user8275: English is my second language.
If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?
Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel?
How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body? 
Is nirvana an "informational" suicide?
In short, please tell me, why should I care about the next "life" or "going to nirvana" if there's no self, no core and "I", "myself" will disappear after death? Maybe I would stop caring about it because "I" will stop being exist and I will stop feel, think, care straight after death?

PS:
And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here.
And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless.
Thanks.

user2265: There is no substantial self.
Buddhism is not nihilist.
It is always said that there is not self, nor no-self.
There is still a "self" so-to-speak--a collection of factors that is migrating from life to life with no core.
It would not be inaccurate to say that you are that core and you have that responsibility of waking up to the truths and powers of Buddhism so that you can save the "others"--who are also not self nor non-self.
It would be more accurate to say that we are that core--we the universe are experiencing you.
Nothing is forgiven, all that is done (and not done) has weight and trying one's enlightened best is in the best interest.

user8395: I believe a good reference for this question is Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening". He has spoken in many places of Buddhism without rebirth or reincarnation. I agree with him that Buddhism is about the here and now. Worries about an afterlife are evidence of a failure to come to grips with what Ernest Becker refers to as "The Denial of Death" (ISBN-13: 978-0684832401). A little over twenty years ago (1995) I did a simple meditation where i convinced myself that the mechanistic materialists were correct and that when I died there would be nothing left. Total annihilation was my inevitable outcome after death. It was frightening at first but eventually I went through all five of Kubler Ross' stages of grief as I attended my own mechanistic materialism funeral. I believe that all fear must be met head on if it is to be conquered. I decided to post this note because no one was doing the head on confrontation. Death as annihilation is a concept and from a Buddhist perspective(imho) has no independent reality. But the catch is that we all have our folk epistemology where death as annihilation seems to make commonsense. After all why should humans be so privileged but cockroaches and spiders have no hope of reincarnation(in Hinduism we have a different story). If you approach Buddhism as an "opiate of the masses" that is going to give you an "all life sucker" then you are really barking up the wrong tree(Bodhi Tree?). Take Ernest Becker's advice and grow up to the reality that annihilation is not all that bad. After all, think about never having to live in a world where George Bush could spend eight years as the president of the most militarily powerful nation on the planet. Think of nirvana as blowing out the candle as the reward of many lifetimes of diligent study merely to not be reborn then death as annihilation gives you nirvana for free. You don't have to do a damn thing to get it except die.

user11471: The question still remains. if Nirvana can only be achieve in state of mind than that means we don't have much time then. Because there is no guarantee that the person in this present life will get the same understanding (having the given answers) in the next birth.   
yet the mind of a buddha still exist in writings and not exist coz the body had return to universe or perhaps mixed with other beings. This is confusing because of "I" or self ??? 
Seems like Nirvana is like a blank screen in the mind or an illusory escape, a prescription on how not to be controlled by suffering which is life each self . A prescription for one lifetime at a time consider if we know 
or to get to know our past life through practicing jhanas is just a mitos
or Perhaps all religions are the same, spreading indoctrination with each own platform just to bring order in the community ....

user295: In Buddhism Anatta contrasts with Ātman:

In Buddism, a being dependently arises with cause and effect.
In contemporary views, 


there is an essence which is either unchanging and receiver of all experiences or essence which controls the being.
or materialistic view that there is no self which also implies there is no interrelationship current state of existence and the future states are rebirths


The more correct translation of Anatta is not-self, i.e.,

any experience is not self or not worthy of been taken to be me or mine
one's corporal body and senses are not self or not worthy of been taken to be me or mine
etc.

Now, why you should seek liberation? Though there is no essence which receives all your experiences of pain and unsatisfactoriness there is a process which still results in unsatisfactoriness starting from birth to death cycling through eternity until it is broken. So the liberation is to break the cycle of dependent arising and cause and effect. Nirvana is beyond both dependent arising and cause and effect.
So even in theory, there is no essence which experiences in the process of dependent arising one feels pain, pleasantness and neutral feeling which are all unsatisfactory. So one should be motivated to get out of this process. The view that the essence within merging with some eternal being state which is pleasant, in the Buddhist perspective is the wrong view. Also, the future state of oneself arises from the current state. This is neither completely different nor the same, but related dependent arising and cause and effect. Also since the future self is not completely different this is motivation to liberate oneself. The view that the future self is totally unrelated or different, there is no future existence, the future person is the same as the current person is also a wrong view. Also taking the view there is no self or underlying dependently arisen process is also a wrong view.

user151: ...when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?
We die many times in a second as the "informational" flow keeps going into another being. We are not the same being  we were a fraction of a second ago. That being has died. 
Do you see how experience goes on and on, moment by moment? We are always changing, moment by moment. We are always dying, moment by moment. It's the same thing. When the physical body dies, that is just another change. After that body dies we will see how experience goes on and on, moment by moment.
We don't really need to worry about nirvana as long as we are continuously practicing although we should care about nirvana as far as nirvana is Dhamma, if we care about our own freedom from suffering.

user5838: Good question. Buddhism does not talk about existance or non-existance of self(objectively). When the appropriate causes arise, belief of existence(self/world) arises. When the causes secede, everything secede. But the worldly/samsaric beings do not see this truth.
Whatever existence or thing that arises which is dependent on conditions is subject to cessation. This is the most fundamental law that the Buddha realized ("Yan kinchi samudaya Dhammam sabbantham niridha Dhammam"). This is known as Pratītyasamutpāda- the core of Buddhism. Start exploring from this perspective, and you will find the complete answer to your question; oneday.

Here is a canonical reference at Ananda Sutta SN 44.10 :

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"


user8157: The questions are illogical. It was asked: If there's no "self'" then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?
The question is loaded with 'self', even though it claims there is no self. Just the small part of the question I quoted refers to a 'self' or 'I' twice. 
If the mind actually has no self, there will be no motivation to either care or not care. All "I" thoughts have ended. Therefore, there is no "I" that wishes to live; there is also no "I" that wishes to die; there is no "I" to attain Nirvana. If there remains any belief in "I", this cannot be Nirvana.
What experiences Nirvana is the mind rather than a 'self'.  
That is why 'liberation' in Buddhism is called 'liberation of mind' (rather than liberation of self). 
In Buddhism, the belief "I will continue after death" is 'eternalism' & the belief "I will die at death" is 'nihilism'. Eternalism & nihilism, the same as the questions, are wrong views, because they all contain views about 'self'. 

user111: Whether you believe in a 'self' or not, suffering is very real. You experience it on a daily basis. It is this suffering that makes beings look for an end to it. There's only one permanent end to suffering and that is Nibbana. That is why you should care about striving for it. Craving is what prevents you from accomplishing this. Ignorance is what causes craving to arise. The belief of a self is just one form of ignorance that you have to get rid of in order cut off craving.
Ignorance means not seeing things as they really are. So you cannot get rid of it just by changing your opinion or reasoning it out. You need to start seeing things as they really are.

8275: <p>English is my second language.</p>

<p>If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then <strong>why should I care</strong> about his life if I will no longer exist?</p>

<p>Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel?</p>

<p>How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body? </p>

<p>Is nirvana an "informational" suicide?</p>

<p>In short, please tell me, why should I care about the next "life" or "going to nirvana" if there's no self, no core and "I", "myself" will disappear after death? Maybe I would stop caring about it because "I" will stop being exist and I will stop feel, think, care straight after death?</p>

<hr>

<p>PS:</p>

<p>And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here.</p>

<p>And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>
 2265: <p>There is no <em>substantial</em> self.
Buddhism is not nihilist.
It is always said that there is not self, nor no-self.</p>

<p>There is still a "self" so-to-speak--a collection of factors that is migrating from life to life with no core.
It would not be inaccurate to say that you are that core and you have that responsibility of waking up to the truths and powers of Buddhism so that you can save the "others"--who are also not self nor non-self.
It would be more accurate to say that <em>we</em> are that core--<em>we</em> the universe are experiencing you.
Nothing is forgiven, all that is done (and not done) has weight and trying one's enlightened best is in the best interest.</p>
 8395: <p>I believe a good reference for this question is Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening". He has spoken in many places of Buddhism without rebirth or reincarnation. I agree with him that Buddhism is about the here and now. Worries about an afterlife are evidence of a failure to come to grips with what Ernest Becker refers to as "The Denial of Death" (ISBN-13: 978-0684832401). A little over twenty years ago (1995) I did a simple meditation where i convinced myself that the mechanistic materialists were correct and that when I died there would be nothing left. Total annihilation was my inevitable outcome after death. It was frightening at first but eventually I went through all five of Kubler Ross' stages of grief as I attended my own mechanistic materialism funeral. I believe that all fear must be met head on if it is to be conquered. I decided to post this note because no one was doing the head on confrontation. Death as annihilation is a concept and from a Buddhist perspective(imho) has no independent reality. But the catch is that we all have our folk epistemology where death as annihilation seems to make commonsense. After all why should humans be so privileged but cockroaches and spiders have no hope of reincarnation(in Hinduism we have a different story). If you approach Buddhism as an "opiate of the masses" that is going to give you an "all life sucker" then you are really barking up the wrong tree(Bodhi Tree?). Take Ernest Becker's advice and grow up to the reality that annihilation is not all that bad. After all, think about never having to live in a world where George Bush could spend eight years as the president of the most militarily powerful nation on the planet. Think of nirvana as blowing out the candle as the reward of many lifetimes of diligent study merely to not be reborn then death as annihilation gives you nirvana for free. You don't have to do a damn thing to get it except die.</p>
 11471: <p>The question still remains. if Nirvana can only be achieve in state of mind than that means we don't have much time then. Because there is no guarantee that the person in this present life will get the same understanding (having the given answers) in the next birth.   </p>

<p>yet the mind of a buddha still exist in writings and not exist coz the body had return to universe or perhaps mixed with other beings. This is confusing because of "I" or self ??? </p>

<p>Seems like Nirvana is like a blank screen in the mind or an illusory escape, a prescription on how not to be controlled by suffering which is life each self . A prescription for one lifetime at a time consider if we know </p>

<p>or to get to know our past life through practicing jhanas is just a mitos</p>

<p>or Perhaps all religions are the same, spreading indoctrination with each own platform just to bring order in the community ....</p>
 295: <p>In Buddhism <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anatta</a> contrasts with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ātman</a>:</p>

<ul>
<li>In Buddism, a being dependently arises with cause and effect.</li>
<li>In contemporary views, 

<ul>
<li>there is an essence which is either unchanging and receiver of all experiences or essence which controls the being.</li>
<li>or materialistic view that there is no self which also implies there is no interrelationship current state of existence and the future states are rebirths</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>The more correct translation of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anatta</a> is not-self, i.e.,</p>

<ul>
<li>any experience is not self or not worthy of been taken to be me or mine</li>
<li>one's corporal body and senses are not self or not worthy of been taken to be me or mine</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>Now, why you should seek liberation? Though there is no essence which receives all your experiences of pain and unsatisfactoriness there is a process which still results in unsatisfactoriness starting from birth to death cycling through eternity until it is broken. So the liberation is to break the cycle of dependent arising and cause and effect. Nirvana is beyond both dependent arising and cause and effect.</p>

<p>So even in theory, there is no essence which experiences in the process of dependent arising one feels pain, pleasantness and neutral feeling which are all unsatisfactory. So one should be motivated to get out of this process. The view that the essence within merging with some eternal being state which is pleasant, in the Buddhist perspective is the wrong view. Also, the future state of oneself arises from the current state. This is neither completely different nor the same, but related dependent arising and cause and effect. Also since the future self is not completely different this is motivation to liberate oneself. The view that the future self is totally unrelated or different, there is no future existence, the future person is the same as the current person is also a wrong view. Also taking the view there is no self or underlying dependently arisen process is also a wrong view.</p>
 151: <p><strong>...when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?</strong></p>

<p>We die many times in a second as the "informational" flow keeps going into another being. We are not the same being  we were a fraction of a second ago. That being has died. </p>

<p>Do you see how experience goes on and on, moment by moment? We are always changing, moment by moment. We are always dying, moment by moment. It's the same thing. When the physical body dies, that is just another change. After that body dies we will see how experience goes on and on, moment by moment.</p>

<p>We don't really need to worry about nirvana as long as we are continuously practicing although we should care about nirvana as far as nirvana is Dhamma, if we care about our own freedom from suffering.</p>
 5838: <p>Good question. Buddhism does not talk about existance or non-existance of self(objectively). When the appropriate causes arise, belief of existence(self/world) arises. When the causes secede, everything secede. But the worldly/samsaric beings do not see this truth.</p>

<p><strong>Whatever existence or thing that arises which is dependent on conditions is subject to cessation. This is the most fundamental law that the Buddha realized ("Yan kinchi samudaya Dhammam sabbantham niridha Dhammam").</strong> This is known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da" rel="nofollow">Pratītyasamutpāda</a>- the core of Buddhism. Start exploring from this perspective, and you will find the complete answer to your question; oneday.</p>

<p><Br>
Here is a canonical reference at <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html" rel="nofollow">Ananda Sutta SN 44.10</a> :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings &amp; courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"</p>
  
  <p>When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.</p>
  
  <p>"Then is there no self?"</p>
  
  <p>A second time, the Blessed One was silent.</p>
  
  <p>Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.</p>
  
  <p>Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"</p>
  
  <p>"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &amp; contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &amp; contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, lord."</p>
  
  <p>"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"</p>
</blockquote>
 8157: <p>The questions are <strong>illogical</strong>. It was asked: <em>If there's no "self'" then why should <strong>I</strong> care about his life if <strong>I</strong> will no longer exist?</em></p>

<p>The question is loaded with 'self', even though it claims there is no self. Just the small part of the question I quoted refers to a 'self' or 'I' twice. </p>

<p>If the mind actually has no self, there will be no motivation to either care or not care. All "I" thoughts have ended. Therefore, there is no "I" that wishes to live; there is also no "I" that wishes to die; there is no "I" to attain Nirvana. If there remains any belief in "I", this cannot be Nirvana.</p>

<p>What experiences Nirvana is <strong>the mind</strong> rather than a 'self'.  </p>

<p>That is why 'liberation' in Buddhism is called 'liberation of mind' (rather than liberation of self). </p>

<p>In Buddhism, the belief "<strong>I</strong> will continue after death" is 'eternalism' &amp; the belief "<strong>I</strong> will die at death" is 'nihilism'. Eternalism &amp; nihilism, the same as the questions, are wrong views, because they all contain views about 'self'. </p>
 111: <p>Whether you believe in a 'self' or not, suffering is very real. You experience it on a daily basis. It is this suffering that makes beings look for an end to it. There's only one permanent end to suffering and that is Nibbana. That is why you should care about striving for it. Craving is what prevents you from accomplishing this. Ignorance is what causes craving to arise. The belief of a self is just one form of ignorance that you have to get rid of in order cut off craving.</p>

<p>Ignorance means not seeing things as they really are. So you cannot get rid of it just by changing your opinion or reasoning it out. You need to start seeing things as they really are.</p>
