[Tibaveriafark]

Did the Buddha teach about "Buddha Nature"? From the Lankavatara Sutra (purportedly the only Sutra that Bodhidharma ever recommended)
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-2.htm#chap2 (XXVIII-XXIX The Tathagata-Garbha and the Ego-soul)
At that time, Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said this to the Blessed One:
Now the Blessed One makes mention of the Tathāgata-garbha in the sutras, and verily it is described by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value, which is enwrapped in a dirty garment, enveloped in the garment of the Skandhas, Dhātus, and Āyatanas, and soiled with the dirt of greed, anger, folly, and false imagination, while it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious, and unchangeable.

Is not this Tathāgata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught in the systems of the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable. The Blessed One replied:
No, Mahāmati, my Tathāgata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathāgata-garbha in the sense, Mahāmati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathāgata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

I also wish, Mahāmati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul].

Mahāmati, it is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour combined with a rod, water, and thread, Mahāmati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and, like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason, Mahāmati, the philosophers' doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same as the teaching of the Tathāgata-garbha.

Thus, Mahāmati, the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment.

Accordingly, Mahāmati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an ego-substance.

Therefore. Mahāmati, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathāgata-garbha.

At that moment then the Blessed One recited this verse:
'The personal soul, continuity, the Skandhas, causation, atoms, the supreme spirit, the ruler, the creator, —[they are] discriminations in the Mind-only.' Then there's one opinion on the matter from someone I admire much for his scholastic works and elucidations on various subjects, the Venerable Huifeng (an active online poster of various forum/sites) on 'Buddha Nature'...hope it helps all...
First of all.... Keep in mind that there are quite a few different texts - sutras and sastras, esp. - on this topic, and they don't always agree. Some may equate them together, some will make distinctions, etc. etc.

The scope of "Mahayana" is very, very broad - probably the only thing they agree on is becoming a Budddha - and almost any generalization will mean either ignoring, or explaining away, those teachings which do not agree.

Being a bit more specific, or limited in scope, eg. "In Kagyu school ...", or "According to Dogen ...", etc. will be very helpful, and one may be able to get some clearer answers and perspectives. Secondly.... There are a couple of very different ways of understanding notions such as "buddha nature".
Those very brief posts above only represent one of them, which tends towards the Tathagatagarbha theory side of things.

Even this teaching has several forms, so a single textual citation will be too brief. But in general, it takes the Tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature idea as definitive over the other teachings, such as non-self. It may claim in some cases that non-self is applicable to certain phenomena, eg. the aggregates, but not to the Tathagatagarbha, which is subtle and difficult to perceive. However, the idea is that every living being has this buddha nature within them, a fully awakened buddha ready to be uncovered. This means that this type of buddha nature theory is only applicable to sentient beings, but not the insentient.

The other main explanation is that "buddha nature" refers to the emptiness, dependently originated nature of all phenomena. It thus makes the emptiness teachings definitive over such teachings as a true self Tathagatagarbha, etc. It considers that this buddha nature is not some thing within the heart / mind of each living being, but is merely potentiality. ie. because phenomena are empty, they can be enlightened. This notion of buddha nature as emptiness may thus be applicable to all phenomena, not just sentient beings.

Both of these two main schools of buddha nature thought have many subtle sub-schools and ideas, too.

Some schools, such as Huayan in East Asia, and mid-period Chan / Zen, will tend towards the first type as definitive. Others, such as most Madhyamaka based schools, will take the latter. They are in many ways very very different takes on the same words / terms.

Often people will discuss this topic, and fail to notice the main differences. They then tend to talk past each other. It is thus worth clarifying before continuing further with such discussions. Thirdly.... In the Tiantai/Tendai system you find the six identities, which is the beings relation to buddha-nature.
See, Sheng-yen: Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, p. 100-103. (Link: http://www.shengyen.org.tw/big5/book/orthodox.pdf )

1. Identity to Buddhahood in Principle
2. Identity to Buddhahood in Name
3. Identity to Buddhahood in Contemplative Practice
4. Identity to Buddhahood in Semblance
5. Identity to Buddhahood in Partial Realization
6. Absolute Identity to Buddhahood Then there's good ole Retrofuturist's thoughts (which I think it's well simplified) 8)
As I understand it, Buddha Nature simply means that that which is Buddha is not to be found outside.
Being a Buddha is no more than what we are, in fact it's a lot less... but less what? Less ignorance, less greed and less aversion.
When the defilements are eradicated, what remains is Buddha.