Whatever one regards as self, or as relating to a self, that regarding is a formation (sankhara). It is born from craving which arises from a feeling born of ignorance-contact. Thus, the sankhara (the regarding) is impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen. And so are each of the components: the craving, the feeling, the contact, and the ignorance.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/bod ... ight=falseHere, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born.
“Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.
Now, it's easy to see (I think! This might be the height of ignorant presumptuousness... ) how the formation (the regarding) is conditioned by the craving; and how the craving is conditioned by the contact; etc. But what sense can we make here of the ignorance being impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen? The sutta doesn't explicitly claim that the ignorance has obvious determining factors. It is at the end of the line of factors which contribute to the dependently-arisen nature of the regarding.
Does the Buddha say elsewhere why ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, and dependently arisen? And what sort of ignorance must we envisage, if it is to have these characteristics?
In addition, what do you think is meant by the term avijjāsamphassajena (born by means of contact with ignorance)? I remember discussing this here, probably with Mike, and maybe a decade ago. But I can't remember what sense I made of it then.