If there is no Self , what Self is there to be affected by the karma which non-Self now performs?

You are karma. Your body, your accumulations, your memory, your mind, your compulsive thoughts and activities are all an aggregate that is you, right now. If I wipe out your memory, you won't know what is what, you have to relearn everything, you'd have to start from scratch. In the same way, if I wipe out your karma, you will cease to exist in this state.

All this translation confuses people. Self, no self bla bla bla. Yes it's a load of rubbish. Just know that you are an aggregate/accumulation of a lot of memory and karma and the food you've eaten.

"There is no self" is not correct.

"There is self" is not correct.

"There is self and there is no self" is correct.

With ignorance desire arise. With desire fabrications arise. With fabrications self arise. With self kamma is present.

With wisdom desire cease. Without desire fabrications cease. Without fabrications self ceases. Without self kamma is extinguished.

This was the teaching of the Master.

There is no self affected by karma. There is no self at all. Please, if you have a self then take it out and give us all the ultimate "selfie".

Self in Tipitaka is a general word, It means a wrong view just in no causes/wrong causes context.

Attā (self) can found in both wrong view ('eso me attā'ti), and right view (attāti attano nātho) context.

Context is the definition of the self-wrong view and self-right view.

So by the wrong view, self, manpower self, affects the other self, or is affected by the other self.

But by the right view, self, no manpower and various causes & effects, affect the other self, no manpower, and various causes & effects, or is affected by the other self, no manpower and various causes & effects.

Kamma is just one of many causes of effect.

Effect need more than one causes to arises.

So, perfect manpower self in only one person is not noble truth.

If someone wanna insert conjunction in this post, let's do it. My English is terrible. I don't understand the proper way to insert conjunction words to connect between sentence.

You and I do exist in the world, so one cannot say there is “no self”. The reason that it is said that there is “no self”, is because no person remains the same. It is in the Brahmajala sutta that we find the Buddha's take on this. He explained that both views of “self” and ‘no self” are wrong. This wrong view is one of the 62 types of mica ditthi as explained in the scriptures.

What Buddha saying is beings are dependently originated due to ignorance. As far as we have self view we continue to accumulate Sankhara and we continue to exist. Sankhara is not the self but it is the accumulation due to self view. Beings are effected by kamma due to selfview. Once you eliminate self identificaton (Arahant) there is no more becoming or affected by the kamma.

After a little research I found the original question in Samyutta Nikaya along with Buddha's response.

Then what self can those acts affect which are not self-wrought?" Thereupon the Exalted One, with his thought reading the thoughts of that brother's mind, said to the brethren: It is possible, brethren, that some senseless fellow, sunk in ignorance and led astray by craving, may think to go beyond the Master's teaching thus: "So then you say that body is not the Self; feeling is not the Self, perception is not the Self, the activities are not the Self, and consciousness is not the Self, Then what self can those acts affect which are not self-wrought?" That question, brethren, I have already answered thus and thus in those teachings that I have given you. Now what think ye, brethren? Is body permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Is feeling permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Is perception permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Are the activities permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, lord." "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?" "Woe, lord." "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it right to regard it thus: "This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?" "Surely not, lord." Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."

Every feeling whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every feeling should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."

Every perception whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every perception should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."

Every activity whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every activity should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me."

Every consciousness whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every consciousness should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not the Self of me." "Wherefore, brethren, he who thus sees conceives disgust at body, at feeling, at perception, at the activities, at consciousness. Being disgusted he is repelled by them; by that repulsion he is released; by that release he is set free; knowledge arises: in the freed man is the freed thing, and he knows: 'Destroyed is rebirth; lived is the righteous life; done is the task; for life in these conditions there is no hereafter.'"

The problem we have here is that the Buddha was speaking to people in a culture different from our own. This is important because the "Self" they were talking about was atta/atman and it was defined as eternal, like our concept of a soul in that way. When we talk about a Self nowadays, we tend to do it from a psychological stance: the importance of developing a healthy self-identity. We speak of self-reliance, knowing ourselves, and so on. We're not talking about an eternal separate, changeless self. So from the start, trying to transfer what the Buddha said then to now begins in confusion because we don't mean what he meant. He was talking about atta/atman/a soul. We are talking about psychological constructs within living beings who do experience the results of our actions.

In the Ananda Sutta the Buddha does not answer wander Vaccagotta's question about whether there is (atth-attā) or isn't (natth-attā) an atman. If the Buddha answered that there was, he says he would be contradicting all his past statements that everything in the world is anatta -- not the atman, the soul. If he answered that there wasn't then "the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the atman I used to have now not exist?'"

What the Buddha had no doubt found from past experience -- that guided him in denying an answer to Vaccagotta -- was that when he tried to give a clear answer, people's preconceptions about atman blocked them from understanding an entirely new concept: that what they tended to mistake for atman was something else entirely. It was constructed, changeable, affected by the world around us and -- effectively, all in our heads. Yes, we do have a self but it's not atman, not eternal, changeless, separate.

The construction of that which we mistake for a lasting self is exactly what the Buddha is describing in Dependent Arising. And within that lesson the Buddha shows us how it is that constructed self that generates the karma (actions) that lead to karma's fruit (dukkha) experienced by that constructed self.

This comes from the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Basically, it's pointless to ask questions like this, according to the Buddha. Instead, we should approach it from the perspective of dependent origination.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither, the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it): being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).