text:
Observing hindrances & seeing impermanence vs right effort
I'm not sure whether it has been poorly taught by a monk but as far as I know the Buddha never really taught to just merely watch the hindrances, right? The sixth factor of the N8P is right effort and it calls us to do something about the hindrances. But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the impermanence, the unstability (non self) and the unsatisfactory nature of thoughts, feelings, emotions etc? Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?

can your question's main idea be summarized as "to be or not to be" or did I misunderstand it?

Val, hindrences have to be overcome by right effort and phenomenas, as they really are, can then be observed on a more refined level, a level that is then not so much subject of defilements. Right effort is required to build upon the foundations to errect the whole path and serves as entrance upon the Samadhi section and at the same time connects the other single elements of wheel so that it might beginn to roll for an end of suffering.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
— MN 117

There is no such as right concentration if there is not also the factor of right effort involved:

"Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."
— MN 117

The single factors are not to be seen as being abound once reaching a certain but as a coming together of all, like the single supports of a wooden wheel.
Of what is finally right effort on even the most subtile levels on knows after the gain of path and fruit.
Just this right effort, in simply ways taught by the Buddha to his son will bring one to the final liberation and to develope all needed factors.

"Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth."...

So get up, dreamer, and go for an initiative!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
  Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
  The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
  Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
  And by opposing end them?

So what is the Buddha's teaching? To be, or not to be? In my opinion, Buddha is dubbed "The Victor", not "The Loser", for a reason ;)
As I understand, Siddhartha was on the quest for a permanent solution to death and, generally, life's perpetual troublesomeness. What he found instead was the realization that the universe's very nature is characterized by invariable Impermanence, Dukkha, and Nothing-is-ours-ness. Think about it! He was looking for deathless peace and found Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta! In some sense he had lost, he'd realized his quest was absolutely and utterly impossible!
As he thus gave up on the quest - or ceased all efforts - I imagine he suddenly and with great surprise realized that his entire drive - the aversion to the world, the longing for Beyond, the hoping for permanent bliss, the suffering of not yet having achieved it - were due to his silly attachment to a set of abstract ideas... The ideas of Self, Permanence, Happiness. The ideas of Victory, of Success, of Transcendental Realization. The idea of Escape... This pain and this longing for That - turned out to be coemergent. This longing and this aversion to This - turned out to be coemergent!
He then realized that attachment to and longing for any idea of "that" and aversion/suffering in regards to "this" are always dependently-coarisen and lead to pain. As he dropped his longing, he dropped his pain.
He discovered that our perception of everything is our own interpretation or projection based on our assumptions and attachments. This means that our hell and our heaven is our own creation. In other words, suffering and happiness are conditional, and therefore can be controlled and manipulated. We can stop suffering and generate our own happiness. Finally, he found that by going beyond all assumptions and attachments, by relinquishing all positions, our experience loses all ground and becomes conditionless - so suffering has nowhere to stand - which makes us immune to all trouble, completely and 100% imperturbable!
So at the end of the day, the resulting suchness - the experience of living in baseless, selfless state of total acceptance and total understanding - does look somewhat similar to simply surrendering to our powerlessness in this uncompromisingly transient, painful, and uncontrollable world. However, by taking control of our mind, of our narrative, of our interpretation, by dropping all attachments and all ground of suffering - we have fooled the ever transient/painfull/uncontrollable world and solved the unsolvable problem!
Now, to directly answer your "to be or not to be" question: "Buddha never really taught to just merely watch the hindrances", "Noble eightfold path includes the right effort and it calls us to do something about the hindrances. But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the [(hopelessly immutable) Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta]? Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?"
Correctly seeing Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta is part of The Right Effort. Like I said above, the idea is to skilfully control our attention and our interpretation. My teacher explained it like this: When you completely accept Anicca - you attain the deathless. When you completely accept Dukkha - you attain the painless. When you completely accept Anatta, you attain freedom. When you completely accept Samsara - you attain Nirvana. -- All of this works when you no longer hold on to a certain conceptual ground that coemerges with its negative counterpart.
So it's not really "observe" vs "right effort". They are not in opposition to each other. Observing Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta is right effort. Correctly seeing them in a positive way is called "right attention", or seeing things skilfully.

He did find the deathless, eternal peace. That's what the 3rd noble  truth is all about.

Of course. And here I explain how he got there.

Really is not clear to me how this answer relates to the OP's question... Also, it is "Loser" not "Looser" although I think the answer suffers more from saying that the Buddha turned "his loss" into victory. It kinda reads like the Buddha realized his whole project was mistaken and being mistaken he just gave up on it and thus "won"? I don't get it.

Thanks, edited the answer, hope it's more clear now?

@AndreiVolkov Thanks, but it is probably just my confusion about the question. Your last paragraph makes sense, but I have a harder time with the preceding ones. Maybe the last paragraph while qualifying that observing “is part of” rather than the whole of right effort?

Removed "the". The rest looks more or less clear to me. Do you have trouble following my logic, or can't get past some assertions I make, or disagree with the overall interpretation?

The OP question to me doesn't seem to relate to "be or not to be" and so I guess I find your last paragraph a sufficient and clear answer. @AndreiVolkov the preceding paragraphs i'm not so sure about

Hey @Val, help me out here. Can your question's main idea be summarized as "to be or not to be" or did I misunderstand it?

But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the impermanence, the unstability (non self) and the unsatisfactory nature of thoughts, feelings, emotions etc?
Isn't that "right view"?
And isn't it an antidote to the craving and attachment, which the second noble truth defines as a condition of dukkha?
Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?
I think that the noble eightfold path (of which "right effort" and "right view" are two) is meant to be all practiced -- not one or the other, but together. Or perhaps successively: I think there are also explanations which say you practice one after the other, or that one leads to (or is related to) another somehow; like when a wheel is rolling, the weight is supported on one spoke then another.
Some definitions say that right view is the primary, that everything else follows from right view: that you have right intention, for example, because or if you right view; or that right view defines what "right" intention is.
Did someone say that the four noble truths is a doctrine taught more to monks than to laypeople, though?
According to a different analysis, the eightfold path can be viewed as the threefold training. According to that classification, I think everyone agrees that virtue is primary or most important, foundational.
There are definitions of "right effort" on this page. Those definitions make it seem to me that that is foundational, perhaps a sine qua non (i.e. a factor without which the other factors don't exist).

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


text:
If Kombucha Tea (trace amounts of alcohol) is used as medicine, is it considered a breach of conduct?
I drink kombucha, a fermented and very slightly alcoholic tea, in order to ease recurring gastrointestinal distress. Although I use this drink as a tool, is it considered a breach of the fifth precept?

The purpose of that precept is to prevent loss of heedfulness through intoxication.
If your reason to drink tea of some kind with very little alcohol in it, is for medicinal purposes, and if it does not cause the loss of heedfulness through intoxication, then there is no violation of the precept in my opinion.

Buddhist morality, as a rule of thumb, has to do with how such actions affect your ability to practice (i.e. can you still meditate), and does it cause suffering in yourself or others, as opposed to morality being based in compliance with the demands of a supernatural being.
So, on those grounds, this amount of alcohol is not problematic. It won't make you behave in a way that makes you break the rest of the precepts.
As for how institutional Buddhism handled alcohol, it varied, I'll link because they say it better than I can summarize.
As for how much Kombucha you'd need to drink to get smashed and risk breaking the rest of the precepts...you'll start puking and farting before you get drunk on Kombuch, this guy tried it. ...almost a gallon of noxious fermented tea just to break a blood alcohol level of 0.01

The reference you cited says that may be a "minority view", i.e., The breach of vow occurs if any type of alcohol, ranging from light beer-like drinks [...] even if the quantity is not substantial. In general, the necessary quantity [...] to be considered a transgression is described as anything beyond the amount of fluid that is present on the tip of a blade of grass Still, there exists also a minority view that considers transgression conditional upon whether consumption induces heedlessness, a perception that would allow for the intake of measured quantities of alcohol.

Would really depend upon which school of thought you follow, and at that, which lineage. Some are as strict as to say that definitely yes, not permitted. Then there are most others that are more mainstream or even liberal in the interpretation of Buddha’s teachings. The question I would ask myself is - is there any other source that I can use without alcohol, and go from there. This, only if you are especially conservative in your approach to the precepts.
If you do continue to consume Kombucha, perhaps consider switching to one with a lower alcohol content. They do vary among brands, sometimes widely. The bottle that I am looking at now states .5% by Vol, but I’ve seen both higher and lower amounts in other products. Please also consider the caffeine content if you are sensitive.

If it used strictly as medicine, and you are sure your intentions are pure, ie. you don't "use it for medicine", but actually drink it for alcohol. I'm sure your heart knows answer to that.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Vipassana Meditation
If I'm meditating for example with music and I am aware of the changes of the music that is impermanence right? If I breathe in and out that is impermanence? However, how do I see dukkha and not self (especially not self)? Dukkha can be a scratch for instance?
One last question: In Vipassana one experiences all three characteristics, but does one also contemplate on all threes or is that a seperate meditation? Thanks in advance!

Do not meditate with music. It's distracting. Go to a quiet place with the least number of distractions.
There's no such thing called 'breathing'. Breathing is a concept. What you should focus on is the feeling at the nose when the air hits inside. Do not make more than what the senses can feel. All that is felt is the cold, warm, smooth or rough sensations rising and falling. Simply keep noting that. If you happen to hear something, just note it as hearing. Don't make more out of it. Same attitude with any other sensation or thought.
Do not try to thinkup impermanence, suffering and non-self. That is like digging a hole in the ground, putting water to it and calling it a water well. The proper way is to keep digging until you find water. In the same way, keep noting the sensations/thoughts and the 3 characteristics will reveal themselves when the mind is matured.
Here is a handbook for you: https://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/

In regards to 'Go to a quiet place with the least number of distractions.'; in my experience, that's not really a necessity. When I did my last retreat at Wat Chom Thong, there was a construction site right next to my room. During the day, they made a lot of noise. During the evening, the frogs took over, and they can be extremely loud. In the end, it's just 'hearing'. It doesn't matter if it's music or animals or whatever. On the other hand; music is emotion, so I certainly wouldn't advise to put on music. At a retreat it's even forbidden to play music.

It's about finding a place with least number of distractions when you have a choice. Otherwise your meditation teacher would ask you to go meditate in a strip club.:)

What's so bad about music? It helps me to see impermanencr better. Also I'm not really a friend of ONLY having favourably conditions (ofc it is nice) but to master difficult ones as well. Meditation should help us to deal with difficulties better and not just give us more ease or run away from something.. that is never the point and if this is done either consciously or unconsciously one is running into what acceptance commitment therapists would say "Experiential Avoidance". "If you're not willing to have, you got it"

Music gives rise to craving as it is pleasurable sound. It's not a case of you hearing music by chance which is played by someone else. You intentionally play music. That shows a craving towards the soothing sounds. Music is not an issue for the well trained yogi. But a well trained yogi wouldn't intentionally add music to meditation. The idea is to have the best possible conditions for meditation when you have a choice. Otherwise why not go to a nightclub for meditation? :)

It's like learning to swim. You don't jump into a whirlpool to begin your training just because you don't want to avoid difficulties.

I agree with Sankha. Meditation is a special subset of life, with fewer distractions, that's the whole point. Minimize distractions, focus on the state of mind.

Nooooooo. That's all wrong! :)))) Seriously.

If I'm meditating for example with music and I am aware of the changes of the music that is impermanence right? If I breathe in and out that is impermanence?

Not at all. Impermanence is when you try to achieve some stable state of mind and realize that it is impossible. No matter how deep you get you always have to come out and pee. That's impermanence.

However, how do I see dukkha and not self (especially not self)? Dukkha can be a scratch for instance?

Dukkha is the feeling that something is wrong, something is missing, something is not good enough. Your feeling when you look at your meditation and you realize it's not good enough - that's dukkha.
Not self is traditionally explained as our inability to control anything, not even thoughts. Another way to see no-self is to see how the thoughts float into one another, specifically how the thought that is watching becomes the thought being watched by the next thought.

In Vipassana one experiences all three characteristics, but does one also contemplate on all threes or is that a separate meditation?

Don't force anything. Follow your instincts.

The english word "suffering" for the term "Dukkha" does not do it much justice. The Buddha said ( Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html)
"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
— SN 56.11
This sums up everything that is Dukkha.
Now while meditating how do we realise Dukkha. First of all in Vipassana Meditation, we never do it with music as it is a distraction. So , please do not do that. Meditation is done with the aim of seeing "reality" as it is by transcending our faulty perceptions and societal conditioning.
How do you know Impermanence while Meditating?
For example : You are meditating for half and hour and you notice an itch in your knee. You do not scratch but only observe it. While observing it you notice that after a while it ends , and some other sensation begins somewhere in your body. This is showing you the impermanence of sensations.
How do you know non-self Annata and Dukkha?
With more practise in meditation and realising the impermanence of things around you , you will realise this as well. However , it takes practise.
In order to understand these things , I suggest you practise more for yourself and try to understand these concepts at an experiential level , through your own experiences. Merely intellectualizing these concepts will help only a little.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Maintaining the stealing precept and my morality regarding free, open and equal accesibiity to knowledge
One of the five precepts is "Abstain from taking that which is not given". I am confused by this right now. Since this does talk about maintaining your sila. I believe that all knowledge should be free of cost , and charging for knowledge is what is leading to all the inequality in our society. The Brahmins in India have for centuries exploited women and lower-caste people by maintaining their strong hold on all spiritual knowledge and only sharing it with fellow Brahmins. Women and lower caste people were forbidden from learning the scriptures. This is the kind of exploitation that Buddha spoke strongly against. Today's society in the developed and developing world is no different. Students are paying enormous sums of money to gain knowledge and many leading miserable lives due to student debt. Textbooks are ridiculously priced. I hate the commercialization of knowledge because it is exclusive and not inclusive. That is the reason why a part of me does not believe that reading pirated books is morally wrong. All knowledge should be free .Every person must get the opportunity to improve themselves through education. I do not support the commercialization of education. This especially for Dhamma teachers , who sell Dhamma books. I absolutely do not support this. And by pirating books I am taking a stand ( I feel ) , and not allowing people to profit commercially by selling dhamma and spirituality. One only needs to look at the spiritual market place in India.
However when I analyse what the Buddha said :
"Taking that which is not given"-- I am doing that
"The person to whom the copyright belong will not be happy knowing that I am taking their books via piracy"
"The king a.k.a government will definitely punish me"
Considering these , I am very sure I am breaking the stealing precept.
Is my mind just making up excuses because it is "expecting to gain without giving " or ? I am so confused with these two opposing thoughts ! Please help me!

I marked this topic as a duplicate, because I think you'll find there are several answers to this question already, on the linked page.

What matters is one's intention. This is just one of the reasons why it's very  important to practice mindfulness as much as possible so that one can know better what ones intentions are.

Good to get aware of serious issues! Sadhu!
Don't take what is not given without string binding to the world and as for wordily matters, always stick to a fair deal and pay (material or in mental ways) the demanded price.
The backwards of debts, even if willing to deny their existence, are much more burdensome then to do not gain the desired things. At least knowledge is very fleeting and will be gone latest with break up of the body, while kamma and certain gained virtures, real wealth, will follow even on.
It should be clear of how heavy such taking what is not given functions even in relation of Dhamma.
In regard of debts generally, one is required to gain them also if given, but the point, aside of simply misconduct, is to whom one falls into debt and where this might pull one to.
The todays moral, especially here in this internet realm is very very low and there are only less who will aside of less remorse, sooner our later, not face really burdensome results out of greed and misconduct. Ohh... there will be many poor who will need to pay, pay and pay, not to speak to be stolen on and on.
Stealing leads in the best cases just to poorness, not to speak of low states of existing.
Start to give, teach others, be generous... why do you think that people are so bound to places like this and other crowd working communities, concentration and working camps, no way to leave?
No one, if not penetration the step of virture, will ever escape from carring out debts on and on with no way to find peace at mind.
Stop now! And refrain and things will work out much better, even it will be hard for the first time. And if in lack approach those tending torward liberation, the Sangha and Noble Ones.
Some thoughts might be useful in regard of "Depts, but to whom?"
My person would even not encourage someone not secure in regard of virtue, to listen to much to a talk, in some regards useful, like: Think Like a Thief and many, sadly incl. Bhante Thanissaro, take the issue of "mental propery" and trade with knowledge incl. the misconducts with it much, much to light and this will be for the suffering of many, many, many, no need to argue: it is already the biggest source of crime and contless misconduct is accumulated within this section of copyright and imaterial ownership. The Sangha, ignoring that issue and often advice wrong, is already very, very poor in regard of this and hopless depending on others far outside and with heavy strings.
At least, able to forward given, you may always feel given to make proper use of what is shared here and here. And it would be a ly to say this and Dhamma is without strings, but those are pulling torward liberation if given and if stolen and misused upwards for a long, long time.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
What is the proper way to foster generosity and gratitude?
I can see how generosity and gratitude are important as means to foster right resolve. But what if someone do good things sometimes due a sense of obligation, but also cause much harm to you? For example, this mother. Given that our resources and gains are limited, it is not much better to support the virtuous one rather than the unvirtuous?
And in the case of supporting the unvirtuous and unwise, how this would not contradict others teachings like "do not associate with fools" and "give a gift in a proper time"? (a unwise person would surely use a material gift unwisely causing harm for himself/herself and others).

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world." ...and more on lessons of gratitude

Danilo, your observations are totally right in regard one has already a broader view and the question is a good and useful one to understand things better. But & Because: Yet most people are not even able to fullfil their duties (break silas and do not take what is not give, or pay the price, hold to promises) and stay to contracts (virtue) in relation of sensuallity (material things and reverence). The next higher stage then is toward more selfless giving of material things. So even if most made in this way, it's useless to build a tower on a muddy baseless place and one needs to start where the mud is places, do the hard and "dirty", painful job, first.
Above the first gods (those giving birth, parents), if those are recognised, one can walk on to the higher goods, , those introducing, nurishing this the four needs (food, shelter, cloth, medicine), those teaching, leading to heaven and then even to liberation.
If the base is not done, e.g. not even obligation as reward of sensuality is recognices and duties payed off, if even parents are not put on the right scale, there is no way to ever develope that much freedom to be able to interact and receive on a higher scale. One makes nothing but more and more debts on this way, in all directions, even if feeling released by certain thought constructs.
It's maybe importand to understand that parents can aside of being the first gods be also the higherst. Some are that gifted, some even recognice it.
The issue of giving and the issue of duties (sila) which also may include giving is not that easy understood. Sometimes giving is a deal for expected gain, sometimes a required obligation for a relation (deal), sometime a payment for release seldom really generosity and it is gain and again worthy to note that the treasure of real generosity is only gained by a person of integrity, e.g. comes after perfection of silas.
Most not even managed in regard of giving at large plays all in the section of sila, starting from proper veneration to service and assistance.
What the proper places for generosity are, for all being, regardless of relation, nice or bad, is mentioned in timely giving and is of course always excelled by Noble Ones and those train for it.
It's very difficult to make western or better modern people basics (at least right view) understandable because they are not at all used to generosity, feelings of obligation, gratitude... but raised in a society, if good, where all has a to be payed marked price, and no, really no, neither at home, nor at school, good basic conducts are trained.
For defilements even a pleasure to here that giving to immoral people is not conductive, yet they would not include the own person when making their greedy excuses to deny even obligations.
May person once had a longer discussion with a typical western Buddhist and it might be of use, even the place itself there is not one to advice for a good. The topics discussion and links may explain certain basics and misunderstandings: Dana (Generosity, Charity)  "Abhidhamma in daily life "
To understand guṇā (best transated as "giver" or "benefactor") here are also some explaining. Usually translated as goodness or "people of goodness", it's meaning starts by the sense organs and is then used for goodness making real sense and beyound: guṇā គុណ - Gönner, Verbindubg/Band | benefactor, string/bound (just in German, if one like to translate, feel given)
It's impossible to walk a spiritual way if not having placed all benefactors on the right place in the heart at a matter that even most modern or western monks are not able to get fixed. At least it's underlying right view and becoming a person of integrity, either on faith, Dhamma or by entering the stream to get really ride of macchariya which only Noble ones, but right from the beginning are free from. If that and gratitude is still a problem, don't even think on Jhanas or any attainments: impossible.
Since those basic topics are merelt tabu and not welcome at all, leading even most to anger and aversion, the so called buddhist community in the west and modern world is merely just a wellness and trade branch and not really a source of real attainments at all, does not even have any basic positiv effects in normal live and sociaty which can be easy observed everywhere.
But back to a many helpful "classification" of worthyness in regard of people or relations, of course not really possible to distinguished in a very firm way, but merely an orientation and a source to think and reflect more about it:

A raw ranking based on it, in regard of worthy (general, can differ in cases aside of Noble Ones):

Ordinary beings

Ordinary people

Ordinary beings hungry, lacking existencial needs

Normal friends and wordily fellows

Normal elders

People of goodness:

Wordily teachers

Ones family and relatives

Ones first goods, parents

People keeping 5 precepts

People keeping 8 pr.

People keeping 10 precepts

Homeless 10 precepts

Samanera

Young Bhikkhu

Full Bhikkhu

Thera

Maha Thera

Ecxeled by innwardly qualities, case by case:

wordlings

Layperson following the training (still enjoys sensuality)

Recluse/monastic following the training (still enjoying sensual pleasure)

Layperson living the wholly life in full, following the Arahats

Recluse/monastic living the wholly live full, following the Arahats

Noble One 1. Path winner

Fruit Winner..2, 3, 4 Patg winner

Arahat

Buddha

In regard of Noble Ones, Recluse excels Lay person.

At least, not as a demand or just to belittle but as a matter of generosity and compassion, Danilo, so that you may have more ease and more doors to good places open in future, to train youself in good conduct, is actually not respectfull, not praisworthy and possible for the most cases a hard hindrance to ask indirect, without reverence and yes of course in certain equal manner. So for normal and strict holding on secure ways, Danilo might not only get any useful answer but also be known, like many, as someone with less virtues not at all worthy of gifts. But again, that is just for you and others grow, being aware that good conduct and proper behaviour is something unknown an utopistic in the modern and internet realms.
One might feel free to go into the topic even deeper or to train here, on a given and more proper place. At least most might be really wasted giving, as mentioned in the question, yet for those possible to get healed still.
How to foster generosity and gratitude?

Again and formost: association with people of integrity and generosity, gratefull people, people rejocing in deeds of giving and devotion, able to share merits and encourage to such and by avoiding places and people not used to, the usuall "cool" ones, like poison.

Rendering service and assistance in monasteries, for monks, for elders, teacher, virtuous. (e.g. practice Silas and pay obligations proper back or even without hope of reward)

Practice generosity where ever there is a possibility.

Learn to great, address, pay respect and good verbal and bodily conduct and use it everywhere, whether usual or not (it also helps to cut of "enemies" for prosperty)

Get used and train youself in all of the ten kinds of merit-making.

Stick to right view, even it goes against all grains and let it be adviser for your daily action rather to let your defilements make use of transcend right view while still living next a punch of fetters and a refrigerator.

He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

Once, again, right view is adopted by faith, certain vision or even clear seen and gained, generosity, after virtue and gratitude proper and right placed is no more a matter at all. At this point, not out of reason, one is incapable to do grave, even deliberated misconduct and behave improper.
May it be for release and ease, who ever might be capable to take, make use and understand.
And be carefull, it's not free and not without strings and one might be already hardly caught, with no chance to fall back any more!

Bahukārasuttaṃ

Has done much

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

Of course very useful and in same value Utopia: Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice
The orderline duties » sila » generosity ... from the gross to the fine, can btw. be also traced likewise, as tried to point out at the beginning, in the Mangala Sutta and at each level of fullfilment or able to renounce certain relation and it's benefits, debts are growing void and giving is step by step growing to real generosity and compassion. Once a state around the stanca 6. and 7 is reached, no more falling back will accur for one.
Anumodana!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Thanks for such detailed answer. I will read carefully and eventually use sangham.net for further inquire if necessary.

Right resolve/intention(Samma Sankappa) has 3 parts:

Nekkhamma Sankappa - thoughts of renunciation
Avyapada Sankappa - thoughts of non-hate
Avihimsa Sankappa - thoughts of non-cruelty

So as you can see, giving material things is not really required to foster the right resolve. You just have to make sure you don't hate people and you are not cruel towards anyone. Whenever you get irritated, do Metta meditation. Whenever you feel happy about someone's misfortune, do Karuna meditation.
This is not to say that you shouldn't be generous. Just that one does not need to waste time and resources over lost causes when there are smarter ways to practice generosity & gratitude.

Here we go, the dance of defilements and stinginess: incapable of Jhana , path and fruits, stingyness is the quality of common people. Wonder how 1,2,3 can be justified honestly by someone would have a lot to give and share among needed, desiring... as even 1,2,3: defilments and basic greed are as this. They say: "don't waste yojr time, better use it to care all with you and enjoy it" :-)

I never said one has to be stingy or one shouldn't give.

Sure...!? Always good to be a smart one "when there are smarter ways to practice generosity & gratitude", they are beloved, and doinate industry. Why not taking both, Mara suggests.

Being generous in a smart way is always better than trying it in stupid ways

So what kind of generosity (giving) and gratitude would be stupid? What do wise praise? It's always easier to speak if knowing the talk rather if in defense of incapacities, or?

Giving that benefits both you and the recipient. That is smart.

Yes? Based on right effort even? Or is it stupid to ask (and possible give something in such way)?

In Buddhism, there is the Pali term for gratitude, namely, 'katannukatavedi', which means: 'what others do for me; what I must do in return'. If others have not done anything good towards you, there is little one must do in return.
'Katannukatavedi' is similar to 'mudita' (appreciative joy), which is rejoicing in the good deeds of others. If others have not done good deeds, 'mudita' cannot be generated.
A problem with the question is many do not realize the gravity of the crime of using a daughter for prostitution because, it has been demonstrated on this chatsite, that some members believe prostitution is not a destructive thing to the soul of a woman; even though the Lord Buddha taught:

Unchastity is the taint in a woman
Dhp 242

To quote a supporter of prostitution:

The business of prostitution is however, in most Buddhist countries and people there by large not so negatively discriminated like in
monotheistic countries. There is still a more "liberal" view, just
another kind of trade.
This liberality in that regard is displayed by the Buddha and followed correct in the quoted sutta.
Famouse prostitutes:
Vimala, the former courtesan: Thig 5.2
Ambapali, Ven. Sister (formerly the courtesan): DN 16, Thig 13.1
How did Buddhism and Hinduism differ in their approaches to sex work

Therefore, it would be expected such a supporter of prostitution would expect a daughter to be grateful towards her mother for starting the daughter's career in prostitution; similar to the daughter of a doctor who encouraged the daughter's career in medicine. However, a daughter with Right View could never be grateful to their mother for a career in prostitution because the Lord Buddha said:

‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a wished for, desired,
agreeable result could be produced from bodily misconduct...from
verbal misconduct...from mental misconduct ― there is no such
possibility.’
It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person engaging in bodily misconduct...engaging in verbal misconduct...engaging in mental
misconduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution
of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the
heavenly world ― there is no such possibility.’
MN 115

You mean like a drug edicted is grateful toward the dealer, an extremist toward a leader, certain Buddhists toward Buddhadasa? Yes, such happens, but the case is more about ingratitude toward a therapeutic of an edicted. So maybe wrong grasped the issue, aside of the matter. Who would like that one becomes another dealer or Dasa just for a favor? And it's to expect, yes, that people will easy become similar that they honor, yet gratitude has it's levels and like and owe are different things. It would be not proper for a disciple even of a Dasa, to give not proper amount of gratitude,yet people

If others have not done good deeds, 'mudita' cannot be generated. I'm sorry to contradict, but are you sure of that? I thought maybe everyone does (some) good deeds, if only you were willing to view them that way (and, that one should be willing to view them that way). The Punna Sutta may be an (extreme) example of that, where he insists on seeing the Sunaparanta people as "civilized, very civilized".

Chris. You are starting to use the comments section to preach, as though you are a Buddha. The Punna Sutta is merely a story & even if it is true, it is a superhuman effort. Why don't you personally go to Washington DC and convert the people so to bring peace to the world?

I don't know, I think the proper function of a comment is to "request clarification or leave constructive criticism", I posted because (just) that one sentence contradicts what I thought I'd learned from the suttas, so maybe you can explain it better. I'm not in Washington, partly because I'm not American so it's not my business, and because I expect that would be ineffective; and I thought when I was about 10 years old that I could live with the President (even consider him "civilised") as long as he never pressed the Button.

Compassion and generosity is attitude of a mother taking care of her children. Or attitude of a doctor taking care of his patients.
It's an attitude of unconditional love, no matter how wrong they are.
However, an adult is the one who can take care of oneself, who knows how to protect oneself and how to stay balanced and in control. Mother's love is boundless, but she does not surrender to all of her children whims. Doctor's compassion is unconditional, but he takes care to not get sick.
A good leader is not a boss, he's not pushing people around, he is a servant leader. And yet, he won't let an idiot do harm, he knows when to step in.
This combination of wisdom and compassion is the key. Infinite compassion, boundless love, never giving up on people, always giving second chance, like the sun. But also enough wisdom to do the right thing when needed.
How to foster this in oneself? Kill the ego. Ego is attachment to one philosophical position. When ego is murdered one can see with clarity as one is no longer boxed by one's position, and without ego compassion arises by itself. Kill your ego.

"Kill your ego" so that you can kill out of compassion later, with no remorse. Good that self plays actually an importand role to develope gratitude and generosity, Jains might be mentioned as well attachment of a mother, not compassion, is boundless bond. Would a father let his son harm himself with his stupid ideas and lost in quotations? Some start to drink, some get different addicted, some gain release by being confirmed by those above, some prefer to deny authorities, yet get and get not free. Given that self is one of the fundamental governing principles, it fits less as good advice.

Friend Johann, looks like you can find something negative in everything? You know there is a Mahayana saying, "negative mind will find flaws even in Buddha" :)

As the wise and a doctor always the suppurative focus... are you here to gain appreciation and reputations or to get your defilements treaded kindly? How could my person ever be a friend of or for yours?

Imagine what would happen if every one of us was so arrogant as to try teaching each other in the comments.

Some would learn rather to wasye time in accumulation of reputations? Readers could follow arguments an wisdom rather then demo-cracy results of the mass of uninformed and confused? One could possible correct ones answer so to cause no longtime harm of oneself and many others? One would not even need to read if not wished, or? Whats the interest of censure and quitening, pseudo harmony usually aside of wish to gain? Where are generosity and gratitude here, given it could be that it is not even near ill-will given? Disturbing the ego?

A perfect virtue is only accessible to the enlightened man or for those who have progressed well close to enlightenment.
We should act depending on our capacity, but should always aim at the higher virtue that the fully enlightened ones showed us.
If you are beginning on your progress you better follow what @Sankha Kulathantille proposed and contemplate the virtue in your mind rather than actively engage in generosity.
If you have made a little progress and you think you know what is good or bad then follow @ Dhammadhatu response and act generously calculating what is good and bad act accordingly.
Yet again, if you have progressed further and have approached the knowledge of love and honor, then follow @ Samana Johann response. Love and honor those you regard and act generously towards them without expecting any benefit and unconditionally.
If you have progressed even further and become a Saintly man, then follow @  Andrei Volkov response and expand your unconditional love towards all being with no calculation, and without discrimination.
But remember those who reach the Saintly perfection are very rare and also don't think the progress ends there, there is progress beyond that, there is enlightenment. All virtues including the virtue of wisdom which is the pinnacle of all are purged for the one who crosses the shore. Although outwardly he/she may act exactly the same as the Saintly man, the one who crossed the shore does it effortlessly because he has become the virtue and when we ask “what is generosity?” we are asking what is the Buddha.

"unconditional love towards all being with no calculation, and without discrimination" such has no fundation in the Buddhas teachings in regard of honor and giving, if giving it a serious and resonable prove. It's just postmodern nonsens and philosophy. Not even for Buddhas non-action, no teaching, non-effort,... is taught and used.

@Samana Johann, It's not nonsense as you say, contemplate beyond honor go beyond honoring and loving the few and love all don't harbor hate. The Buddha said..... Even were bandits savagely to sever you limb from limb with a two-handled saw, he who entertaineth hate on that account in his heart would not be one who carried out my teaching.

Yes, (but) one talks with possessless people, on more need to train with gross and outwardly things here... it's a pleasure for defilements to run to above and so hold on and deny work right on stage. If wishing you may eat my persons almsfood tomorrow, it would be a honor to give even the "needed" to someone worthy like that. Can you shameless take it, accept it? It would general not proper to share food to ordinary people and show respect toward lay people. Something possible to think from another angle to match the leaking ground/base and fix it.

What do you mean when you say "....It would general not proper to share food to ordinary people and show respect toward lay people."

That the Buddha taught what one should do and what one should avoid to do, just with a near and practical sample, even if a little far in a world beliving all to be equal, Mr/mrs (?) Abhivadana starts very basic.

This may, perhaps, seem unrelated and off topic. But, how about Metta Meditation? Seems like a simple solution in some regards but would be interested to see if it answers your query after a few sittings.
All the best.

Yes, and one neither need an authority, refuge and one can even safe many and efforts. Sounds like a great solution and we hope to be able to live from receicing metta to be able to complete the path or just live. Or was it meant as tool rather then replacement? Is metta toward something that serves as refuge proper? Setting all beings equal and make your self the Bhagava? Maybe karuna would be beter to forster generosity and mudita (joy with good and helpful) to forster respect? Just thought, of course certain  "provoking". Using certain Brahmaviharas is a good idea, usually used in Mahayana

So good it extending this if inspired, since usually made in this way in mentioned schools to teach lay people basics and have joy with their possibilities to be always a rich person, a giver and devoted receiver of good from above.


text:
How to explain that relationship with someone worthy of respect is more than just a friendship?
If someone asked, "What? My father, teacher, ... are not just friends?" -- how would one explain significant differences between "tolerance" and "deep respect and regard", of people being in front and what is called a "person worthy of respect"?
Since it might sometimes occur, in modern or western world, that one gives the gift of appreciation to someone who you count as an equal -- how to make best, or explain now the further step, respect, reverence and even refuge and total devotion?
Does anybody have, can provide, a good answer, strategy, to solve such?
Maybe under the headline, "Neither your father, your teachers and many others, nor the Buddha, are your "homies" or your "colleagues" (co-worker on same stage), proper to call and address by name or with 'friend'".
Practical try, as well possible inspiration to answer this, might be found under the question: "Why should one not address a venerable as friend?", by Upasaka Chris. And why the question is very importand and reasonable, why "homie"-like meetings and ways are destructive for a grow, might be also find inspiring answers later possible here. (this is later addition)

[It's not required to try to answer if the significant different is not really traced yet. Possible better to ask another question. And yes it's another challenging and possible not much broadly beloved question. And yes, feel free to upvote the question as well, if thinking that this gives release.
Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I tried to clarify and to find a short title that summarises the question (I hope that was a good summary).

Sure, good intention brings good results and being pleased for the actor. Sometimes can be direct proved. Mudita, Nyom @ChrisW .

And nobody, not even the most powerful, could match a servant or someone acting correct, he who fullfills his duties and acts even if treaded correct, is the real king and powerful i n the kingdom and worse get lost simply by increasing their debts, gratitude and correct actions in relations never loose, may a receiver even not worthy in many cases. Sadhu. Maybe useful to remark here in support to understand the question.

This is not how it works. You don't beg for respect, you don't demand it. When you deserve respect, it happens naturally.

Who says that good conduct comes naturally, not to speak that the topic is about giving and not demanding or rights. Of course it is naturally to gain respect under good people if respecting of what is worthy of it. Maybe the answer lacks in understanding that there is no single being not respecting this or that: so the head, of course lies in "right" and conuctive for upward move and beyound. At least, who would be happy to be great respected by those wise would avoid? So being disrespected by those of bad tendency, as long not changing in advanced, is of course really not for a bad.

So if the answer was not just a "I have also an opinion" thing, maybe of use to reedit it right from the base and maybe in respect and wirh reverances of the head under which it is done. We are not talking about marked, trade-laws and fast-food selling strategies... or how world  work, if we is a matter for Andrei, if not used to trade his opinions better.

Buddhism does not teach blind respect towards authority figures entrusted with responsibilities.
For example, in MN 95, before giving higher respect or veneration to a monk, a lay person is first instructed to ensure the mind of the monk is free from greed, hatred & delusion:

There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes
to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities —
qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based
on delusion....When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him....
MN 95

Similarly, Iti 106 certainly says parents are like 'gods' to be venerated by their children; however this is when the parents have compassion & wisdom:

'Brahma,' bhikkhus, is a term for mother and father. 'Early devas' and 'early teachers' and 'those worthy of veneration' are terms for
mother and father. For what reason? Because mother and father are very
helpful to their children, they take care of them and bring them up
and teach them about the world.
Mother and father are called "Brahma," "early teachers" And "worthy of veneration," Being compassionate towards Their family of children.
Iti 106

Thus, when DN 31 explains how relationships are to be conducted between parents & children; teachers & students; and monks & lay people, DN 31 does so referring to the performance of appropriate mutual duties & responsibilities.

In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East: (i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties, (iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance, (v) furthermore I
shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives.
In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion: (i) they restrain
them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good, (iii) they train
them for a profession, (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage, (v) at
the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them. "In these
five ways do children minister to their parents as the East and the
parents show their compassion to their children. Thus is the East
covered by them and made safe and secure.
In five ways, young householder, a pupil should minister to a teacher as the South: (i) by rising from the seat in salutation, (ii) by
attending on him, (iii) by eagerness to learn, (iv) by personal
service, (v) by respectful attention while receiving instructions.
In five ways, young householder, do teachers thus ministered to as the South by their pupils, show their compassion: (i) they train them
in the best discipline, (ii) they see that they grasp their lessons
well, (iii) they instruct them in the arts and sciences, (iv) they
introduce them to their friends and associates, (v) they provide for
their safety in every quarter. The teachers thus ministered to as the
South by their pupils, show their compassion towards them in these
five ways. Thus is the South covered by them and made safe and
secure.
In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith: (i) by lovable deeds, (ii) by
lovable words, (iii) by lovable thoughts, (iv) by keeping open house
to them, (v) by supplying their material needs.
The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways: (i) they
restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good, (iii) they
love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he has not
heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they point out
the path to a heavenly state. In these six ways do ascetics and
brahmans show their compassion towards a householder who ministers to
them as the Zenith. Thus is the Zenith covered by him and made safe
and secure."
DN 31

In other words, when a monk, teacher or parent is angry, immoral, negligent &/or has wrong view, Buddhism does not encourage us to view them a "true friends", let alone as "Venerables". In the Parable of the Log, the Buddha taught some monks are rotten to the core & will not reach Nibbana.
For those with doubts about what 'true friendship' is, DN 31 explains in detail the 16 characteristics of false friends & the 16 characteristics of true friends. In summary:

The friend who appropriates, the friend who renders lip-service, the friend that flatters, the friend who brings ruin, these four as
enemies the wise behold, avoid them from afar as paths of peril.
The friend who is a helpmate, the friend in happiness and woe, the friend who gives good counsel, the friend who sympathises too  — these
four as friends the wise behold and cherish them devotedly as does a
mother her own child.
DN 31

Why not address the Tathagata, for example, by name and as "friend"?

The Tathagata is not the subject of the question. The question appears to be making broad generalisation about all parents & all teachers. However, myy answer sufficiently addresses a Tathagata, i.e., a teacher without greed, hatred & delusion.

The answer says there is a case where a householder observes a monk before placing conviction in him. I thought that wasn't quite the subject of the question, which is about relating to people who are worthy (of whom the Tathagata was perhaps the first example), so I was wondering if you might answer that.

"It's not required to try to answer if the significant different is not really traced yet." and there is aside of Upasaka Chris advice planty of material that contradicts all arguments, whether on the level of teacher, elders, parents... but again, the answer has just troubles to catch the point of the question. Its ok it not able.

The question is basically incomprehensible. I did my best to answer it.


text:
What exactly is svabhava?
What exactly is svabhāva in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka?
It is translated as inherent nature or inherent existence or inherent substance. But what does that really mean?
Does it carry the same meaning as being unconditioned? If yes, then Nirvana and the Buddha's Dharma, being unconditioned, must have svabhāva. But they don't, according to Madhyamaka.
Why does a chair or a photon or empty space or concepts or the Dharma (teachings) or Nirvana have no svabhāva?
From the Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka, it sounds like something that is unconditioned has svabhāva. But that's not right according to Madhyamaka.

Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature
  argues that anything which arises according to conditions, as all
  phenomena do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what
  conditions it. Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there
  can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhava), i.e. something which
  is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has
  own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor
  other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial
  existent nature (bhava). If there is no true existent, then there can
  be no non-existent (abhava).

An analogy I always give is that of a bush that looks like a dog. You see the dog from afar, but once you come closer the illusion falls apart and you see the individual branches and leaves. There is no dog.
Everything is like that: not only difficult things like "self" or "USA" or "love" but literally every single thing, as simple as a "chair". They seem solid and well-defined until you examine them carefully, and then they turn out to be simplifications that depend on observer defining context, scale of observation, and criteria for their delineation.
Coming back to the bush, the dog was observer's projection. There was no dog. Or was there? The experience of the dog existed in observer's subjective space. The dog was observer's interpretation.
When we look at things conventionally, from far away, without examining them carefully, it seems like they exist apart from our interpretation. That existence is called svabhava. Sva means own and bhava means individual being or individual existence. It seems that individual things have their own individual existence, apart from observers. But that is an extremely naive simplification that only holds because we look at things from inside a very limited subset of all possible observation modes.
The question ancient thinkers asked, is there any dharma that has svabhava. In other words, is there any phenomenon that under careful scrutiny will not fall apart like the dog and turn out to be a bunch of unrelated phenomena assembled and delineated by the observing mind.
It's not just the parts and the name as Tenzin explained. That's a simplification. It's not that things are made from parts (like the dog was made from branches) and rely on observer for a name (the dog). It is that we picked a certain area of observation (part of the mountain covered in bushes) we chose certain scale, we picked criteria for delineation (in this case color), and most importantly we ignored lots of details that were there, that did not fit with our idea of dog!
A very good non-Buddhist explanation of this process can be found in book called 'Hierarchy Theory' by Valerie Ahl. And of course the best Buddhist explanation is Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika, translated as 'The Fundamental Wisdom Of The Middle Way' by Jay Garfield.
You are also right about equating sankhara with (absence of) svabhava. Sankhara means "assembly", not just an assembly of parts though, but rather a bundle of causal chains. Causal chains on both the object side and the observer side. When you see every thing in its temporal aspect, as opposed to statically, when you see causal chains bundling together for a while and then breaking apart, you will see that our notion of "identity" only made sense in a static view of the world.
There is no "identity" carried through from one moment of time to another. Instead, things constantly morph, rather like clouds. We see individual things in the clouds, but those things don't have fixed identities, they don't have svabhava. Instead, there's humidity and temperature and areas of low and high pressure, and the observer at a certain point on the ground with something on their mind, projecting things on the clouds. This observer itself and the observer's mind does not have separate individual existence either, does not have svabhava. Observer and observer's mind is also a bundle of causal chains, not something solid, static, and separate from the rest of the world.

Why is Nirvana not a sankhara, but still does not have svabhava?

Simple answer is, because Nirvana is not an individual phenomenon. The notion of svabhava applies to individual phenomena but Nirvana is suchness of any and all phenomena.

This is not the highest-yana view of Nirvana though, I can think of at least three explanations on three different levels. Perhaps if you ask a separate question we can get there.

OK. I will create a separate question.

Is there any phenomenon that under careful scrutiny will not fall apart? Yes. Nirvana.

I marked this answer down because "sabhava" is not related to identity, that is, "There is no "identity" carried through from one moment of time to another.". When the Theravada commentaries use the term "sabhava", they are obviously not referring to an inherent identity.

@Dhammadhatu You realise, do you, that this and the other topic are tagged 'mahayana'? I think this is an instance where the Mahayana doctrine differs.

@Dhammadhatu I would be authentically interested to see Theravada's explanations of sabhava.

Svabhāva stands for inherent existence.
From an early Madhyamika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising:

Causal dependence
Dependence on parts

While impermanent phenomena depend on both causes and parts, permanent phenomena do not depend on causes and conditions but they do depend on parts. For instance, a chair is impermanent and depends on causes (if it is made of wood, wood is a substantial cause, etc) and depends on its parts (the legs, etc). Permanent phenomena such as space, emptiness, cessations, etc. depend on parts. For instance, emptiness is emptiness of something on which it depends (not causally, but in terms of part). Therefore, even emptiness, a permanent phenomena, is empty of inherent existence because it is a dependent-arising.
From a Madhyamika-Prasangika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising. The third level is the most subtle:

Dependence on name.

We say that the meaning of something being empty of svabhāva is that, if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you will not find it. Now, if you ask yourself "is the chair its legs... is it the material it's made of... etc" you will find that the chair is merely labeled upon these without being any of these. We say that it is "merely labeled".

This presentation is incomplete and cartoonish because there are various Madhyamika [sub]schools, some for which inherent existence and true existence are synonymous, some not.

So the Theravadin sankhara (conditioned things) is the same as having causal dependence and dependence on parts. The self too has causal dependence in Theravada. But the Madhyamaka svabhava adds on dependence on name and this applies to Nirvana because it means "lack of suffering", so it depends on the name of "suffering". Is that right? So, it is dependence on name that is the difference between the Theravadin asankhara and the Madhyamaka svabhava? Do you agree?

Only Madhyaika-Prasangika adds dependence on name. Dependence on parts applies to all phenomena, including nirvana. Nirvana is the final cessation of something on which it depends. Prasangika adds dependence on name. It means: just like the person is not any of the aggregates but is designated upon them, nirvana is merely labeled upon factors that are not it. Or as we say "If you look for it under analysis, you cannot find it."

OK. So, Nirvana has causal dependence on the final cessation of something - it only appears when something else ceases. Nirvana also has dependence on the name of something that is not it - so you can see an elephant, but you can't see or find "elephantless".

No. Nirvana does not have causal dependence. It has dependence on parts and, according to Prasangika (not all Madhyamika) on names as well. You may think of it this way: if John leaving the room was the cause of the absence of John in the room, his absence would be a moment after his leaving, but hey are simultaneous. In the same way, nirvana (the final true cessation) is permanent, thus not caused. Permanent phenomena are not causally dependent: only on parts (and name, from a Prasangika viewpoint).

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

Svabhāva, traditional Chinese Buddhist text translated as "自性", i.e., Self-nature. A Svabhava is a Thing-of-itself, it exists on it's own, cannot be deconstructed by the Eight Conditions quested by Nagarjuna; it is not caused by Causal-correlations (因緣), nor Compounded (和合). However, the world is made by (1)Causal-correlations and (2)Compounding, of every phenomena that the intellectual mind able to conceive. Therefore, it is empty. Because anything that's coming from Causal-correlations or Compounding, when investigating by the intellectual examination incisively with a superior mind, the result is - unobtainable. For nothing is obtainable therefore, the term to address it: "Emptiness".
My elaboration is, Causal-correlations and Compounding shorted as Correlative-arising (緣起). In my investigation, "dependent-arising", or most of the English translated terms I came across are, questionable; creating unnecessary hindrances to understand what precisely it meant.
(1) Causal-correlations
There are four types of Causal-correlations, Sanskrit: Catvārah-pratyayāh (四緣). Nagarjuna listed and deconstructed each as:
(the translated terms are my designations)
a) Correlative-cause (因緣): Cause and effect. Deconstructed as: an effect not appeared the cause can't be defined; if the effect not in the cause, the cause cannot cause the effect, but if the effect already in the cause the effect doesn't need the cause for it existed already... etc.
b) Consecutive-cause (次第緣): A temporal cause, i.e., with the factor of time. Deconstructed as: if the effect not appeared, the cause can't disappear; however if the cause not disappeared how could the effect appear... etc.?
c) Causative-cause (緣緣): A spatial cause, i.e., with the factor of another object. Deconstructed as: for due to a) the cause and effect cannot be established therefore not a "thing" there, there's no object to give as a cause.
d) Superlative-cause(增上緣): All the above causes multiplied. Deconstructed as: since the above three can't be established this also null.
I'm afraid Jay Garfield's understanding of the Catvārah-pratyayāh which a very basic Abhidharma concept so questionable in his The Fundamental Wisdom of The Middle Way; I read his chapter 10, then 1 and 2, put aside.
(2) Compounding Compounding is unobtainable. For if things are different, they can't be compounded to be one thing; yet if they are the same, can't be compounded either, for same thing doesn't compound :). (I was laughing all the way when reading Madhyamaka (Classical Chinese translated by Kumarajiva) the 1st time, now I can't help laughing again when writing at here :))... difference due to differing therefore differences, different object unobtainable... etc.
Since all phenomena of the world are made by Causal-correlations and compounding, none is having Svabhava. Since all phenomena none is with Self-nature therefore it is empty, i.e., unobtainable (不可得). It is impermanent, conditioned. However, Nagarjuna didn't stop at here, not stopping at deconstructing, what he pointed to is, what beyond this Emptiness that given rise to all phenomena, the world and sentient... etc. Here is most of the scholastic Buddhist Masters/teachers fell. Such as, Tibetan Tsongkhapa by holding onto Madhyamika-Prasangika (wrong) viewpoint constructed his two Chenmo(s) misleading many Buddhists, bolting on the Intellect-mind (意識心), the 6th Vijñāna as permanent [which needed maintenance of each day 16 hours of xxx Tantric OgsM, all months, all years... well maybe good news for some, who knows!? ;] .
Nirvana and the Buddhahood are of the 5th Statement. The Intellect-mind is able to come as far as the Four-statements (Catuskoti) limitation. To go beyond the Intellect-mind, what should be looked for by all practitioners but the Self-nature as in Ch'an (6th Patriarch Huineng: How so the Self-nature, originally is self-sufficient (何期自性, 本自具足)), or the Tathagatagarbha, or the Alaya... the teachings only available in the Mahayana Canon (excluding the later Tantric texts). One of the most important Sutras is Prajna-paramita Sutra, which the related is Heart Sutra. I'm afraid Thich Nhat Hanh though a respectable teacher I respected, his interpretation of Heart Sutra as quoted in this post is questionable. It's only max. to the level of a Śrāvaka, not for the Bodhisattva or Buddha, i.e., not of the Prajna-paramita Heart Sutra the ultimate Emptiness.
The OP asked another question on usefulness of Madhyamaka, the key answer is, due to the decline of man's capacity, very rare few able to see directly the Ultimate Reality (still an ignorant claims able to see in meditation and, libeling Nagarjuna :), as stated in the beginning of the Madhyamaka Chinese Text. One of the purposes of Nagarjuna, I think, was enabling a glimpse of Ultimate Reality by pushing the Intellect-mind to the ultimate, by exhausting the Four-statements. If one able to read the original Classical Chinese one will at least sharpen his mind, have a shot of intelligence. Those who incessantly libeling the Mahayana Sutras, pity are they misled by their teachers or traditions. However, this very act is so detrimental to wisdom cultivation even to the worst severed the root of Prajna-paramita rendered these people the Icchantikas warned the Buddha. The Buddha explaint what is Icchantika and why they became the Icchantikas, one of the karmic deeds was they libeled Mahayana teaching due to their ignorance they lack the wisdom to understand the profound deep deep Mahayana doctrines, recorded in Prajna Paramita Sutra. There some so-called "Sutras" inserted, the later Tantric text, unfortunately, in the Tripitaka; but those great Sutras of Prajna-paramita - The 2nd Turning, also Tathagatagarbha - The 3rd Turning, are spoken by Buddha Shakyamuni.

What about Mahamudra and Dzogchen? They are not Prasangika... Meaning, they don't leave one dangling in emptiness, they say there's the ineffable Ground of All, the positive reality. Is that the same as your Alaya?

My understanding of Mahamudra and Dzogchen are by "gleaning", @AndreiVolkov, so I better keep my silence. But you said "Ground of All" and "positive reality", if it's just labels to explain, ok; if it's what it found upon, then, no. I have my innate feeling they probably not... probably good for "magic" capability as Mahamudra (I was told the "transferring capacity") and Dzogchen maybe closer to Self-nature (for the "light"), these are my speculations...

So while the Tibetan interpretation of svabhava says that Nirvana has no svabhava, the Chinese interpretation of svabhava says that Nirvana has svabhava, am I right? But if Nirvana is the only thing that has svabhava, then this Chinese interpretation of svabhava makes it ultimately identical to the absence of Theravadin sankhara i.e. svabhava means unconditioned.

Continuing ... so something that has inherent nature or inherent existence (svabhava) is unconditioned (asankhara) and something that is unconditioned (asankhara) has inherent nature or inherent existence (svabhava). The definition of Mahayana emptiness depends on the definition of svabhava. So if Nirvana has svabhava then it is not empty. Is that right?

"T... Nirvana has no svabhava" if confirmed, even Chinese Mahayana will disagree. Likely some sect(s) of T., or related to Prasangika, denied Alaya, mistaken 6th Vijnana the Intellect-mind permanent. But I think it not acurrate to simply saying "Nirvana has Svabhava" - Nagarjuna didn't say in this way. Mad. has a chapter on Nirvana (2nd last chp.?) expl. Nirvana not in the 8 Conditions he could deconstruct, i.e., not arising nor ceasing; not permanent nor annihilating; not one nor different; not coming nor yielded. It will involve very delicate logic, too easy to fall in the trap of words

...because it will fall in the Four-statement if saying not this, then it is that. Not this that is not necessarily then is that. Its in the 5th Statement, i.e., not within the Intellect-mind. Dhyana is to access the higher mind. I personally do not think Mahayana (excl. T. T. Lamaism) conflict with Theravada on the fundamental, Mahayana has the Agamas, so agree. I almost agree the Sutta on "Lumious Mind" included the sense of Alaya in it, only disagree those scholars (some Sri Lanka Drs., sorry)

...claiming Sutta had this therefore Alaya developed on the Sutta; Mahayana a later teaching (not taught by the Buddha). Alaya taught by the Buddha, and how the Vijnanas worked, in other Mahayana Sutras. The 1st Wheel Turning speaking the Agamas for few years, as basic/fundamental because the world first time hearing the Dharma. The 2nd Turning is the most important taking the Buddha 20+ years; The 3rd culmination the Tathagatagarbha. But "The definition... emptiness... svabhava... Nirvana...?", well you can't phrase the words this way... very complex, long elabotation, many Sutras...

@ChrisW I saw you seemed put back some of my words... I'm sorry I just don't like others to mess my works. Is it not possible to rollback, or I have to do it myself so that your editing reverted?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/posts/25251/revisions

In abhidhamma:
Sabhāva =  saka-bhava = own saṇkhāra = saṅkhata = sappaccaya = sahetuka = an effect of causes.
So, the answer is "an effect of causes".
Note: This is the same reason that why saṅkhāra equal to kamma-bhava.

The ideas of 'svabhāva' in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka are merely that, namely, "ideas" or intellectual thoughts rather any direct insight from meditation.
For example, based in meditation & insight, consciousness is mere awareness or consciousness and meditation & insight cannot reduce it to any smaller parts or particles (although meditation can discern the impermanence, selfless & how consciousness is dependent on sense organs to arise).
The following Pali teaching is an example of what 'sabhava' is meant to mean, namely, natural things have their own nature that is not a 'self' or 'mine':

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold,
deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by
contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is
deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call them formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.
SN 22.79

While the only term in the suttas that comes near to 'sabhava' is 'sadhatu', the meaning of 'sabhava' is 'inherent nature' rather than 'inherent self-existence'. The following sutta is about the inherent nature or 'sabhava' or 'sadhatu' of the Dhamma Dhatu (Element).

Uppādā vā bhikkhave tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā
Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self.
Dhamma-niyama Sutta

What exactly is svabhāva in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka?

I believe that in some abhidharma it is a dharma which makes other dharmas have a time. So without it, they may have argued, nothing could exist, so "everything exists". Take this from the Sarvastivada page

The Sarvāstivāda (Sanskrit; Chinese: 說一切有部; pinyin: Shuō Yīqièyǒu Bù)
  were an early school of Buddhism that held to the existence of all
  dharmas in the past, present and future, the "three times".

The abhidharma in the Taisho is I believe the Sarvastivada one (all the early schools had different versions).
I very much like this interpretation: Nagarjuna just points out that the assumption that anything has to exist in different times is bunk.

However, much Mahayana Buddhism uses the term in a different way, to mean what the scholar Westerhoff calls "essence svabhava". I believe I have it on very good (academic) authority that's what Zhiyi means when he talks about emptiness of svabhava. I can't really guess if that's from genuine, not merely contingent / historical, evolution of the term, as it features in Buddhist "philosophy". But if I may I'll add my own opinion: Zhiyi and his tientai school in general are talking about the exact same concept but refined it.
Wetsterhoff claims

Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. By Jan Westerhoff
So, if right, then Buddhists were able to limit, narrow down, the meaning of 'svabhava'.

What's the difference between substance-svabhava and essence-svabhava?

We use this word very commonly in India.
Swabhava means nature of the self. For example if I ask what is your swabhav ? then I am asking whether you are loving , kind ,joyful ,compassionate, rude or stubborn kind of person? What kind of person you are ? It is personality trait.There are wholesome swabhavs which make you say that a person is very nice.There are unwholsome swabhavs which are not good.
Swabhav can change. For example, I was a very careless person in the past but now I am not that careless.
You can use the word with any living being whether it is dog or cat or human. Every being develops a swabhav or inherits a swabhav from the previous birth.
If we break the word swabhav then "swa" means self and "bhav" means nature,i.e. nature of the self.
Swabhav is not permanent and unchangeable therefore no swabhav is worth identifying as self.

Does it carry the same meaning as being unconditioned?

No.

Why does a chair or a photon or empty space or concepts or the Dharma
  (teachings) or Nirvana have no svabhāva?

Strictly speaking swabhav is associated with self. You don't say chair has a bad swabhav. Or the photon or empty space has good swabhav.
My swabhav or your swabhav has been evolving and will continue to evolve but there is no permanent nature which you can call as self. Swabhav falls in the category of five aggregates as mental formations or sankharas.


text:
Does Nirvana have svabhava in Madhyamaka?
As suggested in this comment, we shall try to look more closely into this.
Does Nirvana have svabhāva in Madhyamaka?
Here, svabhāva is as defined in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, and commonly translated as inherent existence, inherent nature or inherent substance.
Why conditioned things (the Pali term sankhara) do not have inherent existence (svabhāva) is explained in this answer, this answer, this answer and this essay.
However, Nirvana is unconditioned. So, does it have or not have svabhāva? And why?

don't some sutras claim it does have svabhava? your question seems so convinced that i'm not sure i'm right. i'll google it

Nirvana, the same as (selfless) phenomena, has sabhava. This question is merely a errored continuance of the errors it is based on; i.e., one error leading to another error.

Well, the question limits the scope to Nagarjuna's svabhava in Madhyamaka, in which case nothing including Nirvana has svabhava. Of course, when we broaden the scope, we may be able to find cases where Nirvana has svabhava.

Where do you find "Nirvana [does] not have Svabhava" in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka? I'm sure Nagarjuna never made such proclamation in the Chinese Madhyamaka (the earliest survived version translated by Kumarajiva). Without proper supporting bases this your question then is illegitimate to construct by its current way. Or certain Tibetan schools/ Wikipedia "experts" said so? - please provide support.

@Mishu米殊 Perhaps it's more useful to rephrase the question to "Does Nirvana have svabhava in Madhyamaka?"

According to Madhyamika, whatever is dependent-arising is empty of svabhāva. As Nagarjuna says, the meaning of emptiness is dependent-arising; and dependent-arising is the meaning of emptiness. Each and every phenomena, be it permanent or impermanent, form, consciousness or non-associated compositional factor, lacks svabhāva.
There is a number of reasons supporting emptiness of svabhāva. In his commentary to Gyaltsab Je on Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum, Geshe Gyaltsen said:

There are specific reasonings to realize emptiness that are suitable
  for specific disciples, like the diamond slivers, the four
  possibilities, the king of reasoning that is the reasoning of
  dependent arising, and the reasoning of not being one or many.

In his commentary to Tsongkhapa's Special Insight Chapter of the Middle-Length Lam Rim, Geshe Gyaltsen explains dependent arising:

Dependent arising means that phenomena depend on something else to
  exist.

On the fact that both samsara and nirvana are empty:

The perfection of permanence [that is possessed by a buddha] refers to
  the equality of samsara and nirvana seeing both as empty of inherent
  existence.

All phenomena are dependent-arising. If it exists conventionally, it either a permanent or an impermanent phenomena. If it is a permanent phenomena, it does not depend on causes and conditions (the grossest level of dependent arising) but it still depends on other factors.
Even permanent phenomena such as space, emptiness (the absence of svabhāva), partial and complete cessations (such as nirvana that is the final true cessation) are dependent on part. Geshe Gyaltsen also says:

Since the aggregates are impermanent phenomena, it is correct to use
  causal dependent arising as a reason [for establishing its lack of inherent existence]. The second, dependence on parts,
  can be used as well. Also when the subject would have been
  uncompounded space the second kind of reason, depending on parts,
  would be a correct reason as well.

We do not even need to go into the third level of dependent arising (dependence on name) that is posited only by Prasangika to establish that nirvana is empty of svabhāva, is empty of true existence, is empty of existing by way of its own characteristics (all these are synonymous).
We do not need to know either that there is a terminological division of five types of nirvana: non-abiding, abiding, with remainder, without remainder, and natural.

To summarize, nirvana depends on factors that it is not, and without which it would not exist. You can apply this to any phenomena, including permanent phenomena: the person depends on factors (the body, consciousnesses, etc) that the person is not, but without which the person wouldn't be what it is.

There are at least four levels to this subject that I can see... Or four different Nirvanas if you wish...
On the simplest level, Nirvana is conditional and does not have svabhava. This is Nirvana that the deluded mind wants to escape to, defined as a state apart from and opposite to Samsara. It is conditional because it depends on its opposition to Samsara, and because it is (imagined to be) a state that depends on it being attained. It does not have svabhava because it is conditional, because it has beginning, and most importantly, because it does not exist.
On the next level, Nirvana is unconditional and has svabhava. This Nirvana is what's actually attained - the real nature of things, the unity of samsara and nirvana, the cessation of conflict between "should" and "is", the suchness of things as they are, and the resulting cessation of suffering. This Nirvana is thought to be unconditional because it's no longer defined in contrast with Samsara. It's svabhava is Emptiness. However, the weakness of this type of Nirvana is that it is useless until attained. One has to actually make effort to realize cessation of conflict between "should" and "is". Until that is done, this Nirvana is as good as nothing. This is why I prefer to call it quasi-unconditional.
The next type of Nirvana is truly self-existing Great Perfection. This type of Nirvana does not depend on cessation of conflict between "should" and "is". Instead, all forms, including appearances and attachments, including even confusion and conflict, and the very suffering itself, are (understood to be) primordially beyond contamination and purity. This Nirvana is truly unconditional and has no svabhava. It is unconditional because... well... there is nothing to be done or undone or found or lost - and it has no svabhava because it is not itself a phenomena, it is just a designation for suchness of all phenomena.
Finally, the absolute Nirvana is outside the realm of concepts altogether. When someone loses all ground, any notion of reference point, and any sense of achievement in one's real life, one can feel that it may be very difficult to be certain of anything. So while this absence of reference point provides no basis for arising of suffering, it also provides no basis for confidence. To be confident with this absence of ground, without creating a reference point, without craving for comfort of a reference point, is the real Nirvana. Is this Nirvana unconditional? Does it have svabhava? On this level we don't obsess with bullshit like that.

According to the parinirvana sutra

If a person is able truly to discern
that his / her intrinsic being possesses the Buddha-dhatu
  [Buddha-Nature],
Then you should know that such a person
Will enter into the Secret Matrix [ = the Tathagatagarbha].

Emphasis mine.
This sutra then seems to add that to learn the Buddha-nature is within the body is the eternal, nirvana.
Translated into English by Kosho Yamamoto, 1973
from Dharmakshema’s Chinese version.
(Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 12, No. 374)

So, to "learn" "that" "persons" (which don't exist) "have" "their" "svabhava" (which doesn't exist) "within" "their" "body" "is" "nirvana".
Sorry for the excessive speech marks. It may be unclear what that amounts to? For me, in my ignorance, it means that nirvana has svabhava.

are you having fun yet?

@AndreiVolkov not sure what you mean, but yes i am... i even look back fondly to the times i was baffled by buddhist scholarship and debate, too.

The Gelug answer to how this makes sense of this apparent contradiction is that you have to interpret this sutra as it is not of definitive meaning. See here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26118/13375


text:
How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?
How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?
I'm just intrigued, because the texts I've spent longer trying to 'get' seem to be more inspired by the lotus sutra.

We say that contaminated virtue perpetuates samsara. The intention mental factor in the retinue of contaminated virtue is a contaminated mental karma that gives rise to suffering in the aspect of pleasant feelings (suffering of change). An example of contaminated virtue is the virtuous intention to give - generosity - in the continuum of an ordinary being. An example of uncontaminated virtue, however, is the mind of generosity conjoined with a wisdom of emptiness.
Here, when generosity is conjoined with both the wisdom of emptiness and bodhicitta, it is a skillful means because it is a uncontaminated virtue in the continuum of a being that never forsakes the welfare of others. So, every virtue in the continuum of an arya bodhisattva is a skillful means, since it is conjoined with both wisdom and bodhicitta.
In the Ornament of Clear Realization, Maitreya/Asanga say:

The mind generation [i.e. bodhicitta] possessing skillful means, as
  the subject, is like a virtuous spiritual friend because by way of the
  four immeasurables, the method for not rejecting sentient beings, it
  never forsakes the welfare of sentient beings.

In his Commentary on Seventy Topics and Ornament for Clear Realizations by Geshe Jampa Gyatso:

“Skillful means” refers to the fact that a bodhisattva with this mind
  generation is able to transform every single virtue into a cause for
  enlightenment. A virtuous spiritual friend is one who guides sentient
  beings on the spiritual path; in particular, one who is fully
  qualified is able to guide his disciples appropriately. “Not rejecting
  sentient beings” refers to not rejecting even one sentient being which
  if done would create negative karma and break both the bodhisattva and
  tantra vows.

Tenzin's was a very Gelugpa answer. Correct and itself an example of upaya but hard to see the forest behind the trees. In Nyingma/Kagyu tradition we are not as sophisticated and a lot more straightforward. Maybe because Eastern Tibet is far from the capital?
See my answer to this question. This is a typical example of skillful means in TB, leading from imitative and conceptual to actual experiential realization. Because the stress is always on real life realization, we don't create nearly as elaborate narrative forms as Gelugpas.
Leaving aside empowerments, yidam practice and the six yogas of Naropa, the favorite subjects of discourse in ETB are emptiness, suchness, and the nature of mind. In contrast to that, my teachers always pushed beyond discourse and into real life practice, ensuring good karma through non-attachment to concepts, ideals, and expectations, restoring basic sanity by cutting through bullshit, and leaving it up to personal intuition to connect the dots and attain real-life mastery.
In addition to all of that, Nyingma ngakpas have an entirely unique set of means collectively known as drupton nyönpa or drubnyon that uses strong language and nonconventional behavior to break through student's ego fixation, something I feel I have personal predilection for, but which obviously cannot be practiced in the format of this site.


text:
Is luminous mind unconditioned and not impermanent?
In AN1.51-52, we find a description of the luminous mind. The Pali version can be found here.
The description in 51-52 implies that it is pre-existing. It's just that the ordinary worldling doesn't discern that it's actually present. But the noble disciples discern that it's actually present.
"yathābhūtaṃ" means "in truth; in reality; in its real essence."
"pajānāti" means "knows clearly".
We know that Nibbana is not conditioned (sankhara) and not impermanent (anicca).
But from the description, it sounds like the luminous mind, which is pre-existing in both worldlings and noble disciples, is always there, just that it is obscured by incoming defilements (kilesa).
Does this mean that the luminous mind is also not conditioned (sankhara) and not impermanent (anicca)?

“Pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Tañca kho āgantukehi
  upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhaṃ. Taṃ assutavā puthujjano yathābhūtaṃ
  nappajānāti. Tasmā ‘assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhāvanā natthī’ti
  vadāmī”ti.
“Pabhassaramidaṃ, bhikkhave, cittaṃ. Tañca kho āgantukehi
  upakkilesehi vippamuttaṃ. Taṃ sutavā ariyasāvako yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.
  Tasmā ‘sutavato ariyasāvakassa cittabhāvanā atthī’ti vadāmī”ti.
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming
  defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern
  that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—there is no development of the
  mind.”
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming
  defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns
  that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the
  well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—there is development of the
  mind.”

Related: What's the difference between a “primordial consciousness” and a soul?

Actually, no. Because pabhassara-citta must arise. Because if pabhassara-citta will never arise, it can't be defiled by incoming defilements which will arise to defile it, too.
Citta, viññāṇa, mano are the synonym of each other in SN Nidānavagga, assutavasutta:

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind(citta)’ and ‘mentality(mano)’ and
  ‘consciousness(viññāṇa)’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience
  revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be
  liberated from it.

So, pabhassara-citta is  conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca) by  SN Khandhavagga, Aniccasutta:

consciousness is impermanent.

Therefore, paphassara-citta is included in one synonym of citta In abhidhamma, dhammasaṅgiṇī, kusalacittuppādakaṇṭa:

The citta which is arising while the occation (that 1st wholsome citta
  is arising) means citta, mano, mānasa,    hadaya, paṇḍara (paphassara),   mano,  manāyatana,  manindriya,    viññāṇa, viññāṇa-khandha, and tajjā
  manoviññāṇadhātu — this is the citta which is arising while the occation.
(Translated version is not correct, so I did not quote from that. I have to translate myself.)

There is nothing in the teaching that sounds like the luminous mind is permanent; just as saying 'teeth are white' does not sound like permanence. The suttas say in many places (SN 22.59; Assutavā Sutta) whatever mind it is, be it gross or subtle; be it vinnana, manas or citta, it is impermanent.