user151: I read that atman is pure bliss
I read that anatta is pure bliss

-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day?
-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why?
-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?


user11541: What is atman? If you refer to atman as a soul which transmigrates after death then you are wrong. There is no soul which transmigrates after death. Rebirth is just an echo of what was the last consciousness at the time of death. Rebirth is like a stanza learned by student from a teacher. 
If you refer to atman which is the listener of the ears, seer of the eyes, smeller of the nose, comprehender of the mind then again I am afraid Buddha says there is no such atman. 
Buddha goes on to say there is no Atman... Atman is like a illusion. In other words there is no self worth identifying as my or your soul. Like all illusions, the illusion of atman must collapse. Once that happens gates of Nirvana opens for you. As you see the concept of Atman and Anatta are opposite of each other. 
Hindus live in the world of Brahman... Understanding of Brahman is the ultimate goal. Buddhists do not live in any such world. Therefore I am afraid Buddhist philosophy leads to a different state of mind. Should we describe that state as blissful ? That I can not answer for sure but it seems blissful is the right answer. Is that blissfulness permanent ? Yes in both the cases it is said to be so. Is that blissfulness me ? Hindus says Yes that blessedness is your self. Buddhists say there is no self.

user471: Hinduism's Atman is the imperishable and indestructible immortal soul or self that pervades the entire body.

That which pervades the entire body, know it to be indestructible. No
one can cause the destruction of the imperishable soul. Only the
material body is perishable; the embodied soul within is
indestructible, immeasurable, and eternal. ...
Neither of them is in knowledge—the one who
thinks the soul can slay and the one who thinks the soul can be slain.
For truly, the soul neither kills nor can it be killed.
The soul is neither born, nor does it ever die; nor having once
existed, does it ever cease to be. The soul is without birth, eternal,
immortal, and ageless. It is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.
Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 2.17-20

Buddhism's Anatta is from the statement "sabbe dhamma anatta" (Dhp 279) which means that "all phenomena is not self".
So, Atman and Anatta are opposite.

Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to
him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the
world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”
“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self
and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of
what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to
self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self.
Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever
feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or
painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and
of what belongs to self.
“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”
SN 35.85


According to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta, Atman is Consciousness:

Atman is all consciousness and holy, the body is all flesh and impure;
and yet, etc., - verse 19
Thus all the three states are unreal inasmuch as they are the creation
of the three Gunas; but their witness (the reality behind them) is,
beyond all Gunas, eternal, one, and is Consciousness itself. - verse 58
The wise should always think with great care of the invisible, the
visible, and everything else, as his own Self which is consciousness
itself. - verse 141
Adi Shankaracharya's Aparokshanubhuti

According to the Buddha, Consciousness is dependently originated and is impermanent. It's not the same Consciousness that roams throughout one's life and continues to another life:

The Buddha
said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful
misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this
very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
Sati: “Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this
very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
Buddha: “Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
Sati: “Sir, it is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of
good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”
Buddha: “Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?
Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently
originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But
still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and make
much bad karma. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”
MN 38

The same sutta explains that consciousness arises dependent on the six sense media and their sense objects.

user10712: The two are opposites. One is Pali (anatta) and the other is Sanskrit (atman). 
Anatta translates to the Sanskrit as anatman, often translated into English as 'no-self', or 'no-soul', and represents the teachings against there being an ontological or surviving soul (atman) as taught by many religions. The 'an' portion indicates 'no', which indicates why the two are opposite in meaning.

user8157: I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. 'Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom. 
As for 'Atman', this appears to be a concept that changed & evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism & Hinduism. At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state. 

The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on
  this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the
  pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united
  and the ultimate sentient principle.

This is probably why the word 'anatta' does not mean 'not-bliss'. 

151: <p>I read that atman is pure bliss</p>
<p>I read that anatta is pure bliss</p>
<blockquote>
<p>-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day?</p>
<p>-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why?</p>
<p>-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?</p>
</blockquote>
 11541: <p>What is atman? If you refer to atman as a soul which transmigrates after death then you are wrong. There is no soul which transmigrates after death. Rebirth is just an echo of what was the last consciousness at the time of death. Rebirth is like a stanza learned by student from a teacher. </p>

<p>If you refer to atman which is the listener of the ears, seer of the eyes, smeller of the nose, comprehender of the mind then again I am afraid Buddha says there is no such atman. </p>

<p>Buddha goes on to say there is no Atman... Atman is like a illusion. In other words there is no self worth identifying as my or your soul. Like all illusions, the illusion of atman must collapse. Once that happens gates of Nirvana opens for you. As you see the concept of Atman and Anatta are opposite of each other. </p>

<p>Hindus live in the world of Brahman... Understanding of Brahman is the ultimate goal. Buddhists do not live in any such world. Therefore I am afraid Buddhist philosophy leads to a different state of mind. Should we describe that state as blissful ? That I can not answer for sure but it seems blissful is the right answer. Is that blissfulness permanent ? Yes in both the cases it is said to be so. Is that blissfulness me ? Hindus says Yes that blessedness is your self. Buddhists say there is no self.</p>
 471: <p>Hinduism's Atman is the imperishable and indestructible immortal soul or self that pervades the entire body.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>That which pervades the entire body</strong>, know it to be indestructible. No
one can cause the destruction of the imperishable soul. Only the
material body is perishable; the embodied soul within is
indestructible, immeasurable, and eternal. ...
Neither of them is in knowledge—the one who
thinks the soul can slay and the one who thinks the soul can be slain.
For truly, the soul neither kills nor can it be killed.
The soul is neither born, nor does it ever die; nor having once
existed, does it ever cease to be. The soul is without birth, eternal,
immortal, and ageless. It is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.</p>
<p>Hindu text <a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhagavad Gita 2.17-20</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Buddhism's Anatta is from the statement &quot;<em>sabbe dhamma anatta</em>&quot; (<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-279" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhp 279</a>) which means that &quot;all phenomena is not self&quot;.</p>
<p>So, Atman and Anatta are opposite.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to
him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the
world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”</p>
<p>“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self
and of what belongs to self? <strong>The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of
what belongs to self</strong>. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to
self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self.
Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever
feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or
painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and
of what belongs to self.</p>
<p>“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn35.85/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 35.85</a></p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>According to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta, Atman is Consciousness:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Atman is all consciousness and holy, the body is all flesh and impure;
and yet, etc., - verse 19</p>
<p>Thus all the three states are unreal inasmuch as they are the creation
of the three Gunas; but their witness (the reality behind them) is,
beyond all Gunas, eternal, one, and is Consciousness itself. - verse 58</p>
<p>The wise should always think with great care of the invisible, the
visible, and everything else, as his own Self which is consciousness
itself. - verse 141</p>
<p>Adi Shankaracharya's <a href="http://www.shankaracharya.org/aparokshanubhuti.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aparokshanubhuti</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to the Buddha, Consciousness is dependently originated and is impermanent. It's not the same Consciousness that roams throughout one's life and continues to another life:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Buddha
said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful
misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this
very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”</p>
<p>Sati: “Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this
very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”</p>
<p>Buddha: “Sāti, what is that consciousness?”</p>
<p>Sati: “Sir, it is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of
good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”</p>
<p>Buddha: “Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?
Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently
originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But
still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and make
much bad karma. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 38</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The same sutta explains that consciousness arises dependent on the six sense media and their sense objects.</p>
 10712: <p>The two are opposites. One is Pali (anatta) and the other is Sanskrit (atman). </p>

<p>Anatta translates to the Sanskrit as anatman, often translated into English as 'no-self', or 'no-soul', and represents the teachings against there being an ontological or surviving soul (atman) as taught by many religions. The 'an' portion indicates 'no', which indicates why the two are opposite in meaning.</p>
 8157: <p>I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. 'Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom. </p>

<p>As for '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)#Vedas" rel="noreferrer">Atman</a>', this appears to be a concept that changed &amp; evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism &amp; Hinduism. At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on
  this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the
  pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united
  and the ultimate sentient principle.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is probably why the word 'anatta' does not mean 'not-bliss'. </p>
