user10967: Does the doctrine of no soul is means that there is nothing permanent to continue? So is the teaching of reincarnation, rebirth misleading as there is a notion there is a continuity after death? Also death and birth is visible at the physical level, [but the rebirth process is not. What is the implication on this in the doctrine?]

user254: I think you're asking, partly, about rebirth -- I asked a question similar to that here, you might find the answers to that question helpful.
You might also also like to browse other topics on this site, which are tagged rebirth and anatman.
Also, various people posted elsewhere that the suttas don't tend to talk about "rebirth"; they just talk about "birth" -- for example, in this answer:

The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.


But your current question is mostly asking about "the doctrine of no soul", rather than asking about rebirth. If you're asking "what is the doctrine of no soul?" I think that the most famous sutta on that subject is The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. I find that sutta difficult to understand though (possibly because it's refuting a "doctrine of soul" or Atman that I wasn't really familiar with in the first place).
Instead I found the clearest explanation of the doctrine was in the Alagaddupama Sutta, which I talked about a bit in this answer.
In brief I think that the "doctrine of no soul" might be summarized as, "there is no satisfactory doctrine of soul".

You ask, as well, "what is the implication of this doctrine?"
One of the (mistaken) implications might be that if there's no rebirth then there's no heaven and no hell, and no reason to be ethical. Buddhism warns that this would be "Wrong view":

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view.

So the doctrine may appear to contradict, or be related somehow, to e.g. doctrine about karma.
Another implication of the doctrine is the concept of "self" (e.g. here the title of the The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is translated as On the No-self Characteristic).
There are various other doctrines related to "self": for example, identity view, and conceit ... and the brahmavihāras ... not to mention dana ... and so on into other, Mahayana doctrines.

Also, some (later) schools of Buddhism try to explain what you might have been asking about (i.e. explaining the workings of karma), for example Wikipedia on store-house consciousness says,

The store-house consciousness accumulates all potential energy for the mental (mana) and physical (rupa) manifestation of one's existence (namarupa). It is the storehouse-consciousness which induces transmigration or rebirth, causing the origination of a new existence.

(See also What is storehouse consciousness?).

Another sutta that you may find be relevant to this topic is the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.
Incidentally the translator's (Thanissaro Bhikkhu's) introduction to that sutta says,

Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present.

... which more-or-less agrees with Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer which I quoted above.
And it says,

However, a being — in the Buddha's sense of the term — not only takes birth after the death of the body, it can also take birth, die, and be reborn many times in the course of a day — as attachment develops for one desire, ends, and then develops for another desire. This is why the processes leading to rebirth after death can be observed and redirected in the present moment during life.

... which more-or-less agrees with Dhammadhatu's answer answer to the question.
Anyway, the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta starts with one of the monks saying,

As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth], not another.

The other monks see that as a pernicious view, and bring him to the Buddha, who corrects him, saying,

Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?

I think that maybe the theory of "dependent origination" or "dependent co-arising" may be related to anatta too: there's no such thing as an independent self (nor an eternal self), instead things like consciousness arise and end together with feelings, contact, sense-objects, etc.; and there are different types of consciousness associated with different senses.
Dharmafarer's introduction to this suttas starts with,

The average ordinary person is very likely to view things as wholes and entities, even as being
fixed and eternal. For example, he may think that there is a permanent “self,” “soul,” “person” or “being”
when what he is really experiencing is only a series of mental events comprising a super-rapid series of
discrete thought-moments.

Later in the introduction it says,

The bhavanga (lit “existence-factor”) or “life-continuum” is a concept that evolved primarily in
the Abhidhamma commentarial tradition to explain the continuity of consciousness and personal identity
in the absence of a permanent self (which is denied by the anatta doctrine). The life-continuum flows on
like a stream (sota) from one existence to the next. It is sometimes called bhavanga,citta (existence-factor
consciousness) or “consciousness continuum” and is the foundation of all experience, both conscious and
unconscious.


A simple answer might be found in the Sabbasava Sutta, which warns that there are questions:

Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? etc. etc.

... and views:

he view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self etc. etc.

... and warns that these kinds of thinking do not lead to freedom:

This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... which maybe leads back to my original summary of anatta: that "there is no satisfactory doctrine of soul".

user8157: I agree with you.
The Pali suttas do not refer to a continuous consciousness at the termination of life. 
Instead, the suttas explain 'birth' ('jati') & 'death' ('marana') refer to the birth & death of 'self-views'.
Therefore, 're-birth' refers to the re-arisings of 'self-view'. 
For example, you make $100,000. Re-birth is the happy view: "I made $100,000; I am rich". You lose $100. Death is the unhappiness of 'I lost $100; I am poor". 

10967: <p>Does the doctrine of no soul is means that there is nothing permanent to continue? So is the teaching of reincarnation, rebirth misleading as there is a notion there is a continuity after death? Also death and birth is visible at the physical level, [but the rebirth process is not. What is the implication on this in the doctrine?]</p>
 254: <p>I think you're asking, partly, about rebirth -- I asked <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3420/254">a question similar to that here</a>, you might find the answers to that question helpful.</p>
<p>You might also also like to browse other topics on this site, which are tagged <a href="/questions/tagged/rebirth" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;rebirth&#39;" rel="tag">rebirth</a> and <a href="/questions/tagged/anatman" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;anatman&#39;" rel="tag">anatman</a>.</p>
<p>Also, various people posted elsewhere that the suttas don't tend to talk about &quot;rebirth&quot;; they just talk about &quot;birth&quot; -- for example, in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/254">this answer</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as &quot;rebirth&quot;. In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>But your current question is mostly asking about &quot;the doctrine of no soul&quot;, rather than asking about rebirth. If you're asking &quot;what is the doctrine of no soul?&quot; I think that the most famous sutta on that subject is <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta</a>. I find that sutta difficult to understand though (possibly because it's refuting a &quot;doctrine of soul&quot; or Atman that I wasn't really familiar with in the first place).</p>
<p>Instead I found the clearest explanation of the doctrine was in the Alagaddupama Sutta, which I talked about a bit <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/15904/254">in this answer</a>.</p>
<p>In brief I think that the &quot;doctrine of no soul&quot; might be summarized as, &quot;there is no satisfactory doctrine of soul&quot;.</p>
<hr />
<p>You ask, as well, &quot;what is the implication of this doctrine?&quot;</p>
<p>One of the (mistaken) implications might be that if there's no rebirth then there's no heaven and no hell, and no reason to be ethical. Buddhism warns that this would be &quot;<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#micchaditthi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wrong view</a>&quot;:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And what is wrong view?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly &amp; practicing rightly, proclaim this world &amp; the next after having directly known &amp; realized it for themselves.'</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is wrong view.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the doctrine may appear to contradict, or be related somehow, to e.g. doctrine about karma.</p>
<p>Another implication of the doctrine is the concept of &quot;self&quot; (e.g. <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> the title of the The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is translated as <em>On the No-self Characteristic</em>).</p>
<p>There are various other doctrines related to &quot;self&quot;: for example, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5862/254">identity view</a>, and <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9415/254">conceit</a> ... and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara" rel="nofollow noreferrer">brahmavihāras</a> ... not to mention <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel367.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>dana</em></a> ... and so on into other, Mahayana doctrines.</p>
<hr />
<p>Also, some (later) schools of Buddhism try to explain what you might have been asking about (i.e. explaining the workings of karma), for example Wikipedia on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">store-house consciousness</a> says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The store-house consciousness accumulates all potential energy for the mental (mana) and physical (rupa) manifestation of one's existence (namarupa). It is the storehouse-consciousness which induces transmigration or rebirth, causing the origination of a new existence.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(See also <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5514/254">What is storehouse consciousness?</a>).</p>
<hr />
<p>Another sutta that you may find be relevant to this topic is the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta</a>.</p>
<p>Incidentally the translator's (Thanissaro Bhikkhu's) introduction to that sutta says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to &quot;rebirth&quot; in his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... which more-or-less agrees with Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer which I quoted above.</p>
<p>And it says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>However, a being — in the Buddha's sense of the term — not only takes birth after the death of the body, it can also take birth, die, and be reborn many times in the course of a day — as attachment develops for one desire, ends, and then develops for another desire. This is why the processes leading to rebirth after death can be observed and redirected in the present moment during life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... which more-or-less agrees with <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19590/254">Dhammadhatu's answer</a> answer to the question.</p>
<p>Anyway, the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta starts with one of the monks saying,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth], not another.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The other monks see that as a pernicious view, and bring him to the Buddha, who corrects him, saying,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that maybe the theory of &quot;dependent origination&quot; or &quot;dependent co-arising&quot; may be related to anatta too: there's no such thing as an independent self (nor an eternal self), instead things like consciousness arise and end together with feelings, contact, sense-objects, etc.; and there are different types of consciousness associated with different senses.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/7.10-Maha-Tanhasankhaya-S-m38-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dharmafarer's introduction to this suttas</a> starts with,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The average ordinary person is very likely to view things as wholes and entities, even as being
fixed and eternal. For example, he may think that there is a permanent “self,” “soul,” “person” or “being”
when what he is really experiencing is only a series of mental events comprising a super-rapid series of
discrete thought-moments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Later in the introduction it says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The bhavanga (lit “existence-factor”) or “life-continuum” is a concept that evolved primarily in
the Abhidhamma commentarial tradition to explain the continuity of consciousness and personal identity
in the absence of a permanent self (which is denied by the anatta doctrine). The life-continuum flows on
like a stream (sota) from one existence to the next. It is sometimes called bhavanga,citta (existence-factor
consciousness) or “consciousness continuum” and is the foundation of all experience, both conscious and
unconscious.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>A simple answer might be found in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sabbasava Sutta</a>, which warns that there are questions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? etc. etc.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... and views:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>he view I have a self arises in him as true &amp; established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self etc. etc.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... and warns that these kinds of thinking do not lead to freedom:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, &amp; death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &amp; stress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... which maybe leads back to my original summary of anatta: that &quot;there is no satisfactory doctrine of soul&quot;.</p>
 8157: <p>I agree with you.</p>

<p>The Pali suttas do not refer to a continuous consciousness at the termination of life. </p>

<p>Instead, the suttas explain 'birth' ('jati') &amp; 'death' ('marana') refer to the birth &amp; death of 'self-views'.</p>

<p>Therefore, 're-birth' refers to the re-arisings of 'self-view'. </p>

<p>For example, you make $100,000. Re-birth is the happy view: "<em>I made $100,000; I am rich</em>". You lose $100. Death is the unhappiness of '<em>I lost $100; I am poor</em>". </p>
