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'?