Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

[mikenz66]

Oh, OK, that makes more sense then...


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

How can one talk about "saṅkhatas" when saṅkhata is not a noun? Perhaps I need help from a Pali expert.

You're correct. When we first started talking about it in this thread I was using the phrase sankhata dhamma (conditioned thing) and just shortened it as we and I went on. I don't think Dinsdale meant it to be a noun either.

You're right, sorry if this caused any confusion.

Another perspective on sankhara from Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

"I would like to take this opportunity to discuss all the meanings of the term "sankhara." This is a very common and important word in the Pali scriptures, but many people have problems with it due to its different uses and meanings. Languages are like that, uncertain and seemingly unreliable. The single word "sankhara" can mean "conditioner," the cause that conditions; it can mean "condition," the result of the action of conditioning; and it can mean "'conditioning," the activity or process of conditioning. We use the same word for the subject of the conditioning, "the concocter," as well as the object, "the concoction." We even use it for the activity, "the concocting," itself. This may be a bit confusing for you, so please remember that "sankhara" has three meanings. The correct meaning depends on the context. This knowledge will be valuable in your further studies."

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Bhik ... TURE%20SIX