Is there are difference between 'self' & 'soul' in Buddhism? A core teaching of Buddhism is 'anatta' or 'not-self'. 

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? 

In other words, are the ideas 'self' &amp; 'soul' (be they used in Buddhism or non-Buddhism) necessarily synonymous in Buddhism?
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".