From my point of view, you are stating the following: the human body, made of four elements and consciousness, resembles the universe which is also four elements and consciousness. Beyond this formal comparison, I believe you meant to say consciousness is *dynamic*, given you say the teaching states it is not permanent. It is indeed composed of discrete moments of cognition, according to the Abhidhamma. With these two aspects, you wonder whether the *anatman* concept can be found therein. 

I believe you are alluding to two different things, both of which partially cover the meaning of no-self. The first is the similarity of forms, and therefore the meaninglessness of their distinction. The second is the dissection of the self into parts.

In the first case, one might argue that given the body and the universe share the four elements and consciousness, they are similar, which is what you have done. One might add that these characteristics do not *define* the body or the universe. This type of reasoning, whereby the identity of a given object is sought, but invalidated because of other objects with similar characteristics (e.g. a table has legs, but so does a chair), can lead to a certain understanding. This understanding is of the self being dissolved by lack of identity, by being indistinct from otherness. The self simply doesn't exist intrinsically, but exists, to refer to Nagarjuna, as *dependently originated*. That is to say it exists in interconnection with other phenomena. 

The second point you put forward is the non-entity status of consciousness, its existence as fragmentary parts. Indeed, a Tibetan master once exposed to my group, at a temple, that emptiness was about *division into parts*. Because everything can be separated, again and again, in different ways, the self doesn't subsist as a complete and solid entity. Since consciousness occurs through connections always different -- i.e. a moment of consciousness depends of its proximate and subsequent equivalents -- then the self is never the same. As a river flows with continuously different water, but stays the same river, the self *appears* whole and static but is made up of parts. 

While these two answers show certain aspects of reality, a mere conceptual understanding is obviously not sufficient. Such paradigms need to be considered thoroughly through meditation, and in different ways. Vipassana in itself sees reality without the need of a theoretical overarching structure. This shows familiarization through contemplation, and not just literal learning, provides benefits; even *this* shows such notions don't exist in themselves, in the mind, but require different angles of approach to fully generate insight. 

These are merely *some* aspects of *anatman*. Many others exist. 

Hopefully, this answers some questions. 

Eggman.