user193: From reading this answer I come to understand that anatta means the lack of a core that can be conceived as self. If there is no permanent self, then who or what gets enlightened?

user533: To answer your question we just need to explore the concept of Anatta.
Anatta doesn't mean that there is nothing within us, there is a mind. All sentient beings have a mind, eventhough they have different bodies or are in different realms, this is all temporary.
What Anatta rejects is the idea of a soul that keeps your current caractheristics, just like we see in some movies. According to Buddhism all you can see in the mirror, your body, is nothing but your Kamma Vipaka, the consequences of your Kamma that have ripened.
Anatta also emphatizes the idea of not identifying with the body as something that belongs to us. Now you are a human being, tomorrow you could be a bee, a deva or a hell being. So essentialy your mind is just like any other mind except for the different Kamma is "carries" and creates. This mind is what can be enlighted.

user254: I think that this story suggests  that the "who" who "gets enlightened" is the "who" who needs the four noble truths: the "who" who experienced dukkha; the "who" who had manifested kleshas.
But I think that it's a difficult question to answer because it's a person's view of self which causes (or co-arises with) suffering; because that view of self should/must be abandoned on the way to enlightenment; and because that self is impermanent (even momentary) and enlightenment is opposite.
A dichotomy between self (which needs enlightening) and Bodhi (which means enlightened understanding) is expressed in the poems associated with Shenxiu and Huineng.

Only Shenxiu wrote a poem, anonymously on the wall in the middle of the night.[6] It stated:[7]
身是菩提樹，　The body is a Bodhi tree,
  心如明鏡臺。　The mind a standing mirror bright.
  時時勤拂拭，　At all times polish it diligently,
  勿使惹塵埃。　And let no dust alight.
After having read this poem aloud to him, Hui-neng asked an officer to write another gatha on the wall for him, next to Shenxiu's, which stated:[8]
菩提本無樹，　Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
  明鏡亦非臺。　The bright mirror is also not a stand.
  本來無一物，　Fundamentally there is not a single thing —
  何處惹塵埃。　Where could any dust be attracted?

The Platform Sutra describes the first of these as a way to practice ("You should all recite this verse so that you
will be able to see into your own natures. With this practice you will
not fall into the three evil ways.") but not as having attained enlightenment.
The second one is associated with "knowing the original mind" or "knowing the mind and seeing its true nature".

user7090: Same as the giver, the act of giving and the given. All three must be present to complete what is called "give". Similarly, if there is no self, the "self" is missing and thus there is no enlightenment. 

user471: The anatta concept doesn't say that there is no self - it says "not self" as in "all phenomena is not self". There is a self, but it is not permanent and is not independent from the inter-workings of the senses, sensation, perception, mind and consciousness.
For e.g. a static image that is projected on the wall - it is a result of light projected onto a wall from a projector. If you dig deeper, you can explain how a projector works, how electronics and electricity works. The image does not exist permanently and independently from the wall or projector or electricity. But this does not mean that the image does not exist. Surely it exists.
So, similarly, if a person become an Arahant while living, then this "self" or "person" surely is the one who became enlightened. But this "person" is not permanent or existing independently.

user18: The main point of the answer you cite is that anatta is a characteristic of ultimate reality. Your question misses this and conflates two different paradigms or levels of understanding.
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. 
So, the answer to "who becomes enlightened?" is "a being becomes enlightened." As to how that can be reconciled with the teaching on non-self, there is really no conflict, since non-self describes a characteristic of ultimate reality, at which level concepts like "being" or "enlightened" have no place.

193: <p>From reading <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1894/193">this answer</a> I come to understand that anatta means the lack of a core that can be conceived as self. If there is no permanent self, then who or what gets enlightened?</p>
 533: <p>To answer your question we just need to explore the concept of Anatta.</p>

<p>Anatta doesn't mean that there is nothing within us, there is a mind. All sentient beings have a mind, eventhough they have different bodies or are in different realms, this is all temporary.</p>

<p>What Anatta rejects is the idea of a soul that keeps your current caractheristics, just like we see in some movies. According to Buddhism all you can see in the mirror, your body, is nothing but your Kamma Vipaka, the consequences of your Kamma that have ripened.</p>

<p>Anatta also emphatizes the idea of not identifying with the body as something that belongs to us. Now you are a human being, tomorrow you could be a bee, a deva or a hell being. So essentialy your mind is just like any other mind except for the different Kamma is "carries" and creates. This mind is what can be enlighted.</p>
 254: <p>I think that <a href="http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/82nothingexists.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this story</a> suggests  that the "who" who "gets enlightened" is the "who" who needs the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths" rel="nofollow noreferrer">four noble truths</a>: the "who" who experienced <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dukkha</a></em>; the "who" who had manifested <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">kleshas</a></em>.</p>

<p>But I think that it's a difficult question to answer because it's a person's <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_%28Buddhism%29#Identity_view_.28sakk.C4.81ya-di.E1.B9.AD.E1.B9.ADhi.29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">view of self</a></em> which causes (or co-arises with) suffering; because <strong><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5862/254">that view of self should/must be abandoned</a></strong> on the way to enlightenment; and because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">that self is impermanent</a> (even momentary) and enlightenment is opposite.</p>

<p>A dichotomy between self (which needs enlightening) and Bodhi (which means enlightened understanding) is expressed in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng#Becoming_the_Sixth_Patriarch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the poems associated with Shenxiu and Huineng</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Only Shenxiu wrote a poem, anonymously on the wall in the middle of the night.[6] It stated:[7]</p>
  
  <p>身是菩提樹，　The body is a Bodhi tree,<br>
  心如明鏡臺。　The mind a standing mirror bright.<br>
  時時勤拂拭，　At all times polish it diligently,<br>
  勿使惹塵埃。　And let no dust alight.</p>
  
  <p>After having read this poem aloud to him, Hui-neng asked an officer to write another gatha on the wall for him, next to Shenxiu's, which stated:[8]</p>
  
  <p>菩提本無樹，　Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;<br>
  明鏡亦非臺。　The bright mirror is also not a stand.<br>
  本來無一物，　Fundamentally there is not a single thing —<br>
  何處惹塵埃。　Where could any dust be attracted?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://ww.satrakshita.com/Books/Platform_Sutra_Yampolsky.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Platform Sutra</a> describes the first of these as a way to practice ("You should all recite this verse so that you
will be able to see into your own natures. With this practice you will
not fall into the three evil ways.") but not as having attained enlightenment.</p>

<p>The second one is associated with "knowing the original mind" or "knowing the mind and seeing its true nature".</p>
 7090: <p>Same as the giver, the act of giving and the given. All three must be present to complete what is called "give". Similarly, if there is no self, the "self" is missing and thus there is no enlightenment. </p>
 471: <p>The anatta concept doesn't say that there is no self - it says "not self" as in "all phenomena is not self". There is a self, but it is not permanent and is not independent from the inter-workings of the senses, sensation, perception, mind and consciousness.</p>

<p>For e.g. a static image that is projected on the wall - it is a result of light projected onto a wall from a projector. If you dig deeper, you can explain how a projector works, how electronics and electricity works. The image does not exist permanently and independently from the wall or projector or electricity. But this does not mean that the image does not exist. Surely it exists.</p>

<p>So, similarly, if a person become an Arahant while living, then this "self" or "person" surely is the one who became enlightened. But this "person" is not permanent or existing independently.</p>
 18: <p>The main point of the answer you cite is that anatta is a characteristic of ultimate reality. Your question misses this and conflates two different paradigms or levels of understanding.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>So, the answer to "who becomes enlightened?" is "a being becomes enlightened." As to how that can be reconciled with the teaching on non-self, there is really no conflict, since non-self describes a characteristic of ultimate reality, at which level concepts like "being" or "enlightened" have no place.</p>
