” the truth.
Then, it is impossible for “beings without recognition ability” such as the five senses or consciousness to notice, which means that machines have no Buddha nature.
You have listed Buddha nature with soul in your question, but Buddha nature and soul are completely different things. As soon as I say “become a Buddha,” spiritual people immediately spread the word “it's about raising the level of the soul,” but this is absolutely not Buddhism at all. The Buddha clearly said, “Don't think about it because it's useless to argue about whether or not souls exist.”
Enlightenment is also unrelated to increasing the level of the soul. It's just about awakening to Buddhist wisdom and compassion, and it's called enlightenment about how wisdom and mercy exist or how to live.
Going back to the story, eventually the phrase “all mountain rivers and plants have Buddha properties” spread along with the times. Dogen Zenji of the Soto sect said, “The land, plants, walls, tiles, and pebbles are all Buddhist!” I've made up my mind. It is a way of reading “Yamakawa plants, Shitsubutsu,” and “both Yamakawa plants and trees have Buddha nature.” You should take “everything and everything” as “everything and everything” (sky and color).
Then, of course, machines are also Buddhist.
Why did the story change? It's confusing, but there's no contradiction. In short, the topic just changed from talking about “awareness enlightenment” to “recognition enlightenment.”
This world is expanded by connections like a web of cause and effect. It's called the law of good fortune, and it's what's called a relationship. “Buddhism” is the ability for the former to recognize the myriad connections between the past, present, and future. The latter is [Buddha nature] as the connection between cause and effect itself.
Even in introductory books on Buddhism, etc., it is possible to become a “Buddha,” and there are things written with the nuance of “sex” and the nuance of the “sexual” quality of “Buddha.” Both are introduced in kind books, but they are usually written in a smooth sink.
But maybe... Ei Chun Doji's question isn't about whether or not there is Buddhism; I think it's this kind of ↓. Sorry for the long post.
https://hasunoha.jp/questions/14536