Soul and Self in buddhism 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.
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.