In this famous [video](https://youtu.be/BHMI1en_B1A?si=hGQUVYIUYBW9XTYa&t=79) , the young independent Australian monk named 'Sujato' famously recollects, when as a junior newbie monk in Thailand, he inwardly censured the senior monk Ajahn Sumedho for saying the bright luminous mind is 'unconditioned'. Reflecting upon the above yesterday in regard to this [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/50928/8157) i previously wrote, I quickly wrote the below about the Pali term 'sankhata'. I am seeking refutations of my conclusion the EBT Pali term 'saṅkhata' *exclusively* refers to 'mental conditioning' rather than to, as suggested by Sujato in the video, the generic (I guess Theravada Commentary) view of 'produced by a cause': > The Pali word – ‘Saṅkhata’ > > A standard definition of the Pali word ‘saṅkhata’ is ‘[produced by a > cause](https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85khata?lang=en)’ . The purpose of this article is demonstrate the term ‘saṅkhata’ > appears exclusively used in a mental way, to refer to ‘mental > construction’. In other words, the conditioned physical components of physicality is > not ‘saṅkhata’ (unless imputed or defined by the mind). > > AN 2.83 says: “Bad, unskillful qualities, mendicants, arise with a > conditioned basis, not without a conditioned basis (saṅkhatārammaṇā); > by giving up that conditioned basis (saṅkhatassa pahānā), those bad, > unskillful qualities do not occur.” AN 2.83 obviously refers to > ‘mental construction’. > > SN 4.16 says: “Form, what is felt, and perception, consciousness, and > what is mentally constructed (saṅkhataṁ); ‘I am not this’ and ‘this is > not mine’; that’s how to be detached from them”. SN 4.16 obviously > refers to the five aggregates; therefore saṅkhata here obviously means > what is mentally constructed, per SN 22.79. > > SN 22.79 says: “And why do you call them mental formations (saṅkhāre; > nominative; plural)? Because the mentally formed (saṅkhatam; noun) > they form/generate (abhisaṅkharontīti; verb). Thus they are called > ‘mental formations.' What mentally formed things do they form? For the > sake of materiality (rūpaṁ; accusative) receiving ‘materiality-hood’ > (rūpattāya; dative), what is mentally formed (saṅkhatam; noun) is > formed/generated (abhisaṅkharonti; verb). For the sake of > perception-hood... For the sake of mental formation-hood... For the > sake of consciousness-hood....” SN 22.79 literally says what is > ‘sankhata’ is mentally constructed. > > SN 12.20 says all twelve conditions of Dependent Origination are > ‘saṅkhatā’. Since every condition of Dependent Origination refers to > something tainted by ignorance**, SN 12.20 again is obviously referring > to things that are mentally constructed. > > AN 10.93, in affirming SN 12.20, as mentally constructed phenomena, > refers to: “that view (diṭṭhi) is produced (bhūtā), mentally formed > (saṅkhatā), intended (cetayitā) , dependently originated > (paṭiccasamuppannā). > > Iti 43 says: “What is born (jātaṁ), produced (bhūtaṁ), co-arisen > (samuppannaṁ), acted (kataṁ), mentally formed (saṅkhatam) , not > lasting (addhuvaṁ), wrapped in old age and death > (jarāmaraṇasaṅghāṭaṁ), frail, a nest of disease... “. ‘Old age & > death’ are mental phenomena ** therefore obviously saṅkhatam in Iti 43 > refers to what is mentally formed. > > SN 22.55 says: “They truly understand materiality —which is > impermanent—as impermanent. They truly understand feeling … perception > … mental formations … consciousness—which is impermanent—as > impermanent. They truly understand materiality … feeling … perception > … choices … consciousness—which are unsatisfactory —as unsatisfactory. > They truly understand materiality … feeling … perception … choices … > consciousness—which is not-self—as not-self. They truly understand > materiality … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is > saṅkhataṁ —as saṅkhataṁ.” It appears SN 22.55 is not unambiguous and > requires interpretation. Since AN 5.159 and the Pali Suttas in general > demonstrate the Buddha teaching from more coarse to more refined, the > sequence of dhammas from impermanence, to unsatisfactoriness, to > not-self and to saṅkhataṁ in SN 22.55 must refer to saṅkhataṁ having > the meaning found in SN 22.79, namely, the very subtle illusive mental > labelling of materiality, feeling, etc, as existent ‘materiality’, > ‘feeling’, etc. While this use of saṅkhataṁ in SN 22.55 is not > mentioned elsewhere in the Pali Suttas as a requisite of liberation, > in SN 22.55, it appears to refer to a deep insight into the illusive > nature of mentally constructed labelling, as described in SN 22.95, > which refers to mental formations as “not even sapwood, let alone > heartwood”. > > Lastly, MN 115, while not unambiguous, gives the impression of > summarizing all of the elements as two elements: saṅkhatādhātu and > asaṅkhatādhātu. This said, MN 115 does begin its list of elements with > also including material elements but then progresses to only mental > elements. Thus, it is uncertain whether the two elements of > saṅkhatādhātu and asaṅkhatādhātu represent a ‘summary’ of all elements > rather than represent the ‘most refined’ (per the teaching principle > in AN 5.159) view of elements. Given the evidence presented from the > Pali Suttas leads to the conclusion the term ‘saṅkhataṁ’ refers to > ‘mentally constructed’ (rather than ‘created by a cause’), it appears > the meaning of ‘saṅkhatādhātu’ in MN 115 refers to the element of > mental forming. > > ** Refer to: [Dependent Origination from the Pali Suttas](https://www.academia.edu/82769817/Dependent_Origination_from_the_Pali_Suttas) ______________________________________ Note: for clarification, '**produced by a cause**' means as described in SN 22.82 about the five aggregates, which says: the cause (hetu) of the physical body is the four elements; the cause (hetu) of feeling is contact, the cause (hetu) of perception is contact; the cause (hetu) of mental formations is contact; the cause (hetu) of consciousness is nama-rupa. In contrast to the five aggregates 'produced by a cause' in SN 22.82, SN 22.79 says the mental forming of '**sankhata**' gives rupa 'rupa-hood', gives feeling 'feeling-hood', gives perception 'perception-hood', gives formations 'formation-hood' and gives consciousness 'consciousness-hood'. In summary, SN 22.79 appears to say 'sankhata' refers to mentally imputing a sense of 'existence' or 'solidity' upon the five aggregates. ___________________________________ My question: Are there any suttas that unambiguously refer to 'sankhata' as 'created by a cause'?

> “‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.” -The Buddha, from [Dhammapada, verse 277](https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=277) > “Whatever has the nature of arising, all of it has the nature of ceasing.” -The Buddha, from [Kimsuka Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.wlsh.html) But why does something being conditioned mean that it has to be impermanent? And why does something having arisen mean that it has the "nature" of ceasing? Most scientists believe that this localized spacetime manifold in its current state had an origin 13.8 billion years ago. The current consensus among the scientific community regarding the future of this localized spacetime manifold is that it will simply continue to expand forever if we are to believe the current cosmological data. I wrote that as an example, but likewise, I can give other examples. Its not at all clear to me as to why something having arisen means that it can cease, and its not at all clear to me as to why something being conditioned means that it is impermanent. Of course, one could retort and say that the contents of the universe might change or that in this moment, that particle will be in a different position, but that means largely nothing because there is a difference between the microscopic and macroscopic things we observe from our point of view, which is why we distinguish between something like classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Even with this, many, e.g. Neoplatonists, would contest this notion and say that the Universal Intellect as they conceptualize it is conditioned and created as well as composite, but never changes and is eternal. All in all, its not at all clear to me what proof is given for the idea that *all* conditioned things are impermanent, and that *whatever* has the nature of arising, *all of it* has the nature of ceasing. Any help on explaining this would be appreciated.

The setup ...

Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena. AN 3.47

Together with ...

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time you have undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions. SN 15.1

Along with the assumption that "transmigration" or "samsara" is a conditioned phenomena ... Would seem to give rise to a contradiction. On the one hand, the Buddha said quite unambiguously that conditioned phenomena have a beginning, middle and an end, but on the other hand the Buddha said that "transmigration" or "samsara" has no known beginning. Questions:

1. Do you agree this is an apparent contradiction?
2. Do you think this is a real contradiction?
3. If it is apparent but not real, then how would you resolve it?

I would say, "yes, no, and it is complicated" but I'm curious to know how others resolve it. Related but distinct questions. UPDATE: This was too close to a seeded question. Although it was asked sincerely in that I was curious to know others responses (particular users on this site who I respect and admire) I do have my own idea of how I would answer this question so I should not have opened it out of mere curiosity. I was going to delete it given it goes against the site moderation guidelines, but then there are good answers and we are discouraged to delete questions where people have attempted to give good and thoughtful answers so I will leave it, but I do regret opening it in the first place.

This question concerns the proper understanding of AN 3.47:

“Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.” AN 3.47

It might have been suggested in other questions that this sutta is referring only to non-composite sankharas. That is, for composite phenomena - like a chariot - that arising, ceasing, and enduring are not evident. Is this correct? Can the arising, enduring and ceasing of a chariot not be known because it is composite or made up of parts? If so, what would be a good example of a non-composite sankhara that this sutta *would* be applicable to? What non-composite conditioned phenomena can rightfully be said to arise, endure and cease? Does anyone have an example?

We are conditioned beings. Process of conditioning begins at a very early age and continues till we die. My question is : Does the process of conditioning affect the conditioner ?