text:
How could the Buddha know that he had attained enlightenment when he didn't know what it was?
Having learned and gained complete mastery from the two most famous teachers of his time, he decided to apply extreme austerities for some six years. With these skills acquired, driving a powerful concentration,  he abandoned it all in favour of a skill he discovered when as a child at the Kings Plowing Ceremony, where he entered the first jhana [Dhyāna] quite effortlessly.
Furthermore, added to this cache of tools, he prior added a powerful determination to not move from that spot, even if his blood should dry up, etc, etc. The subsequent release of this energy resulted in a spectacular display of meditative attainment.
In the first watch of the night investigating Kamma with respect to successive past lives, revealing causal sequence. In the second watch of the night, investigating Kamma with respect to consequences of currently available choices. In the third watch of the night, the realisation of deliverance.
Not much is said about the results of the third watch. It is a fairly common experience where insights coming from seeing a new possibility after examining two different phenomena with a common factor giving rise to a eureka moment.
But what may have happened in this case, such a eureka event further resulting in a realisation that Dukkha had ceased? The Buddha's quest finally achieved.
During the next eight weeks, the problem of describing a way of enabling others to achieve this result, though necessarily not in the same way, given the death of the two teachers, plus avoiding austerities, plus the absence of psychic powers.
In developing a tangible expression for the inexpressible, the Buddha further developed the right view, that Dukkha exists, arises and ceases according to conditions. Enabling the further development of the 'noble eightfold path'. According to tradition, all this happened in an instant, that is to say, the sequence happened very rapidly: the problem is to give it coherent expression. The result: the four noble truths.

Sorry I don't see how your question's title and its body relate?

The question sets up a dilemma. The three watches of the night, of the Night of Enlightenment, particularly the third watch, has never made sense to me with respect to either the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, the Four-Fold Setting Up of Mindfulness or Anapanasathi [as a lead into Samadhi]. Everything he taught seems to bear little relationship to his own actual experience, as passed on to Ananda, for the sake of posterity. By all means, add clarification.

In the third watch of the night He had the knowledge of the exhaustion of cankers, knowing that He had eradicated all defilements and made an end of ill.

The Three Supreme Knowledges of Lord Buddha
So the Buddha knew he had overcome defilements and was enlightened due to knowledge of the exhaustion of cankers.
Also with the arising of knowledge of the exhaustion of cankers the Buddha knew what enlightenment was.

This is a great question. In Buddha's time, there were many other ascetics claimed that they have attained Nibbana. However, the definition of Nibbana was varied.
Buddha realised that the elimination of Dukkha is the Nibbana. Then he defined the Dukkha with his revolutionary definition including Sankhara Dukka.
He realised the cause of Dukkha is the craving. He also realise that the way to eliminate craving is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path. He also discovered the way to stop Dependent Origination'
The night he enlightened he knew that he does not have any craving. This process is called the review.Paccavekkhana ñana:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81-%C3%B1%C4%81%E1%B9%87a
He also the first person to realise not self-nature of our existence.

He was also the first to have the ability to share it with others. He clearly had a talent for finding analogies, metaphors, similies for something that does not lend itself to a conventional description. He acknowledged others who also had this realisation.

On what grounds do you say he was the first to realise 'not self-nature'? .

Do you know anyone else?

Ever get drunk?  How did you know you were drunk the first time it happened?  Enlightenment isn’t like being drunk, but like that state, entrance into it is unmistakable.  Upon reaching it, the scales fall away and the very experience of self and suffering is irrevocably and fundamentally altered.  The Buddha knew full well that this, what he had discovered, was utterly different from anything he had learned up to that point.  Enlightenment really does speak for itself.

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu. Something never before experienced.

I am citing my answer to another question - Question
Part of my Answer:

When the Buddha (and so many other Buddhas) talk about no-self, they
  come from a direct experience of unity with everything. That is the
  source of “no self”. Their perspective is abolished. There is only
  truth for them. Unlike our experience where we are this body and mind
  and everything else is separate. And we have opinions about everything
  from our perspective.

Ever know the difference between Gautama and Buddha? Gautama is a person. Like you and me. Buddha is a general term given to one that knows the truth of everything. Buddha is one who has attained self realization. So, there are many Buddhas.
So when Gautama attained to self realization he BECAME a Buddha. And when Gautama attains and becomes a Buddha, Gautama as a person is gone. There is only the knowing, Tathagatha. The knower takes a backseat. What we know as I, me, self (in this case Gautama) takes a backseat. So he just knows.
This article highlights an important point like so

The Buddha asked himself similar questions, and after some years of searching came to extremely subtle, profound, and liberating truths—and these were truths, not beliefs; they were self-evident, obvious actualities. The view of himself as an individual, as ‘this person Siddhartha Gautama’, dissolved when he saw beyond thoughts, and he woke up as if from a dream. In consequence, he knew freedom from the horrors of the dreamlike existence that many, perhaps most, of us are engaged in right now. His life then opened out into the immediate, the spontaneous, that which is beyond thoughts, beyond views and opinions, and beyond habits and shadows of the mind.

The ultimate challenge to the usage of conventional language. The Buddha either didn't answer a question or explained that he only taught his 'handful of leaves' or spoke in similies etc. Direct description was never attempted. Thus the challenge of Stack Exchange to us of our present time.

I only read the title first - and user17's answer. I really don't get the story in OP.
But the title question strikes me, and it reminds me so much of L. Wittgenstein in his Tractatus. He tries to logically prove that 1+1=2, and in the end says something like:
"Well somehow I deeply understand all this, but due do limitations of myself and of language I cannot explain in words.
May my words be helpful for you as a throw-away ladder."

Now in Buddha's case a biological (man/nature) and spiritual (moral) enlightenment is also involved. And before I get lost (or raise protests) because I chop up enlightenment, I stop.

How could the Buddha know that he had attained enlightenment when he
  didn't know what it was?

He felt it.
Where does this question or idea come from, if I may ask?

The question was simply to prompt my own take on the issue. Bringing the three watches of the night into a perspective that has always given me pause for thought. Hoping that my answer might shed some light on the topic.

Imagine for a moment that you are walking around feeling tired and achy and miserable, and you don't why. Then you happen to look down and see that you're carrying a bowling ball. You must have picked it up the last time you went bowling (whenever that was) and forgotten to put it own, and it's been dragging on you all this time. So you put the bowling ball down, and the difference in how you feel is immediately tangible.
That's all that's happened here. The Buddha put down the weight of egoic existence, and the feeling was immediately tangible.

Free from all self-views. Including the view of No-Self.

Having experienced a completely profound release from stress and dissatisfaction, he let the contemplations of past and present Kamma go, so as to turn to this immediate experience and how to share it with others, in such a way as to attain to it themselves.
The Four Noble Truths bear little relation to the account of this first night of Awakening, yet enabled the listeners to share the experience themselves.

In terms of Dependent Origination, the role of ignorance is particularly subtle. Unknowingly activities, conditionally arise, resulting in a consciousness that doesn't know of the arising of its own origination factors. Instead, it progresses to the unspoken, unquestioned projection of Subject and Object, Nama Rupa. Which in turn also knows nothing of its own arising.
After stream-entry, a consciousness may arise that can discern this, but it too knows nothing of its own arising.
The arahat just lets it all go.


text:
Causes of downfall of a Man, pointed by Buddha in Mangala Sutta
As, pointed out by Buddha in Mangala Sutta, the causes of downfall of a man. Among those following is the one among them;
1) Those who have ample wealth does not support his old aged father and mother has a downfall!
Question remains, How if pursuing the goal of Nibbana, one abandoned the all relation and property. Including that of old age mother and father, won't have Downfall.
How, if that 1st statement is assumed valid, there was not a downfall of Buddha, although abondened his old age parents?
Please answer the above correctly!

Among those following is the one among them; 1) Those who have ample wealth does not support his old aged father and mother has a downfall!

Philosophy aside, just by going with plain simple logic and there's no contradiction here. The statement and the premise is clear: those who have ample wealth who do not support their aging parents will face downfall. The Buddha and His noble disciples did not have ample wealth and hence did not satisfy the condition for the downfall. Now including the philosophy, one can safely say that what the Buddha did at the end for His parents, siblings, son, their many relatives, and countless many people was an extraordinary kind of support no other worldly support was able to match:

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.” ~~ AN 2.32 ~~

You said The King Gautam didn't have ample wealth. Wow!

Mangala Sutta discusses things which are blessing or auspicious. Parabhava Sutta is what discusses what leads to one's downfall.

We understand this as explained by thee; this is the third cause of his downfall. Tell us the fourth, O Blessed One. What is the cause of his downfall?

Parabhava Sutta
Supporting one's parents is a blessing.

To support mother and father, to cherish wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation — this is the greatest blessing.

Mangala Sutta
If you are wealthy and having the means and do not take care of your parents this lead to your downfall. This essentially is applicable to householders, though the Vinaya explicitly allows for monks to take care of their parents.
In the case of the Buddha or a monk, one leaves a householders life to seek enlistment and one is living on the charity or alms of others who support you seek liberation. In this case, you do not have the means to support your parents as a householder would do. So this does not lead to your downfall.
The Buddha searched for the Dhamma and found it. When the time was right The Buddha gave the gift of Dhamma to his parents which surpasses any material benevolence he could have given them.

In Anguttara i, 62, the
  Buddha said that even if one should carry his mother on one
  shoulder and his father on the other shoulder for a hundred years
  serving them dutifully, one could never repay them. But if one could
  incite one's parents to practise generosity and morality and
  establish them in faith in the Triple Gem and wisdom, one does
  repay what is due to one's parents. Among the Ten Subjects of Right
  View, understanding that there are results of one's actions (kamma)
  towards one's mother and father constitutes Right View. Therefore,
  one should always hold them in veneration in one's thoughts, speech
  and action.

TEN BASES OF MERITORIOUS ACTION

@sandeeptelang Is it relevant that the parents consent to their child's becoming a monastic?

His mother died after childbirth, and his father was a Sakya clan leader, he didn't need wealth. Filial piety or family commitment wise, all craving must be abandoned, so as sad and irreconcilable that instant is (even though, always, the story of the Taoist farmer is good to remember), it is anyways at some point necessary on the path. Buddha later put in rules that disallowed his own path to a Sramana, such as the parents had to consent to their child's wish to become a monk.
In the end though, the wealth was given away, and as a revealer of Dhamma, as he said to Rahula when he demanded his wage for being his son, the 'only' remaining wealth he had to give was through teaching Dhamma, which he did to him, and to other members of his clan.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
The thorny issue of anatta
(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)
I recently read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings [1] [2] on anatta and although I found his arguments persuasive I am still conflicted.
I invite you to read them at least in part before reacting as they are rich in arguments and answers to the first objections that might come to mind.
Nevertheless, I quote TB's summary of his thesis and the objections he encountered:

These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” The thesis of that article (available in the essay collection Noble & True)—which I revised in 2013 both to tighten and to expand the presentation—was that the Buddha intended his teaching on not-self (anattā), not as an answer to the metaphysical/ontological question, “Is there a self?” but as a strategy for cutting through clinging to the five aggregates and so to put an end to suffering. The main argument I presented in support of this thesis in both versions of the article was that the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank, “Is there a self?”… “Is there no self?” he remained silent (SN 44.10). Similarly, in MN 2, he stated that such questions as “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” and “What am I?” are not worthy of attention because they lead to conclusions that fetter a person in a “thicket of views” and a “fetter of views,” including the views that “I have a self” and “I have no self.” In other words, any attempt to answer these questions constituted a side road away from the path of right practice.
The critique—“Anattā as Strategy and Ontology,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time. It takes issue both with the thesis and with the argument of my article, but in doing so it displays the scholarly bias mentioned above: that the practice of the Buddha’s teachings is primarily a process of leading the meditator to give full assent to the accuracy of those teachings as a description of reality, and that this assent is what frees the mind from suffering. Because this bias is not only the bias of the critique, but of so much thought in the Buddhist world, I thought it might be useful to explore how both the thesis of the critique and the arguments used in support of that thesis display this bias, so that it can be recognized for what it is not only in this case but also in other Buddhist writings.

I came across this page where Buddhists are debating the view of TB in opposition to Bhikkhu Bodhi's response. In particular, I found this answer interesting.
I'd like to hear your views on the arguments on both sides. Anatta: only a strategy for realization or a real "ontological" position?
Among the trilakkhanas, anatta is really the one I have the most trouble with. I can't understand it. And the more I learn about it, the more I realize that Buddhists don't seem to understand it either, given all the disagreements on the subject. Even within Theravada, many ajahn of the Thai Forest Tradition seem to reintroduce a form of self by talking about the "mind that does not disappear, immutable and indestructible reality" (which clearly resembles the Hindu atman / purusha). Ajahn Maha Bua, considered by his peers to be an arhat, stated that he "observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and Aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon.".
In the Mahayana it's even more obvious, we could talk about tathāgatagarbha, buddhadhātu, dharmakāya, dharmadhatu...
Absolutely all these concepts seem to me to be reinsertions through the window of the self thrown out the door. They all affirm, in one form or another, an ultimate reality, which they call "awareness" or "mind", a state of bliss… wich literally corresponds to the Hindu definition of the supreme self.
Yet the Buddha seems to speak explicitly of this state and describe it as just a step towards the summit:

Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of earth and the perception of the dimension of infinite space—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. (…)
 https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato

Even vacuity (sūnyatā) does not seem to be the destination, the infinite nothingness being only a penultimate stage of the jhanas.
What should we think about all this? At the end of the day, it seems to me that the subject can be summed up in one question:
It is often said that the Buddha would have affirmed that all phenomena are without self: sabbe dhamma anatta
Then the question arises as to whether Nibbana is a phenomenon (dhamma) or not. If this is not the case, as some people maintain, it is logical to consider that the supreme reality, being neither impermanent nor dukkha, does not possess the third seal of the no(t)-self either, and to start talking about this supreme mind, awareness, etc., which is not a dhamma, but a permanent and blissful source of all impermanent and unsatisfactory phenomena - by the way, how better to define the phenomenon than as what appears in consciousness? -; in this case, the border with the Hindu atman-brahman becomes extremely thin, not to say non-existent. If, on the contrary, Nibbana is also a phenomenon (dhamma), having no self, the difference with Hindu thought remains but then, what about the other two seals of all phenomena: anicca and dukkha? How to apply them to Nibbana?
Maybe, like dukkha and anicca, anatta must be abandoned once the destination is reached.

There are several questions brought up here. One I see you asking: is the entire teaching of Buddha- with everything it has to offer -- is a true explanation of reality or is it merely a useful fiction, an expedient mean for achieving a goal (liberation from suffering)?
To me the answer is clear.
Any explanation of reality is a conceptual model. Every conceptual model is an abstract summary - leaving out some details, and emphasizing important features and relationships. Now, what do we mean when we say "important f&r"? Nothing can be important in and off itself. Something is important only inasmuch as it helps attaining some kind of objective. Important is always important "for something". This "important for something" is what defines which features and relationships we keep in our conceptual model and which details we omit. So any explanation of reality serves a purpose. This purpose determines the limits, the method, and the shape of the explanation.
Buddha's teaching is also like this, it is an explanation of reality serving the purpose of liberation from suffering.
It does NOT mean Dharma is a useful fiction. As any conceptual model it is a purpose-chosen subset of the Truth. But it's not enough for something to be true, indeed there is an infinite number of ways to slice and dice the same truth. Dharma must not only be True but also has to be useful. Buddha said times and again: the right speech is not just factual, it must be useful. He also said, in one of the suttas ("the safe bet") - if we assume Theory X as our working basis, how will this choice determine our future? Not every valid theory is useful. Dharma is famously "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end".
So Buddha's teaching is an explanation of reality serving the purpose of liberation from suffering.
The second topic I wanted to take up, is your comments about Mahayana. The way you characterize Mahayana's position shows your very (VERY) shallow understanding of Mahayana in general and Madhyamaka in particular.
In the Mahayana it's even more obvious, we could talk about tathāgatagarbha, buddhadhātu, dharmakāya, dharmadhatu...

Absolutely all these concepts seem to me to be reinsertions through the window of the self thrown out the door. They all affirm, in one form or another, an ultimate reality, which they call "awareness" or "mind", a state of bliss… which literally corresponds to the Hindu definition of the supreme self.

I suggest that you educate yourself to the Rangtong-Shentong debate before making any statements equating Mahayana's position(s) with Hinduism.
In Mahayana tradition, there's a very clear understanding that Buddha's message comes in multiple stages, called Gradual Training. Theravada recognizes this, too. The teaching is organized in levels from the most simplified to the most accurate. The teaching about rebirth is the most basic. The teaching about Anica, Dukkha, Anatta, Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination - are intermediate. But what is the ultimate teaching?
To me, Buddha's ultimate position is made clear in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta:

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
...
Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Thanissaro Bhikkhu has a pretty nice post about the levels of teaching, which by the way, also shows how even the teaching of Anatta is transcended on the ultimate level:  https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/OnThePath/Section0008.html

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

SN 44.10 is not about anatta (not-self).
In SN 44.10, based on the Buddha's final summation to Ananda, the befuddled Vacchagotta essentially asked: "Do I exist?" ("atthattā"); "Do I not exist?" (natthattā). Both questions of Vacchagotta included an implicit belief in "self". That is why they were faulty questions and the Buddha remained silent. As the Buddha concluded:

If I had answered... Vacchagotta... would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’

Vacchagotta never ever asked about "not-self" ("anatta"). That Ven. Thanissaro wrote an entire thesis based on the confused questions of Vacchagotta was probably one of the most embarrassing events ever in modern Theravada Buddhism.
While my answer is sufficient to debunk the befuddlement of Ven. Thanissaro, Ven. Sujato replies to Ven. Thanissaro's befuddlement, here: On not-self, existence, and ontological strategies.

Also, 'sūnyatā' does not mean 'vacuity' or 'nothingness'.

Also, "anatta" is "ontological", i.e., an inherent natural reality unrelated to any human perception of it; as clearly said in AN 3.136.

Good answer and that link to Ven. Sujato’s essay is valuable and excellent! Thank you. Makes me want to read more from him.

I'd like to hear your views on the arguments on both sides. Anatta: only a strategy for realization or a real "ontological" position?
It is both.
It is a fact that the direct realization of emptiness is the true antidote to all that ails us in samsara. As such, we must not minimize the importance of annata - it's true understanding and direct realization of it - as the ultimate way to fulfill the soteriological aims of the Dharma. There is no substitute. Only a full and complete and direct realization of anatta will accomplish our aims.
On the other hand, the emptiness of all phenomena - and its flip side dependent arising - is the ultimate truth. If is the supreme fact of existence. I would not describe it as 'a real ontological position' but if I can infer what you are after with those words... then I'd say, yes, more or less that is what you arrive at or at least it is a necessary step on the path to a direct realization.
Often times, people who don't understand anatta or are confused by it - even at a correct, but limited intellectual/conceptual level - fall back to the thicket of views sutta. But this is sour grapes. And rightly so. This is dangerous stuff. But there is a correct intellectual and conceptual understanding of anatta and it is extremely hard to arrive at and it is by no means sufficient to stop at this level. It is absolutely necessary to arrive at this level - a correct conceptual/intellectual understanding - before proceeding to a direct realization.
The truth is that most lowly beings are not even close to a correct conceptual understanding of anatta and that trying too hard to reach this level can be dangerous to them. That is why the Buddha gave the thicket of views admonition and was silent. He was dealing with an audience that simply was not ready to go further. They did not have the requisite merit to proceed and had they done so at that time they would have harmed themselves. So the Buddha was compassionately telling them what they needed at that time to prevent them from harming themselves.
What people don't understand is that a correct understanding of annata - while absolutely necessary to completing the soteriological goals of the lowly beings - is also extremely dangerous thing to wrestle with. It is a snake that incorrectly grasped will bite and send beings into the lowest of hell worlds, but correctly grasped can be used to extract venom that can be turned into the ultimate medicine. If incorrectly grasped, people will fall to extreme views of annihilationism or eternalism which will wreck their practice and decimate the stores of merit they have built up.
Understanding annata is hard and it is extremely dangerous and it is absolutely necessary and indispensable to achieving the aims of the Buddha for all of us beings. That is why it is so important to have good self assessment for both teachers and students and to understand the risks and rewards. This is dangerous and delicate business. Guard rails are present and are in the suttas and people should heed those warnings and use those guard rails lest they fall into ruin.

Interesting answer. Do you have any references that I can turn to to read a correct conceptual statement/explanation of anatta?

I can only tell you the things that helped me to get some meager inklings, but I don't know you or your mind or your merit and therefore have no idea if they will help you at all or just lead you to ruin. The things that helped me (non exhaustive) are first and foremost reading and reading and pouring over and translating and looking at commentaries and every opinion that I could find of Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. This is the absolute pinnacle source text to understanding anatta. There is nothing that has helped me more.

I also have this hunch about Nagarjuna. Thank you!

I think the book Insight into Emptiness is excellent at giving the guide rails as well and describing what the path looks like up to and beyond the mere way station of arriving at a correct inferential/conceptual understanding of emptiness. It describes the stages you can expect to go through as you embark on the journey to a direct realization.

Thanks! I note the reference.

I'm not sure where in the world you are, but I'll also note the guy who literally wrote the book on Nagarjuna's MMK (the definitive translation into english imo) is giving a week long retreat about it here: https://sravastiabbey.org/event/objective-and-subjective-emptiness/

I'd like to hear your views on the arguments on both sides. Anatta: only a strategy for realization or a real "ontological" position?
It is both.
From Sutta Nipata 4.14:

Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
  clinging to nothing in the world?"
  "He should put an entire stop
  to the root of objectification-classifications:
  'I am the thinker.'

This answer talks about a strategy for freedom from suffering, but it also offers an ontological position concerning the self. "I am the thinker" is the hint.
The self is simply a mental idea, a thought, a view. It's an impermanent thought that arises and ceases from time to time.
With the self mental idea as reference, one objectifies and classifies (or reifies) everything else as non-self things. That's papanca. This answer connects self and reification to craving and suffering. This question connects Theravada emptiness to Mahayana emptiness.
It may be argued that apart from the mental idea of the self, there is some other self, that is the True Self.
For this, the answer comes in 2 suttas. The first is the SN 35.23:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and
  sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and
  tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the
  all.
“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I
  shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his
  part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and,
  further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”

If there is something that is the True Self, it must be within the range of The All.
And then from SN 35.83:

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
  self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self
  and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of
  what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to
  self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self.
  Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever
  feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or
  painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and
  of what belongs to self.
“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
  self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”

So, from all the above sutta references, we can see that the self is just a mental idea, and apart from it, everything else of The All is empty of a self and empty of what belongs to a self. It is no point discussing if there is a self beyond The All.
The luminous mind is not anything permanent or unconditioned. That's discussed in this answer. It's simply an impermanently arising and ceasing mental state that is undefiled, that becomes defiled by incoming defilements in a non-arahant.
In this answer and this answer, we can see that Nibbana is not a self or a thought or consciousness or feeling or state of mind, and it is within The All as a phenomena that is a sense object for the mind. It's the only phenomena which is not conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not arising, not ceasing and not changing.
Here, AN 9.34 gives us the hint about Nibbana:

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
  nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
  blissful about it.

"If there is something that is the True Self, it must be within the range of The All." No. What perceives the range of the All of which the Buddha speaks? This quotation is illogical without assuming an awareness of these elements. The True Self is not "in the range of the All" but what perceives this range, by which there is a "range of the All". "The luminous mind is not anything permanent or unconditioned (...)." So the difference with atman-brahman = process vs. substance?

That is indirectly answered here. It is related to dependent origination. Basically, the gist of the answer for "what perceives The All?" is that the mind and the processes of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations) working together according to dependent origination is that which perceives The All. These are conditioned, compounded and impermanent. There is no need for anything more than that.

It's like saying that the self is an emergence of the 5 aggregates, which the Buddha refutes (MN 109). If that were the case, Nibbana would be an annihilation of that self, which the Buddha also denies.

Take a look at the Vina Sutta. It uses the analogy of a lute, a musical instrument. Different parts of the musical instrument work together to produce music. But if you break the musical instrument down into its constituent parts, you cannot find music by itself. Similarly, the self is an emergent mental idea that arises when the processes of the 5 aggregates work together according to dependent origination. But if you break down the 5 aggregates into its constituent parts, you cannot find the self anywhere.

This position is tantamount to saying that Nibbana is an annihilation!

The enlightened annihilated their self view, their mental idea of a self and things that belonged to it, that was the cause of reification, craving and suffering. Apart from this mental idea of a self, there is no other self to be found. Your shock that Nibbana seems to suddenly annihilate the self is well-described in SN 44.10. In this sutta, the Buddha says that if he replied that there is a self, this would be against sabbe dhamma anatta. But if he said there is no self, the questioner may become bewildered.

I think you should think through what has been said here about nibbana and open a new question Kalapa that directly addresses it rather than continue in this comment thread

First contrary to what mahayanists  and the people who do vipassana mediation claim, anatta is not dangerous, that's the point of the buddha. In fact is it seeing that  the things which are anicca are dukkha and that things which are dukkha are anatta which make people righteous, worthy of offering and praise.
Mahayanists and the insight people say that their philosophies are dangerous because their wrong methods make indeed people worse and fail to even generate much merit.
Second it is not a good idea to try to think about the dhamma with whatever ideas rationalists talk about, like reality, existence and ontology, true nature and so on.
Same thing with trying to cram the idea of time into the dependent origination and asking over how many lives the DO span.
Like the buddha say, puthujjanas can only think in terms of either existence or non-existence and when they try to talk about what they experience, they always make a fool of themselves and completely  miss the truth.
So for instance, for puthujjanas, it makes sense that the mind is the true nature and that phenomena are not real and in fact not even existent.
 So all the speculations written in the books by the philosophers like Nagarjuna and so on will not help you at all to understand the dhamma. Especially when they speculate on the Bahiya sutta.
Like you said, even today some bikkhus in theravada claim that the citta of an arhant does not die, but lives eternally.
People mostly get confused because they mix the path with the destination and it turns out that the path looks a lot like the result, without being the result.
The path is memorizing and then  forcing the proper view of seeing the conditioned things as anicca, dukkha, anatta, day after day, until there is no cravings at all (which is the result of the path).
And then there is also the confusion about the path for making merit and the path to actually be enlightened (the path for making nibanna includes the path of merit (ie sila+samadhi) but wisdom is required for nibanna and samadhi is the bridge between sila and wisdom).
The path is directly built on the right view that the  buddha exposes, instead of, say, relying on some moronic view created by some puthujjanas (like about the jhanas, or metta and so on) and then at the last minute, switching to the right understanding of the method (eg about the goal of sila, or the jhanas) and getting the right liberation, ie lack of craving.
So with the path exposed by the buddha, right at the beginning you must always have in memory the teaching and the goal of each step, and forcing the view of anatta, dukkha and anicca. This is called mindfulness and it has nothing to do with what the mahayanists do, nor with the corporate mindfulness, the medical mindfulness and the military mindfulness of the westerners .
It is not like you force to view vedana as dukkha, then once there is right liberation, you discover that in fact vedana is not dukkha. Same thing with anatta. With right liberation, you do not say ''woah in fact volition has been atta all along, seeing it as anatta was a just a trick to get right liberation''.
If you want to ''understand'' anatta, whatever that means, you have to  follow the path of the buddha, whatever that is, which turns out to keep  in memory  the exposition on wisdom by the buddha and forcing to base your life on wisdom instead of whatever wrong view puthujjanas taught you or you actually cling to.
Concerning ''Nibbana is a phenomenon'' that's again from the worthless point of view of intellectuals, of existence and non existence, because those people fail to talk about nibannna as lack of craving, bhava, birth and so on since they cling to their talk about phenomena, realities and true nature.
So for instance, you take a shower, you are wet of water, then like everybody you dry  yourself with a towel, then you are dry of water. Nibanna would be ''being dry after a having showered''. Even puthujjanas do not talk about ultimate reality when they say that they dry themselves after a shower. But when they talk about nibanna they jump directly to those wrong ideas, whereas drying yourself is exactly like removing craving.

Not a bad answer, if you removed all the negative talk and kept to the point. Seems like you can't speak about right view without contrasting with wrong view all the time.

With atta (identity), one might declare:

Maybe, like dukkha and anicca, anatta must be abandoned once the destination is reached.

Identity is bound up in wishes and if one reads the preceding as wishful of the permanence of self, the following applies:

SN12.64:3.3: If there is desire, relishing, and craving for consciousness as fuel, consciousness becomes established there and grows.
MN44:2.4: That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.”

In addition, the particular difficulty of abandoning anatta with the destination reached, is that anatta would be therefore be construed as impermanent, which clashes with:

DN33:2.1.140: the perception of impermanence, the perception of suffering in impermanence, the perception of not-self in suffering, the perception of giving up, and the perception of fading away.

With anatta, life is:

DN33:1.11.200: So anattantapo aparantapo diṭṭheva dhamme nicchāto nibbuto sītībhūto sukhappaṭisaṃvedī brahmabhūtena attanā viharati. (47)
DN33:1.11.200: They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.

Can you explain to me how Nibbana could have one seal (anatta) without the other two (anicca and dukkha)? Is this a phenomenon or not?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is there something specifically wrong with keeping the 8 precepts as a lay person?
I know that the 5 precepts were intended for lay people. I know that in lay life, most people choose to only keep the 5 precepts, and there is no requirement to keep any more. I know that sometimes lay people take the 8 precepts temporarily. However, is there anything specifically wrong with a lay person keeping the 8 precepts on an ongoing basis? I know it's harder to do as a lay person as opposed to a novice(edit: I meant anagarika). But is it specifically discouraged or wrong for any reason?

Go for it. You can keep the precepts without becoming a 'Buddhist'. The precepts are good advice for your benefit, not rules of membership.   ,

No.
In fact, an anagarika (literally a homeless one) would observe the Eight Precepts on a full time basis, but in addition, would not maintain a lay household i.e. they would live a nomadic lifestyle or live in a monastery.
An anagarika is neither a novice monk (samanera) or a fully ordained monk (bhikkhu), but is a kind of informal state between lay life and novice monk, with far less rigid rules compared to monkhood. For e.g. they can deal with money and perform financial transactions. They can also cook their own meals. Monastic rules related to non-intimate interactions with the opposite sex also do not apply to them.
Usually, those who are interested in becoming monks would be asked to spend some time in a monastery, first as an anagarika, then some more time as a novice monk (who keep the Ten Precepts), before undergoing full ordination.
However, there are some people who have preferred to become full time anagarikas like Anagarika Munindra.
Even if one is not an anagarika, it is still foreseeable that a lay person could keep the Eight Precepts on a full time basis.

No.
That is the entirety of my answer as I don’t think it
needs elaboration, but I am adding this to get around the 30 character limit.

If your intent is to live a renunciant's life, then yes.
Taking the eight precepts is the best thing you can do to calm the mind.
From personal experience, it is much easier to follow the eight at a monastery. Because of this, you need to be more lenient with beautifying the body (you cannot wear all white all of the time!) and the practice of not eating after noon (just make certain not to eat after your noon meal.)
Anything from which you are running show up on the eight precepts. They are hard, so the practice of the eight precepts must be taken with respect.
Good luck.
You are doing a practice that the noble ones respect.

I would not say "wrong". The precepts encourage awareness that leads to greater skill in practice.

MN8:13.1: Cunda, I say that even giving rise to the thought of skillful qualities is very helpful, let alone following that path in body and speech.

As we study the suttas, we become aware of many other aspects of practice that also apply, such as the brahmaviharas, which are limitless. Love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity are to be extended and nurtured as an aspect of practice.
For example, I prefer to sleep on futons, but my wife prefers to sleep on high and comfortable beds. She has trouble sleeping and prefers me close, so when she sleeps I sleep by her. When she is not around I sleep wherever.
Another example is that I cook dinner for her but save my portion for eating the next day. Cooking requires tasting, which is eating. When she is away I don't cook in the evening.
Even though my observances are lax, the benefits have proven themselves again and again with greater joy and equanimity. I no longer get "hangry" and can sleep anywhere. I take the Buddha's advice to Cunda to heart.
However, if I were to go forth as a monastic, my behavior would certainly be more strict!


text:
Tipitaka knowledge on relation between behaviour and movements of private organs
Elaboration::
There seems to be a relation between daily-life behaviour of a person and movements associated with his private parts.
These movements can be internal, can be external. Eg. are hardening during sleep, release of harmones(knowingly or unknowingly). Even the fluctuations in hardness seems to depict deep thoughts-with-behaviour of person, like egoistic speech, greedy thinking pattern etc.... whose stored force(in form of sankharas, probably) gives fluctuations in hardness.
I tried to find on internet, couldn't find. Are there any chapters dealing with such knowledge in tipitaka(of any tradition)?
(this time, it's not a challenge, rather a query.)

There is evidence that an arahant has undergone such transformation in body
  chemistry that he has gone beyond the dichotomy of masculinity and femininity. All
  normal physiological sexual functions seem to be atrophied in an arahant as it is said
  that seminal emission is impossible for an arahant even in sleep.32 We may also note
  the tradition maintaining that arahants never dream,33 maybe because they have attained
  such perfect mental health that there is no necessity to release tension through dreams.

Nibbåna As Living Experience (Lily de Silva)

The footnote is a reference to the Vinaya, in the section "allowance for a sitting-cloth (Vin 1.295)":

Thus it is, Ānanda, thus it is, Ānanda, that when they fell asleep, thoughtless, careless, impurity was emitted as the result of a dream. Ānanda, those monks who fall asleep calling up mindfulness, careful, by these impurity is not emitted; and, Ānanda, those who are ordinary people, passionless in regard to pleasures of the senses, by these impurity is not emitted. It is impossible, it cannot come to pass, Ānanda, that impurity should be emitted by one perfected.”

I quoted the reference (the OP asked for references).

Interesting Vinaya, which I have some slight skepticism towards. Not all nocturnal emissions come from sexual dreams. See link: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321351.php#facts-and-myths

At https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pj1/en/brahmali, a sleeping arahant monk had an erection due to wind and was mounted by two females. There was "moisture" visible to the other monks. So this story is saying the "moisture" is from the ladies???

Thanks. I was looking for it but I could not find that link. - )

When it is stiff because of sensual desire: for one oppressed by
  sensual desire, the penis becomes erect.
When it is stiff due to feces: for one oppressed by feces, the penis
  becomes erect.
When it is stiff due to urine:for one oppressed by urine, the penis
  becomes erect.
When it is stiff because of wind: for one oppressed by wind, the penis
  becomes erect.
When it is stiff because of being bitten by caterpillars: when bitten
  by caterpillars, the penis becomes erect.
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-ss1/en/brahmali

In this, I'm not discussing any particular attainment, but:
After 50 odd years practising Theravada, including some 20 odd years in a Forest environment, during which there was the endless fear of erection, I unwittingly developed techniques for reversing the energy flow back to the origin of sensation, based on [mis]conceptions of Kundalini.  The upshot of which is that whilst recently having returned to lay status and thus permitted relationships in accord with the third precept -  Kamesu micchacara - I am now permanently incapable of erection.

What about nocturnal emissions? Thanks


text:
Question about Buddhism
How would you describe the Buddhist world view. Is it realism where everything we observe is really existing out there in a public world and we are observing it or some sort of idealism whereby everything is mind which seems to be from what I have heard in one dhammapada verse but then I also read about the great elements or matter which exists according to Buddhism, so which one is primary matter or mind or what is the right relation between them?? Or maybe Buddhism is something in the middle maybe??, well I have no clue that is why I am asking you this question. I would like to hear both the Theravada and Mahayana perspectives.
Thank you,

Pretty sure we have questions about this already, did you search?

well I did but somehow I Didn't find the answer I was looking for. Thanks

Okay, can you do me a favor? Can you examine those questions and answers I linked and edit your question to ask about specifically what you think those other answers are missing?

what I have heard in one dhammapada verse

You heard this verse wrongly. This verse says all modes of behaviour are created by mind and, when the mode of behaviour is impure, suffering follows; and when the mode of behaviour is pure, happiness follows. This Dhammapada verse is about "kamma" rather than "solipsism".
Since Buddhism teaches suffering is caused by craving, attachment & self-centredness and suffering ends when craving, attachment & selfing are abandoned, whether things exist or not is not relevant to Buddhism.

If, while he is dwelling by means of this dwelling, his mind inclines to speaking, he resolves that 'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening or Nibbana — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.' In this way he is alert there.
MN 122

Great answer!, Could you give me any advice of good teacher that knows the right path. Just to come back to your question is "nama rupa depends on vinjana and vinjana depends on nama rupa some metaphysical ground like mind depends on matter and matter depends on mind or is it just showing how our internal experience of a self arises or ??? I hope you understand what I mean

The Mahayana view is easy. Nothing would really exist or ever really happen. Time and space would be conceptual. Mind would have no reality apart from its contents. The true nature of Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication.
Mahayana is easier to summarise than other schools because it has a clear and formal metaphysics. All positive metaphysical positions are rejected and this allows us to be quite definite about its existential claims.
It is not Idealism but may sometimes appear as 'Absolute' or 'Transcendental' Idealism (for instance see F.H.Bradley's Appearance and Reality).  Rather, it reduces both Mind and Matter. It is a neutral or non-dual metaphysical theory. Not a conjectural theory (a likely story) but a descriptive and explanatory theory.
This is the only known solution for metaphysical problems and this means it is the only doctrine that accords with human reason. More generally it is known as 'non-dualism'.
Your question about the priority of Mind and Matter illustrates how this solution works. Philosophers know that the idea either Mind or Matter is fundamental does not work, rendering this an undecidable question or antinomy. This problem has baffled the scholastics for millennia. Mahayana says neither idea works because they are both wrong, and wrong metaphysical ideas never make sense in logic. This is what Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle way, where he presents the logical and metaphysical underpinning of the Mahayana view.

Thank you Peter for your answer.


text:
Buddhism and entrepreneurship
Question
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the coordination of Buddhism and success in building business.
Context
Throughout my life, I have been provided guidance by Buddhist literature, sutras, and meditation. As an adult layperson, I felt I was doing myself a disservice and holding my spiritual development back by working on Buddhism alone in a vacuum. I realized I had no idea about 33% of the Three Jewels (the Sangha!), because I had never had a community or mentor.
It was the best decision I could have made. Although my local community didn't have any representation of the flavor of study which speaks to me most directly (madhyamika) -- "the teaching is the raft"! I got to think and talk about Buddhism with very smart and compassionate people. It gave me clarity and a sense of belonging to attend services and clean the temple. Additionally, to my surprise, some people really enjoyed the things I had to say.
Ok, so what?
Now things are different. I'm a man on a mission to success for my partners, my investors, and my team who all depend on me. This mission involves building lots of expensive technology that provides incredible value to people who need it.
I won't bore you with the details but for me it means means reams of legal liabilities, huge swings in uncertainty, building teams and providing tech leadership in extremely competitive markets.
I cannot imagine such a thing being possible without spiritual discipline. I have become better, more compassionate, a better communicator, and when practical and ethical issues arise, I feel like solutions exist that are derived from non-attachment that are real -- and they provide clarity and direction. I require that we treat our team members with compassion, refraining from false speech (teamwork, marketing and sales), and avoid taking what is not given (intellectual property, competition, finance).
Of course, it is irrelevant that this series of thoughtful steps conducive to everyone's happiness is called by me by some name. I certainly would hope that this isn't pushing my "religion" upon our organization, at least as it is understood in colloquial terms.
Realistically: this is the most effective, and in fact the only decision-making framework I am familiar with for producing a lifestyle suitable for a human being to live inside.
Finally
Well-meaning members of my sangha remind me that this path is incommensurate with the living practice of Buddhism. Somewhere in my heart, I feel like I've never been living it more than right now. How can I reconcile this understanding?
Thanks for your patience.

Might you welcome an answer based on the Pali suttas or is the [tag:mahayana] tag there saying "no thank you" to that?

Is this question possibly a duplicate of Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business? -- i.e. are you asking something which is or isn't already asked and answered there?

I require that we treat our team members with compassion, refraining
  from false speech (teamwork, marketing and sales), and avoid taking
  what is not given (intellectual property, competition, finance).

None of the above is uniquely Buddhist or even religious. Its just ordinary human ethics expected in any ethical workplace. There is no need to ever refer to "Buddhism".

Well-meaning members of my sangha remind me that this path is
  incommensurate with the living practice of Buddhism. Somewhere in my
  heart, I feel like I've never been living it more than right now. How
  can I reconcile this understanding?

There is nothing to reconcile. Most Westerners don't understand Buddhism very well. They have never studied the Buddhist teachings for laypeople and believe Buddhism only teaches the hardcore teachings for monks & advanced yogis.
For a lay person, earning a living is part of Buddhism; which includes carrying on a business. As long as the business is ethical, the Buddha in the Pali scriptures praised laypeople who are successful in carrying on a business.

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
Vanijja Sutta

And what is the bliss of having? There is the case where the son of a good family has wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my brow, righteous wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.
Anana Sutta

The wise and virtuous shine like a blazing fire. He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways like to a bee that honey gathers, riches mount
  up for him like ant hill's rapid growth.
With wealth acquired this way, a layman fit for household life, in portions four divides his wealth: thus will he friendship win.
One portion for his wants he uses, two portions on his business spends, the fourth for times of need he keeps.
Sigalovada Sutta

An ethical decision making framework leads upward:

AN8.35:1.12: The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.

Yet, driven by intention and wishes, it also leads to rebirth, which is not the goal of the Noble Eightfold Path.

AN8.35:4.8: As they’ve settled for less and not developed further, their idea leads to rebirth there.

And rebirth presents a challenge:

SN12.23:6.11: Rebirth is a vital condition for suffering.

So although Right Livelihood is the fifth step on the Noble Eightfold Path, it does not end there. The end of suffering beckons three more steps beyond. So don't stop with Right Livelihood. Keep going!
Another way to reconcile this understanding is given in DN33:

There are deeds that are dark with dark result.
There are deeds that are bright with bright result.
There are deeds that are dark and bright with dark and bright result.
There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.

You are succeeding with #2. Your Sangha is also practicing towards #4. Keep going!


text:
severe flu-like symptoms with profound malaise after intensive meditation
I have been practicing intensive shamatha meditation for many months now. On workdays I manage ~4 hrs of meditation, two very early in the morning and two at night. At weekends I do meditation for 6-8 hrs in intervals. I do have certain basic experiences like intermittent appearances of what I believe to be uggaha nimitta and very rarely what seems to be some early Piti which stays for some time and then vanishes. What I am troubled by, however, are the intense flu-like symptoms that I have been having for the last few weeks or so. There are severe aches and pains all over the body with profound malaise and a severe chill that has crippled me. There is no actual physical disease as such- I know that because I am a doctor by the way- but the distress it has caused me is immense. I have continued with my intensive practice and have not given up on it.I am hopeful that in near future, my meditations will help me to conquer this disability, yet I am worried at the moment. I seek the opinion and help of my senior brethren on the path to deal with this problem. Thanks.

Meditation is physically exhausting especially if you are fairly new to it.  The volume you are doing is drawing close to what we in Zen might do on a sesshin!  I’ve seen plenty of people wasted by that.  Try dialing it back a bit.  Half seems a respectable, but more manageable number.  If your symptoms abate, you can start sitting more.

I had been meditating the Vedantic way for over two decades intermittently previous to the shamatha meditation that I started a few months back, but that would be for a maximum of 2 hours or so. I must admit that I have increased the sitting hours quite a bit now and the pains and aches might have a physical reason too. Thanks for the suggestion dear friend.

While aches and pains sound very general and while severe chill symptoms are not familiar to me, often various 'excess wind' (prana) & physical/nervous tension (nervous system) symptoms can occur when too much mental energy or 'suppression' is applied to meditation. Therefore, it is likely 'suppression' meditation could result in aches, pains, immature nimittas and other symptoms.
The renowned 'Buddhist' commentary called the 'Visuddhimagga' refers to the 'uggaha-nimitta' and describes the attainment of jhana (absorption) via "suppression" and mental application ("vitakka"). Many Buddhists follow the Visuddhimagga.
However, the techniques & definitions found in the 'Visuddhimagga' in relation to meditation & jhana often have little support in the documented teachings of the Buddha.
To the contrary, the Buddha taught jhana (absorption) is developed by making "letting go" / "surrender" / "relaxation" ("vossagga") the meditation object, as follows:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana
Indriya-vibhanga Sutta

So, 'letting-go' is the key here. Perhaps, I am 'trying' too hard. I get your point. Thanks a lot sir.

You are welcome friend.

There is no actual physical disease as such- I know that because I am a doctor by the way- but the distress it has caused me is immense.

Since you're a doctor, you'd already knew the importance of physical exercises. Meditation is always good, but don't forget your daily dose of outdoor cardios. Remember that the Buddha and His noble disciples didn't just sit on their behinds all day long back in the good old days. They got great outdoor cardios by walking long distance on bare feet into towns and villages for alms-round! Now even if after doing cardios and you still experience those weird discomforts, then you might want to re-examine those meditation techniques you've been using for it'd sound there's something not quite right. For if one does it right, the benefits are not only in the well being of a much more subtle and refined mind state, but also a much more relaxed, light, and comfy physical body.

I think adding some amount of vigorous exercise might do me some good. Thanks dear friend.


text:
What are other peoples minds according to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra?
I read that everything is just my own mind from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. If everything is my own mind, what about other peoples minds? Are they also my own mind? How can this be understood?
For instance in Chapter 7 of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra there is this passage:

The Blessed One replied: There are four things by the fulfilling of
  which an earnest disciple may gain self-realization of Noble Wisdom
  and become and Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: First, he must have a clear
  understanding that all things are only manifestations of the mind
  itself; second, he must discard the notion of birth, abiding and
  disappearance; third, he must clearly understand the ego-less-ness of
  both things and persons; and fourth, he must have a true conception of
  what constitutes self-realization of Noble Wisdom, provided with these
  four understandings, earnest disciples may become Bodhisattvas and
  attain Transcendental Intelligence.

If all things are manifestations of my own mind, doesn't this mean Buddhism as expressed in this Sutra is the equivalent of solipsism? How do we understand the problem of other minds given this Sutra?

good question, thanks. the lankavatara sutra always stuck me as a very unique sutra -- even-though mind only is ofc not unique to it

Related: Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?, What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?

Don't quite agree with the other answers so I'll try and flesh out the differences.
First, it is important to understand that the cittamatra view is not the pinnacle of prajnaparamita. It is one stop that some beings need to arrive at before reaching the pinnacle of the perfection of wisdom.
Second, it is important to know that although the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra is popularly said by some to be a sutra supporting cittamatra, actually it is quite critical of it. You can find in the sutra quite explicit admonitions that some of the concepts popular with cittamatra are actually upaya used by the Buddha out of compassion for those who are not ready to understand conceptually the perfection of wisdom and who are prone to fall to annihilation or extreme fear as they approach the truth.
With those points made I want you to look at the third point in the verse sighted which has been overlooked.

The Blessed One replied: There are four things by the fulfilling of
  which an earnest disciple may gain self-realization of Noble Wisdom
  and become and Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: First, he must have a clear
  understanding that all things are only manifestations of the mind
  itself; second, he must discard the notion of birth, abiding and
  disappearance; third, he must clearly understand the ego-less-ness of
  both things and persons; and fourth, he must have a true conception of
  what constitutes self-realization of Noble Wisdom, provided with these
  four understandings, earnest disciples may become Bodhisattvas and
  attain Transcendental Intelligence.

Now look at the formulation of your question with emphasis on the third point above.

If everything is my own mind, what about other peoples minds? Are they
  also my own mind?

No, they are not your own mind. Your own mind is not your own mind. Because 'you' do not exist in the way that 'you' think you do.
What you are doing with your question is diving up the world into two; a duality if you will. On one side you have you and your mind. Set aside for a second the question of what 'you' are given that all things are manifestation of mind. On the other side you have the rest of the world and you interpret what the Buddha has said as putting you and your mind as masters of this world. You've interpreted it to say that only you and your own mind are real and all the rest is just a fiction that your mind is making up.
This is just not even close to what the Buddha was saying. Ask yourself... if all things are manifestation of the mind itself (note: not 'your' mind), then what of the mind itself? Is it also a manifestation of mind? Is the Buddha saying that only the mind is real? If only the mind is real, then there can be no thing, no separate non-mind thing, that is the 'owner' of that mind, right? So what does that make 'you'?
Let's just say hypothetically that the mind is real and the only thing that is real. So how do you interpret the third point above? The Buddha in the very same passage is telling us that all people and phenomena are empty. That neither people nor phenomena contain any inherent being. How can you square that with this idea of 'your' mind or even with the idea that 'mind' itself is real?
To truly understand these four points and what the Buddha is after in this passage you have to understand emptiness and what is meant by this third point. It is the teaching on emptiness and anatta that is unique and clears up any and all doubt that the Buddha was referring to some form of solipsism when teaching that all should be regarded as manifestation of mind. Mind itself is empty of any inherent being. Mind itself is not real.
I'm hopeful this is helpful, but if you find yourself just confused by this I'd suggest putting it down and focusing on the method aspects of the path.

Very nice. Thanks.

An excellent answer.

Thrangu Rinpoche once said that everything we see (all phenomena we experience) is our own projection - except other people's minds. Only other people's subjective experience is not our projection and therefore exists independently of us.

I was hoping for a more scripturally based answer. But this is not bad.

How to understand the lankavatara sutra and 'mind only' will depend on what practice or practices you are engaged with. At least some Buddhists thought that the "one mind" - Buddhahood -- includes all other minds.

From scholarship by Charles Jones, p113 of Chinese Pure Land Buddhism:
Incidentally, people complain about academic analysis, but I think that's pretty out dated. When Buddhism first came to the West, academics were concerned just with making philosophical sense of it, which was inevitably filtered through whatever philosophy was fashionable at the time (e.g. Hegel). But most of what I've read is very different -- more concerned with reconstructing what historical Buddhists thought and disagreed about.
So anyway, the idea of the one mind including every mind seems very Chinese -- Huayen / Tientai / Pure Land (Amitabha's pure land pervading all minds here already).
The point I'm getting to is that other minds I think are manifestations of our own -- at least our own consummate nature -- but we don't experience them that way due to delusion. Which is not to deny the existence of "other minds", vijñāna-santâna.
Or this, by Yung Ming

why the downvote to this well referenced reply?

I will own up to downvoting. I find this misleading in relation to the OP's quoted text. It feels a bit conjectural to me. You say 'I think other minds and manifestations of our own', and for me this is an opinion too far. Yeshe Tenley gives a model answer imho. It was a close decision. You make a good point about analysis.  .

It is an interesting answer and adds another perspective which I think is valuable and the scholarship is welcome.

the one mind is not something separate from us @PeterJ

@sorta_buddhist - Nothing is separate from us, but whether there is such a thing as MInd is a much debated issue. I still feel your answer is dodgy but I take note of Yeshe's comment. Perhaps I'm being ungenerous.

the only reason to think the answer is "dodgy" is that i say "our own [mind]" but that's no reason -- the question is couched in those terms @PeterJ

@sorta_buddhist Okay. Point taken. I think I didn't read it sympathetically. I added an edit in order to change my vote. Pardon my ungenerous first reaction.   .

That’s a very commonly misunderstood idea.  Yogacara is not solipsism.  What the sutra is referring to is how discrete dharmas (e.g. stuff in the world) is “transformed” by latent seeds in the storehouse consciousness, by the self conceit, and by the executive function of mind consciousness.  Things exist independent of our own minds.  We just never see them as such because our own conditioning is reflected back to us.    In essence, we don’t live in a world of true forms; instead we live in a world comprised solely of the delusions existing in our own minds.
These delusions can take on a seemingly infinite number of forms, but can generally be reduced to existential matters (e.g the hindrances, experience, the three cankers, etc) and fundamental perceptual errors (like the inability to perceive shunyata existing within the field of perception).  Yogacara, practically speaking, seeks to unburden us of those two sets of conditioning.  In fact,  Zen koans, a yogacara practice if there ever was one, operate on those two axises.  Some address existential matters, other seek to reorient perception.  As we begin to see through our conditioning, bit by bit, the world is revealed in its “thusness”.
So to answer your question, yes, other minds exist independently of our own, but so do bus seats, granola bars, and flat wear.  You’ve just never seen them - only the warped image that your own mind creates.

I downvoted this even though it has many good parts because of the sentence that “things exist independent of our own minds” which is not in keeping with yogacara and is also problematic for the more definitive doctrines beyond yogacara. In other words, yogacara does not go far enough and the sentence above does not go even as far as yogacara. Still, it is probably upaya for some and the answer is welcome.

Fair enough.  I was trying to stay out of the weeds as I was more interested in demonstrating that Yogacara isn’t solipsism.  Indicating that things don’t exist - and why - would more or less short circuit the answer.


text:
What arguments are there for "karma" -- that the agent inevitably experiences the result of their actions?
There are philosophical arguments for e.g. 'emptiness', as evidenced by it having sections in philosophy encyclopedias. Whether or not you agree with them, probably depends on your language and pre-philosophical intuitions -- which is arguably the same for any philosophy.
What about karma?

And what he taught is not the version of karma popular in certain circles today, according to which, for instance, an act done out of hatred makes the agent somewhat more disposed to perform similar actions out of similar motives in the future, which in turn makes negative experiences more likely for the agent. What the Buddha teaches is instead the far stricter view that each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues. So if there is a conflict between the doctrine of non-self and the teaching of karma and rebirth, it is not to be resolved by weakening the Buddha’s commitment to the latter.

Or again:

He who acts is the agent (kartr); that which is performed (kriyate) is
  karma; and the agent of karma is the one who experiences the result of
  that performed karma. Without karma, an agent is not established.

The Inner Kālacakratantra, unknown page.

The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview.
  In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have
  consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact,
  it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of
  karma as another manifestation of dependent arising
  (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything
  that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law
  of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally
  followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But
  they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably
  to appropriate consequences... The inevitability of karmic
  consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has
  presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing,
  lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an
  unpleasant human situation or in hell.

Just trying to explain what the mainstream and traditional interpretation of karma is. I think the conventional argument is from authority and the authority of memories of past lives. These I don't find convincing. Can it be inferred from any other Buddhist doctrine, such as emptiness?

I was looking at the wild fox koan here, and this part struck me:

Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny
  causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one
  cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and
  effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they
  are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this.

I think it seems to be saying that -- according to (the philosophy of) emptiness -- there is no escaping cause and effect because any cause is its effect.
But if we think about it, we don't --- or tend not to -- experience cause as effect. If we are going to, that's that, then the effect is somehow put off to another time: karma.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

i'm baffled by everyone else's bafflement. karma is a pretty basic doctrine @ChrisW any better?

So the question is about Karma as defined in that sentence/definition in the Standford Encyclopedia -- so I might read the question as, "what's the Buddhist argument for karma as it's defined here?", or possibly, "what's the argument for saying that this is the Buddhists definition of karma?". That (added definition) might be "better", e.g. Yeshe Tenley commented, "I don’t know what part of your own personal definition you find difficult".

returned the original title; the proposed one was too far away from the OP's

the hostility to academic analysis doesn't surprise me

Personnal experience is a good way to learn. From what i understand, buddhism isn't based on blind faith, so experience is an excellent teacher in that sense.
Although i won't quote any buddhist text, i don't think you need to see past lives to understand karma.
Anyone has experienced hatred, selfishness, and the following results on the mind. Actions born out of these mental states have immediate consequences on the doer.
Remorse is an obvious form of rapid karma, very destabilizing physically and mentally. Some people canno't survive remorse or live painfully for years or their whole life, altough it might seem some people are able to go without remorses.
On a mental level, the thought and energy you cultivated in the past are now defining your present experience. It is impossible to escape your present condition which is the result of past actions/toughts.
By reflecting on your life, you can be able to trace back some of the present elements to their past causes.

UPDATE based on the edited question with a suggested definition of karma.
While it is true that the Buddha taught that each and every volitional action has specific consequences this is most definitely not in opposition to the fact that repeated actions based on volitional thoughts can be habit forming. Indeed, consequences of a karmic action can be that it leads to further such actions.
If I were to tell you right now not to think of a pink elephant the chances are likely that you will do so in the immediate future. What's more, it is likely that many beings reading this will be thinking of pink elephants in a more distant future as a consequence of the pink elephant they are bringing to mind right now. I invite you to observe your monkey mind at work with its discursive thoughts and see if you can't trace the cause and effect consequence of each thought leading to others in a more or less continuous process. One moment of mind gives birth to the next and on and on.
Surrounding the definition in the Stanford Encyclopedia is a discussion of how karma and rebirth are in some tension with the Buddha's teaching on emptiness. I believe the correct conceptual understandings of emptiness, karma and rebirth resolve this tension.
This whole notion of the fruits of karmic action being delayed as some sort of puzzle is itself somewhat puzzling to me. In my very life I have observed that my actions can have far reaching consequences. Far reaching in time and space. What I have done or failed to do when I was young (decades ago) has manifested in the situation I am in now. Isn't that just obvious for you as well?
Asking where the consequence of a karmic action (that has ceased) is stored in time and space betrays the wish for a metaphysical explanation. And this metaphysical explanation leads to the doctrine of emptiness as it explains how things exist and how they do not. In what manner they exist and in what manner they do not. Asking where the consequence is stored (in time and space) betrays the idea that phenomena (including karmic actions) have substantial inherent own-being. They do not. That is explained and reasoned through by the teaching on emptiness that Nagarjuna has expounded.
The sutra below explicitly lays out that the Buddha says that the consequence is not stored in time and space. And it goes on to show that actions, consequences, death, birth, karma, are all void of own being. This is the teaching on emptiness.
Believing that the teaching on emptiness somehow is problematic for dependent origination or the law of cause and effect is just wrong. In fact, it is quite the opposite as Nagarjuna has said in his famous treatise! Without emptiness - that is if things had their own-being - then actions could not be performed and there would be no cause and effect or dependent origination.
Would encourage you to study Nagarjuna and trace his arguments if you can.

Although I am not certain about what your question actually is about I thought I'd share this passage from a rather obscure sutra that may help your mind:

THE NOBLE SUTRA OF THE MAHAYANA DENOMINATED - "THE PASSAGE THROUGH
  EXISTENCES"
Homage to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvaas. Thus have I heard. Once
  the Bhagavant stayed in Rajagrha, in the Bamboo-Forest, in the place
  of the kalandakas, in the company of a group of one thousand two
  hundred and fifty bhiksus and of very numerous great Bodhisattvas.
  Then, the Bhagavant, while he was surrounded by many hundreds of
  thousands of his followers, looking at them, expounded the Dharma and
  expounded in its integrity the Brahmacarya beautiful in its beginning,
  beautiful in the middle, beautiful in its end, fair in its meaning,
  fair in its expression, without confusion, completely fulfilled,
  completely pure, completely immaculate.
Then Sreniya Bimbisara, King of the Magadha country, going out from
  the town of Rajagrha, with great royal pomp, with a great royal force,
  went to the Bamboo-Forest where the Bhagavant was. On arriving, after
  bowing down at the feet of the Bhagavant and turning (around the
  Bhagavant) the right side towards him three times, Sreniya Bimbisara,
  King of the Magadha country, spoke thus to the Bhagavant : "O
  Bhagavant, how do actions, (a long time) after having been done (and)
  accumulated, a long time after having ceased, (re)appear in the mind,
  on being near the moment of death? All conditioned things (samskara)
  being void, how do actions pass without being annihilated?"
So (the King) spoke, and the Bhagavant to Sreniya Bimbisara, King of
  the Magadha country, said thus : "O great King, just as for instance a
  man, in a dream while he is sleeping, dreams that he extremely enjoys
  himself with a beautiful woman of his country and, when he awakes from
  his sleep, remembers that beautiful woman of his country (he has seen
  in his dream) - what do you think, O great King : does that beautiful
  woman of the country, (seen) in the dream, (really) exist?"
(The King) said : "O Bhagavant, she does not exist."
The Bhagavant said : "O great King, what do you think : that man who
  ardently desires the beautiful woman of his country, (seen) in his
  dream - is he a wise man?"
(The King) answered : "O Bhagavant, he is not - if it is asked why, O
  Bhagavant - because that beautiful woman of the country, (seen) in the
  dream, does not exist at all; and although he does not perceive her,
  (nevertheless) he goes on thinking of enjoying himself extremely with
  her. Thus that man, being deprived of her, has a destiny of sorrow."
The Bhagavant said : "O great King, in the same way, an ordinary man,
  foolish, ignorant, on seeing with his eyes lovely forms, ardently
  desires those forms which are agreeable to his mind. While ardently
  desiring them, he becomes attached to them. On becoming attached to
  them, he feels a passion for them. On feeling a passion for them, he
  performs with his body, speech and mind,, actions that are born out of
  desire, hatred and error. And those actions, after having been
  performed, cease. And after having ceased, (those actions) stay
  neither in the east nor in the south nor in the west nor in the north
  nor up nor down - nor in any region of space. But, at any other time,
  at the moment near the instant of death, when the karma corresponding
  (to the life that is being concluded) is exhausted, at the (very)
  moment the last consciousness ceases, those actions (re)appear in the
  mind (of the dying man) - just as for instance the beautiful woman of
  the country (in the mind) of the man that wakes from his sleep. O
  great King, immediately after the first consciousness has ceased,
  there arises the series of consciousnesses, which corresponds (to the
  life that is beginning), and in which the ripening (of actions
  previously performed) will be experienced. O great King, although no
  element of existence (dharma) passes from this world to another world,
  nevertheless death and birth take place. O great King, the last
  consciousness which ceases is called 'death'; the first consciousness
  which arises is called 'birth'. O great King, the last consciousness,
  at the moment it ceases, does not pass to anywhere; the first
  consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth, at the moment it
  arises, does not come from anywhere. If it is asked why, (I answer:)
  because of their lack of an own being. O great King, although the last
  consciousness is void (of the own being) of death, action is void (of
  the own being) of action, the first consciousness is void (of the own
  being) of a first consciousness, birth is void (of the own being) of
  birth, (nevertheless) actions do not perish. O great King, immediately
  after the first consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth,
  has ceased, there arises without interruption the series of
  consciousnesses, in which the ripening (of actions previously done)
  will be experienced."

This sutra speaks directly to karma and how it ripens from moment to moment and life to life even though actions previously arisen have ceased and exist no where whatsoever in space or time and yet they ripen at later times and continue to produce fruit. The important point is that the manner and way this happens from moment to moment in this very life is the same manner and way it happens from life to life. There is no difference in extent or manner.
And note that the doctrine of emptiness is very definitely tied up with this ripening of past karma. Karma could not function without emptiness. Were things not empty, there could not be actions and the ripening of those actions. Understanding emptiness is indispensable in understanding how actions ripen and bear fruit and that is why it is said that emptiness and dependent origination go hand in hand.

they don't say that it's "in opposition" they say that the two are not identical. maybe it's not the "western notions of philosophy" that are mistaken, but your understanding of "western notions of philosophy". i should have asked on philosophy stack, dwai

I have removed the disparaging remarks about western philosophy and the entry in the encyclopedia as they are unnecessary and harmful to the answer I was trying to help with. Also not against academic analysis. Indeed, academic analysis is highly highly valued in my tradition.

haha, that's really nice of you thanks. metta :-)

Looking at the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs), we see:

AN4.233:1.1: “Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, kammāni mayā sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā paveditāni.
AN4.233:1.1: “Mendicants, I declare these four kinds of deeds, having realized them with my own insight.

We can verify the effects of kamma(Pāli) / karma(Sanskrit) personally and see causes and effects. For example, if we ignore cause and effect and steal, we cause harm and that harm rebounds on us as jail.

AN4.233:1.3: There are dark deeds with dark results;

And if we acknowledge cause and effect and are kind in heart and action to others, then we see smiles and gratitude:

AN4.233:1.4: bright deeds with bright results;

These are personally verifiable in this very life without recourse to past lives. We can understand the koan ourselves with simple experiments and simple intentions.
Yet doubt remains because sometimes people who do bad things get wealthy and sometimes people who do good things are burned at the stake. These apparent conflicts arise from mixed intentions and circumstance. The story of Frank Abagnale comes to mind:

AN4.233:1.5: dark and bright deeds with dark and bright results; ...

Most importantly, there is the fourth case not discussed in the quoted koan:

AN4.233:1.6: neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

The fourth case is quite different. The first three cases deal with the generation of kamma. The fourth case deals with the ending of kamma, the laying down of craving, and the full release of the heart. This too is personally verifiable and experienced by means of the Noble Eightfold Path. It does take practice and effort. Fortunately, walking the path does not require recalling past lives. For all practicing the path, we let go of the craving that drives our deeds and thereby lessen the suffering of kamma. For some, the escape will be complete.

AN4.233:5.2: It’s the intention to give up dark deeds with dark results, bright deeds with bright results, and both dark and bright deeds with both dark and bright results. These are called neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the ending of deeds.

According to emptiness, there is only cause and effect.  Emptiness has nothing to do with it.  A fully enlightened monk falls down a well.  How is this possible?
To appease the mods - the koan cited in this question has nothing to do with what’s asked and should be redacted from the original text.

nice thinking, but i'm not studying koans!

Then why use one in your question?  The koan you posted has nothing to do with emptiness and is only tangentially related to karma.  In fact, it is explicitly not about emptiness.  That’s why it directly follows the Mu koan in the Mumonkan.  Now beards?  Tails?  Falling down a well?  That’s an appropriate thread of discussion!

why do you think it has nothing to do with the question?

The koan has more to do with personal obstacles - obstacles that someone who, experiencing mushin or emptiness (or even kensho) for the first time might mistakenly believe they have gotten past.  This koan is grounding.  It’s pushing the student back to form after investigating emptiness.  Pedagogically speaking, it’s laying the groundwork for all the koans that follow (assuming the teacher goes in order; not all do).

I should also add that those obstacles are specific to the particular student.  He has to identify his own “falling down the well”, his own tail, or his own beard.  The koan is asking him to kiss his own elbow or see the back of his own head, existentially speaking.  That’s only possible with a mind prepared by emptiness (I.e. Mu).