user4812: I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?"
Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self?
I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist.
I understand the word atman meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven.

Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.

user471: Yes. In Buddhism, especially in the Theravada tradition, a transmigrating soul doesn't exist (see Milindapanha 3.5.5).
However, the self exists though it is not permanent and is dependent on the inter-working of the senses, sensation,  perception, mental formations and consciousness.
The self is just a thought, an idea - "I am the thinker." (Snp 4.14)
Also, please see this answer for the question "What is the precise meaning of anatta?". It discusses the analogy of the lute from the Vina Sutta. And also this answer.

user4808: The Gotama Buddha taught us that this is not an essential.  Our mission in life is to comprehend and experience the Four Noble Truths.  Our Teacher, the Buddha, was a pragmatic man.  What do we need to know to understand "becoming"?  We need to know and experience dukkah.  We need to comprehend and experience the causes of dukkah.  We need to comprehend and understand the wisdom of freedom (nibbana) from dukkah.  Finally we need to experience that freedom (nibbana) from dukkah.  All such notions of "soul", "self", inherent eternal being or "immortal other" become obstacles.  They become dispositions which individuals form emotional attachments to and become objects we grasp onto and hinder our development into a fully actualized living being.  This is what separates the teaching of the Gotama Buddha from all others.

user-1: You have to look at which reality you are dealing with.
If you are dealing with sammuti-sacca which is the conventional reality then one can say that a soul, self, spirit, being etc. exists. Why?
Because conventional reality is dealing with concepts. A soul is a concept. A self is a concept. If you try to search for them through the method of insight meditation you will not find a lasting, permanent, indestructible entity anywhere. 
Instead you will come to see that the false idea of a self is merely a mental formation belonging to the 4th aggregate.
If you deal with paramattha-sacca which is ultimate reality then concepts do not exist and there is no problem with a soul/self to begin with. 
The thing is that things work fine without the need for a self. By adding a self to the equation one is enforcing and strengthening the suffering by identifying and taking ownership of it.
There is a profound difference in saying "i am angry" and "anger has arisen in the mind".
There is also a build-in problem in the way language is used. We are forced to speak about e.g. consciousness by using nouns which can imply that there is something there. But there is not. Consciousness is not a thing. Its a knowing.
What we normally think is consciousness is really a series of cittas (momentary acts of consciousness) that are happening in rapid succession. 
The Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby.


4812: <p>I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?"</p>

<p>Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self?</p>

<p>I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist.
I understand the word <em>atman</em> meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven.</p>

<p></p>

<p>Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.</p>
 471: <p>Yes. In Buddhism, especially in the Theravada tradition, a <strong>transmigrating</strong> soul doesn't exist (see <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/miln/miln.3x.kell.html#miln-3-5-05" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Milindapanha 3.5.5</a>).</p>
<p>However, the self exists though it is not permanent and is dependent on the inter-working of the senses, sensation,  perception, mental formations and consciousness.</p>
<p>The self is just a thought, an idea - &quot;I am the thinker.&quot; (<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.14.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Snp 4.14</a>)</p>
<p>Also, please see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/25302/471">this answer</a> for the question &quot;<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1891/471">What is the precise meaning of anatta?</a>&quot;. It discusses the analogy of the lute from the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.205.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vina Sutta</a>. And also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/39742/471">this answer</a>.</p>
 4808: <p>The Gotama Buddha taught us that this is not an essential.  Our mission in life is to comprehend and experience the Four Noble Truths.  Our Teacher, the Buddha, was a pragmatic man.  What do we need to know to understand "becoming"?  We need to know and experience dukkah.  We need to comprehend and experience the causes of dukkah.  We need to comprehend and understand the wisdom of freedom (nibbana) from dukkah.  Finally we need to experience that freedom (nibbana) from dukkah.  All such notions of "soul", "self", inherent eternal being or "immortal other" become obstacles.  They become dispositions which individuals form emotional attachments to and become objects we grasp onto and hinder our development into a fully actualized living being.  This is what separates the teaching of the Gotama Buddha from all others.</p>
 -1: <p>You have to look at which <em>reality</em> you are dealing with.</p>

<p>If you are dealing with <strong>sammuti-sacca</strong> which is the conventional reality then one can say that a <em>soul, self, spirit, being etc.</em> exists. Why?
Because conventional reality is dealing with concepts. A soul is a concept. A self is a concept. If you try to search for them through the method of insight meditation you will not find a <em>lasting, permanent, indestructible entity</em> anywhere. </p>

<p>Instead you will come to see that the false idea of a self is merely a mental formation belonging to the <em>4th aggregate</em>.</p>

<p>If you deal with <strong>paramattha-sacca</strong> which is ultimate reality then concepts do not exist and there is no problem with a soul/self to begin with. </p>

<p>The thing is that things work fine without the need for a self. By adding a self to the equation one is enforcing and strengthening the suffering by identifying and taking ownership of it.
There is a profound difference in saying <em>"i am angry"</em> and <em>"anger has arisen in the mind"</em>.</p>

<p>There is also a <em>build-in</em> problem in the way language is used. We are forced to speak about e.g. <em>consciousness</em> by using nouns which can imply that there is something there. But there is not. Consciousness is not a thing. Its a knowing.</p>

<p>What we normally think is consciousness is really a series of <em>cittas</em> (momentary acts of consciousness) that are happening in rapid succession. </p>

<p>The Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby.</p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/YJQMc.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>
