user11541: Anatta is beautifully described here. The following quote sums up the idea of no self:

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no
  doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
  it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but no questioner is found?  
Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found? 
If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the choice ? 
EDIT: Some people have raised doubt over the validity of the quote above saying that this is not the mainstream Buddhist thought. 
To further support the argument that there is no sufferer I quote from the book 
 Buddha: His Life ,His Doctrine ,His Order BY Dr. Hermann Oldenberg(page 253): 

A seeing,a hearing, a conceiving, above all a suffering, takes place :
  but an existence, which may be regarded as the seer, the hearer,the sufferer, is not recognized in Buddhist teaching.


user5000: 
"Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but
  no questioner is found?"

Yes.

"Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no
  choice maker will be found?"

Yes.

"If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the
  choice ?"

Yes.
Now I ask: 
Is there an I (a choice maker) that made the choice?
No.
Is there a choice?
No.
Is there a question?
No.
How could that be?!
Firstly there is an I, there is a choice and there is a question. Secondly, there is no I, no choice and no question.
How could that be?!
With decision (volition) there arises the I. With decision (volition) there arises the choice. With decision (volition) there arises the question. 
That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie.
It is like taking clay and forming a vase claiming "This is a vase", and not seeing that it is not a vase but just clay.
How can I prove that?
I cannot.
How can I explain it to you so that you will see this?
I cannot.
It is like you asking me "What is below the basement of my house?" and me replying "There is immense gold. Hundreds and thousands of gold, emeralds, coins. Tons and tons and tons! So immense in value that the whole universe could be made wealthy with it!" and you not even digging under your house to check my claims.
How can I explain what the "clay" is?
I cannot.
It is like you asking me "What is the taste of this fruit?" and me replying "Delicious! Soo good!" and you not even taking a bite to taste the fruit yourself to see the taste yourself.
EDIT:
Prajñāpāramitā sutra:

"You should  look  upon 
  everything  as  an illusion,  a  transformation,  a  dream,  a 
  bubble,  or  a  shadow — as unreal."
"Subhåti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are
  called dharmas."

Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf
Diamond sutra:

"A shooting star, a clouding of the sight, a lamp, An illusion, a drop
  of dew, a bubble, A dream, a lightning’s flash, a thunder cloud—This
  is the way one should see the conditioned."

https://hyanniszendo.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/diamondsutra_lettersize1.pdf
When I read the above, "everything" and/or "conditioned" I understand as everything that is experienced with the senses. 
If you look at dependent origination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#/media/File:Paticca-Samuppada.JPG, "everything" and/or "conditioned" arises from volitional activities (activities).
Thus, you get this statement:
"That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie."
Be careful. I with the above statement do not imply that everything is not real. Nor do I imply that everything is real. Nor do I imply that something is real and something is not real, nor any combination of real/unreal. I know it doesn't make sense, but I think it is understandable enough for you to move you in the right direction. You must see it yourself.

user471: In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha advised:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
  yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
  island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

How can you be a refuge unto yourself if your "self" doesn't exist at all?
In this answer, Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote:

In Theravada Buddhism we recognize two levels of truth; conventional
  truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca).
  Conventional truth relies on a spatio-temporal paradigm, in which
  there exist people, places, and things. It is the level on which "you"
  and "I" exist, and it is the level on which a "person" becomes
  "enlightened". None of this has anything to do with the characteristic
  of non-self, which works on the level of ultimate truth. Ultimate
  truth relies on an experiential paradigm, in which there exists only
  the momentary experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
  feeling, or thinking.

Ven. Thanissaro said in his series of talks:

"If there is no self, what does the action and what receives the
  results of the action?" ... this question is misconstrued in two ways.
The first is that the Buddha never said that there is no self, and he
  never said that there is a self. The question of whether a self does
  or doesn't exist is a question he put aside.
The second reason for why the question is misconstrued is because it
  has the framework backwards. It's taking the teaching of not-self as
  the framework and kamma as something that's supposed to fit inside the
  framework. Actually, the relationship is the other way around. Kamma
  is the framework, and the teaching of not-self is meant to fit in the
  framework. In other words, the Buddha takes the teachings on skillful
  and unskillful kamma as his basic categorical teaching. Within that
  context, the question on self and not-self becomes: When is a
  perception of self skillful kamma, and when is a perception of
  not-self skillful kamma? And when are they not skillful?
So to get the most use out of the teachings on self and not-self, we
  have to approach them with these questions in mind. The Buddha is not
  trying to define what you are. He's not trying to fit you into a box.
  He's more concerned with helping you. He tries to show you how you
  define yourself so that you can learn how to use that process of
  self-definition in a way that leads to the ultimate goal of his
  teaching: the end of suffering and the attainment of ultimate freedom,
  ultimate happiness. In this way the teachings on self and not-self are
  part of the answer to the question, "What when I do it will lead to my
  long-term welfare and happiness?"


user254: can I say that, this question exists but no questioner is found?
I think that people can say anything they like: but that merely "saying" it isn't enough to make it arya or wise, useful in practice.
Saying "no questioner is found" reminds me of this Zen story, Nothing Exists -- which I recommend, because I think it's a good illustration of this topic:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another.
He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?
Maybe not. The Buddha famously found a house-builder (Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154):


I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!

Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.




user8157: 
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

This quote is 3/4 false. This is not a quote from the Buddha but by a 5th century scholar named Buddhaghosa. It is not beautiful. It is nihilism.
Suffering can only exist due to the idea of a sufferer. Suffering ends when the idea of self ends. Therefore suffering is the same as the delusion of a sufferer. To quote from SN 12.15:

This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become
engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental
standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand
about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is
only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing

If there was no 'sufferer', why did the Buddha teach to abandon the idea of 'self' in order to end suffering? While the sufferer is an illusion, it is this illusion that creates suffering. Suffering can never be separated from the idea of a sufferer (upadana; jati; sakkaya ditthi; asmi mana).
Deeds only exist due to the idea of a doer. This is why the teachings about good & bad kamma teach it is "a being" ("satta") that reaps kamma. (Note: "a being" is also merely an illusion. Refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10). For example, if there was no idea of self, deeds would not be done (unless they were the selfless compassionate deeds of a Buddha to help other realise not-self). This is why it is said kamma ends when not-self is realised by the eightfold path (AN 6.63). Therefore, kamma depends on the idea of the doer (self); just as suffering depends on the idea of a self.

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of kamma. AN 6.63

The mind travels the path, therefore there is a traveller, which is the mind (but not a self). The Dhammapada states:

274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.
275. Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.
276. You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds
of Mara.

The writer who wrote this quote did so so he could be reincarnated in a Brahmanistic (Hindu) heaven. He did not understand Buddha's teachings. The writer believed in self & wrote philosophy for the purpose of personal fame:

By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this  And any other still in hand So may I in my next becoming
Behold the joys of Távatimsá.
Page 747


11541: <p>Anatta is beautifully described <a href="http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/anatta.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. The following quote sums up the idea of no self:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no
  doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
  it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but no questioner is found?  </p>

<p>Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found? </p>

<p>If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the choice ? </p>

<p>EDIT: Some people have raised doubt over the validity of the quote above saying that this is not the mainstream Buddhist thought. </p>

<p>To further support the argument that there is no sufferer I quote from the book 
 <a href="https://archive.org/details/buddhahislifehis00olde" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddha: His Life ,His Doctrine ,His Order</a> BY Dr. Hermann Oldenberg(page 253): </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A seeing,a hearing, a conceiving, above all a suffering, takes place :
  <strong>but an existence, which may be regarded as the seer, the hearer,the sufferer, is not recognized in Buddhist teaching.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
 5000: <blockquote>
  <p>"Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but
  no questioner is found?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no
  choice maker will be found?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the
  choice ?"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Now I ask: </p>

<p>Is there an I (a choice maker) that made the choice?</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Is there a choice?</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Is there a question?</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>How could that be?!</p>

<p>Firstly there is an I, there is a choice and there is a question. Secondly, there is no I, no choice and no question.</p>

<p>How could that be?!</p>

<p>With decision (volition) there arises the I. With decision (volition) there arises the choice. With decision (volition) there arises the question. </p>

<p>That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie.</p>

<p>It is like taking clay and forming a vase claiming "This is a vase", and not seeing that it is not a vase but just clay.</p>

<p>How can I prove that?</p>

<p>I cannot.</p>

<p>How can I explain it to you so that you will see this?</p>

<p>I cannot.</p>

<p>It is like you asking me "What is below the basement of my house?" and me replying "There is immense gold. Hundreds and thousands of gold, emeralds, coins. Tons and tons and tons! So immense in value that the whole universe could be made wealthy with it!" and you not even digging under your house to check my claims.</p>

<p>How can I explain what the "clay" is?</p>

<p>I cannot.</p>

<p>It is like you asking me "What is the taste of this fruit?" and me replying "Delicious! Soo good!" and you not even taking a bite to taste the fruit yourself to see the taste yourself.</p>

<p><strong>EDIT:</strong></p>

<p>Prajñāpāramitā sutra:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"You should  look  upon 
  everything  as  an illusion,  a  transformation,  a  dream,  a 
  bubble,  or  a  shadow — as unreal."</p>
  
  <p>"Subhåti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are
  called dharmas."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf</a></p>

<p>Diamond sutra:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"A shooting star, a clouding of the sight, a lamp, An illusion, a drop
  of dew, a bubble, A dream, a lightning’s flash, a thunder cloud—This
  is the way one should see the conditioned."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://hyanniszendo.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/diamondsutra_lettersize1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://hyanniszendo.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/diamondsutra_lettersize1.pdf</a></p>

<p>When I read the above, "everything" and/or "conditioned" I understand as everything that is experienced with the senses. </p>

<p>If you look at dependent origination <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#/media/File:Paticca-Samuppada.JPG" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#/media/File:Paticca-Samuppada.JPG</a>, "everything" and/or "conditioned" arises from volitional activities (activities).</p>

<p>Thus, you get this statement:</p>

<p>"That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie."</p>

<p>Be careful. I with the above statement do not imply that everything is not real. Nor do I imply that everything is real. Nor do I imply that something is real and something is not real, nor any combination of real/unreal. I know it doesn't make sense, but I think it is understandable enough for you to move you in the right direction. You must see it yourself.</p>
 471: <p>In the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahaparinibbana Sutta</a>, the Buddha advised:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
  yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
  island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How can you be a refuge unto yourself if your "self" doesn't exist at all?</p>

<p>In <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7988/471">this answer</a>, Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In Theravada Buddhism we recognize two levels of truth; <strong>conventional
  truth (sammuti-sacca)</strong> and <strong>ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca)</strong>.
  Conventional truth relies on a spatio-temporal paradigm, in which
  there exist people, places, and things. It is the level on which "you"
  and "I" exist, and it is the level on which a "person" becomes
  "enlightened". None of this has anything to do with the characteristic
  of non-self, which works on the level of ultimate truth. Ultimate
  truth relies on an experiential paradigm, in which there exists only
  the momentary experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
  feeling, or thinking.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ven. Thanissaro said in his <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">series of talks</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"If there is no self, what does the action and what receives the
  results of the action?" ... this question is misconstrued in two ways.</p>
  
  <p>The first is that <strong>the Buddha never said that there is no self, and he
  never said that there is a self. The question of whether a self does
  or doesn't exist is a question he put aside.</strong></p>
  
  <p>The second reason for why the question is misconstrued is because it
  has the framework backwards. It's taking the teaching of not-self as
  the framework and kamma as something that's supposed to fit inside the
  framework. Actually, the relationship is the other way around. <strong>Kamma
  is the framework, and the teaching of not-self is meant to fit in the
  framework.</strong> In other words, the Buddha takes the teachings on skillful
  and unskillful kamma as his basic categorical teaching. Within that
  context, the question on self and not-self becomes: <strong>When is a
  perception of self skillful kamma, and when is a perception of
  not-self skillful kamma? And when are they not skillful?</strong></p>
  
  <p>So to get the most use out of the teachings on self and not-self, we
  have to approach them with these questions in mind. The Buddha is not
  trying to define what you are. He's not trying to fit you into a box.
  He's more concerned with helping you. He tries to show you how you
  define yourself so that you can learn how to use that process of
  self-definition in a way that leads to the ultimate goal of his
  teaching: the end of suffering and the attainment of ultimate freedom,
  ultimate happiness. <strong>In this way the teachings on self and not-self are
  part of the answer to the question, "What when I do it will lead to my
  long-term welfare and happiness?"</strong></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p><strong>can I say that, this question exists but no questioner is found?</strong></p>
<p>I think that people can say anything they like: but that merely &quot;saying&quot; it isn't enough to make it <em>arya</em> or wise, useful in practice.</p>
<p>Saying &quot;no questioner is found&quot; reminds me of this Zen story, <a href="http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/82nothingexists.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nothing Exists</a> -- which I recommend, because I think it's a good illustration of this topic:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another.</p>
<p>He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.</p>
<p>Desiring to show his attainment, he said: &quot;The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.&quot;</p>
<p>Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.</p>
<p>&quot;If nothing exists,&quot; inquired Dokuon, &quot;where did this anger come from?&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?</strong></p>
<p>Maybe not. The Buddha famously found a house-builder (<a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=153" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<ol start="153">
<li><p>I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (<em>Bodhi nana</em> or <em>Sabbannuta nana</em>) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in <em>samsara</em>. To be born again and again is, indeed, <em>dukkha</em>!</p>
</li>
<li><p>Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., <em>Nibbana</em>); the end of craving (<em>Arahatta Phala</em>) has been attained.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
 8157: <blockquote>
<p><strong>&quot;Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.&quot;</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This quote is 3/4 false. This is not a quote from the Buddha but by a 5th century scholar named <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhagho%E1%B9%A3a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddhaghosa</a>. It is not beautiful. It is nihilism.</p>
<p>Suffering can only exist due to the idea of a sufferer. Suffering ends when the idea of self ends. Therefore suffering is the same as the delusion of a sufferer. To quote from SN 12.15:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become
engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental
standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand
about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is
only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If there was no 'sufferer', why did the Buddha teach to abandon the idea of 'self' in order to end suffering? While the sufferer is an illusion, it is this illusion that creates suffering. Suffering can never be separated from the idea of a sufferer (<em>upadana; jati; sakkaya ditthi; asmi mana</em>).</p>
<p>Deeds only exist due to the idea of a doer. This is why the teachings about good &amp; bad kamma teach it is &quot;a being&quot; (&quot;satta&quot;) that reaps kamma. (Note: &quot;a being&quot; is also merely an illusion. Refer to SN 23.2 &amp; SN 5.10). For example, if there was no idea of self, deeds would not be done (unless they were the selfless compassionate deeds of a Buddha to help other realise not-self). This is why it is said kamma ends when not-self is realised by the eightfold path (AN 6.63). Therefore, kamma depends on the idea of the doer (self); just as suffering depends on the idea of a self.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of kamma. AN 6.63</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The mind travels the path, therefore there is a traveller, which is the mind (but not a self). The Dhammapada states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.</em></p>
<p><em>275. Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.</em></p>
<p><em>276. You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds
of Mara.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The writer who wrote this quote did so so he could be reincarnated in a Brahmanistic (Hindu) heaven. He did not understand Buddha's teachings. The writer believed in self &amp; wrote philosophy for the purpose of personal fame:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this  And any other still in hand So <strong>may I in my next becoming
Behold the joys of Távatimsá</strong>.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Page 747</a></p>
</blockquote>
