Here's my quick go at that Eckhart's quote, "Nothing, that is god-like, why both are not." That's definitely not a denial, but a clear statement that even nothingness (aka awareness of absence) is (of) god. Similarly to that famous statement, "form is empty, emptiness is form." As for anatman -- if Buddha was indeed the knower of absolute reality, you may bet that he opposed the doctrine of atman as personal transmigrating soul as it was understood by Hinduism of his time (i.e. one atman equals one personal soul tied to one human/animal/etc. unit). So, those views that perceive Buddhism as an attempt at reformation of Hinduism (i.e. clear it of "unenlightened" idiocies) are correct. I won't go into detail why Vedas differentiate between Brahman and Atman, it would only muddle the point I'm trying to make, suffice to say, Atman equals Brahman. Not that they are both alike, not that they are connected, but that they are one and the same (thus "You are that"). I.e. there is at all times only one "personal soul", one "I", manifesting as all that is. Now, it's your turn to know it, and stop speculating.