user8157: A core teaching of Buddhism is 'anatta' or 'not-self'. 
Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' & 'soul' or can these two ideas (self & soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings? 
In other words, are the ideas 'self' & 'soul' (be they used in Buddhism or non-Buddhism) necessarily synonymous in Buddhism?

user10304: From as far as I could contemplate after reading some of the sutras and articles, the "self" and "soul" are different. In Buddhism, "self" is the result of polluted "manas-vijñāna"; while soul is a pure hypothesis resulted from the intellect (a theorem, conjecture in some religious systems). 
As "self" is resulted from polluted "manas-vijñāna" the 7th vijñāna, it is real but it is not-true. Thus causes the karma and birth/death built upon this not-true "self", the polluted manas-vijñāna. Thus has the Buddhist teaching of not-self (anatta?) for end of suffering. However it is real since it produced effects. Like a dream is real when one is in the dream and all the dream scenes are with impacts, but a dream is not true when one awaken and realized (enlightenment). (眼識visual、耳識audio、鼻識nasal、舌識taste、身識touch（以上合稱五識these are the 5 vijñāna）、6.意識consciousness/intellect、7.末那識manas-vijñāna 及 8.阿賴耶識ādāna-vijñāna.) 
I got the inspiration from reading this: 

「浩浩三藏不可窮，淵深七浪境為風。受薰持種根身器，去後來先作主公。」 ── 玄奘法師 (Bhikkhu Xuanzang 602AD-664AD wikipedia)

Unfortunately I don't read or write Pali thus not sure if this is acceptable since the question tagged "pali, pali-canon". I try to offer what I know. 
Do an experiment: If one uses a knife to cut himSELF, will his "self" feel the pain (definitely yes); or, will his "soul" feel the pain (probably not).

user-1: "Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' & 'soul' or can these two ideas (self & soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings?"
It seems atta was never directly defined in the texts. While non-canonical texts help inform it's translation, it's meaning is drawn from context and seems to range from simple "oneself" (reflexive pronoun) to something that is "unchanging / non-suffering / under one's control". The latter meaning is drawn from dialogues such as:

“Bhikkhus, form is anicca. What is anicca is dukkha. What is dukkha is anattā.
-- SN 22.15

and

“Bhikkhus, form is anatta. For if, bhikkhus, form were attā, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
-- SN 22.59

Then, whether the second meaning can be translated as 'soul' or not, to me seems to be a a matter of 'soul' being understood to embody the characteristics of atta (e.g. from above: non-affliction, something we have power over as in "let it be thus / let it not be thus").
However, it may be misleading to translate this term as the upanishadic "universal soul". For a discussion of this term (though a little old, not sure if dated), see Vedanta and Buddhism
A Comparative Study.

user254: You tagged this question pali.
The PTS dictionary does gives two meanings:


The soul as postulated in etc.
Oneself, himself, yourself. etc.


There is for example a chapter of the Dhammapada called Attavagga, whose verses include the word; for example:

Attana hi katam etc.
Verse 165: By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.

You could try to read/understand this as, "By the soul indeed is evil done", to see whether that makes more sense to you; but the conventional translation of it is, "By oneself is...".

I'm not sure that I should try to grasp this topic, for example because of the warning in the Sabbasava Sutta that questions like "what am I?" will result in various types of "views of self", a "thicket of views", a fetter -- and because I think it's an intellectual idea, which may be associated with "Mara".

According to the introduction of Piya Tan's Is There a Soul? one of the principle attributes of the alleged or Brahmanistic soul is that it's "eternal". I guess that "eternal" might contradict another of of the "three characteristics", i.e. impermanence.
I'm told that there is such a thing (a state) as nirvana and maybe timelessness; but I think that those are not maybe associated with a personal "self".

8157: <p>A core teaching of Buddhism is 'anatta' or 'not-self'. </p>

<p>Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' &amp; 'soul' or can these two ideas (self &amp; soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings? </p>

<p>In other words, are the ideas 'self' &amp; 'soul' (be they used in Buddhism or non-Buddhism) necessarily synonymous in Buddhism?</p>
 10304: <p>From as far as I could contemplate after reading some of the sutras and articles, the "self" and "soul" are different. In Buddhism, "self" is the result of <strong>polluted "manas-vijñāna"</strong>; while soul is a pure hypothesis resulted from the intellect (a theorem, conjecture in some religious systems). </p>

<p>As "self" is resulted from polluted "manas-vijñāna" the 7th vijñāna, it is <strong>real</strong> <strong>but</strong> it is <strong>not-true</strong>. Thus causes the karma and birth/death built upon this not-true "self", the polluted manas-vijñāna. Thus has the Buddhist teaching of not-self (anatta?) for end of suffering. However it is real since it produced effects. Like a dream is real when one is in the dream and all the dream scenes are with impacts, but a dream is not true when one awaken and realized (enlightenment). (眼識visual、耳識audio、鼻識nasal、舌識taste、身識touch（以上合稱五識these are the 5 vijñāna）、6.意識consciousness/intellect、7.末那識manas-vijñāna 及 8.阿賴耶識ādāna-vijñāna.) </p>

<p>I got the inspiration from reading this: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>「浩浩三藏不可窮，淵深七浪境為風。受薰持種根身器，去後來先作主公。」 ── 玄奘法師 (Bhikkhu Xuanzang 602AD-664AD <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wikipedia</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately I don't read or write Pali thus not sure if this is acceptable since the question tagged "pali, pali-canon". I try to offer what I know. </p>

<p>Do an experiment: If one uses a knife to cut himSELF, will his "self" feel the pain (definitely yes); or, will his "soul" feel the pain (probably not).</p>
 -1: <p><em>"<strong>Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' &amp; 'soul' or can these two ideas (self &amp; soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings?</em>"</strong></p>

<p>It seems <code>atta</code> was never directly defined in the texts. While non-canonical texts help inform it's translation, it's meaning is drawn from context and seems to range from simple "oneself" (reflexive pronoun) to something that is "unchanging / non-suffering / under one's control". The latter meaning is drawn from dialogues such as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“Bhikkhus, form is <em>anicca</em>. What is <em>anicca</em> is <em>dukkha</em>. What is <em>dukkha</em> is <em>anattā</em>.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.15" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.15</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“Bhikkhus, form is <em>anatta</em>. For if, bhikkhus, form were <em>attā</em>, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.59" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.59</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Then, whether the second meaning can be translated as 'soul' or not, to me seems to be a a matter of 'soul' being understood to embody the characteristics of <code>atta</code> (e.g. from above: non-affliction, something we have power over as in "let it be thus / let it not be thus").</p>

<p>However, it may be misleading to translate this term as the upanishadic "universal soul". For a discussion of this term (though a little old, not sure if dated), see <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vedanta and Buddhism
A Comparative Study</a>.</p>
 254: <p>You tagged this question <a href="/questions/tagged/pali" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;pali&#39;" rel="tag">pali</a>.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:533.pali" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PTS dictionary</a> does gives two meanings:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>The soul as postulated in etc.</li>
  <li>Oneself, himself, yourself. etc.</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>There is for example a chapter of the Dhammapada called <em>Attavagga</em>, whose verses include the word; <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=165" rel="nofollow noreferrer">for example</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Attana hi katam etc.</p>
  
  <p>Verse 165: By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You could try to read/understand this as, "By the soul indeed is evil done", to see whether that makes more sense to you; but the conventional translation of it is, "By oneself is...".</p>

<hr>

<p>I'm not sure that I should try to grasp this topic, for example because of the warning in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sabbasava Sutta</a> that questions like "what am I?" will result in various types of "views of self", a "thicket of views", a fetter -- and because I think it's an intellectual idea, which may be <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/sn5.10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">associated with "Mara"</a>.</p>

<hr>

<p>According to the introduction of Piya Tan's <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.16-Is-there-a-soul.-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Is There a Soul?</a> one of the principle attributes of the alleged or Brahmanistic soul is that it's "eternal". I guess that "eternal" might contradict another of of the "three characteristics", i.e. impermanence.</p>

<p>I'm told that there is such a thing (a state) as nirvana and maybe timelessness; but I think that those are not maybe associated with a personal "self".</p>
