Sankhara the way I understand includes everything which exists in the world. This includes all animate and inanimate things. This means that the six senses which make up the living being too is included in it. When the Buddha said “sabbe sankhara” he meant that. When the Buddha said “sabbe sankhara anicca” and hence “dukkha” he meant the constantly changing nature inherent in them due to which very fact they turn out to be dukkha. In other words, dukkha is a direct result of anicca. By the same logic, since everything is anicca and dukkha it naturally follows that they cannot be identified as “this is mine, this I am, and this is my self”.
Taken in the above context, the key ingredient in sankhara is their constantly changing nature which makes them impermanent, unsatisfactory and non self. This means that everything including the six senses and their counterparts can be seen from two perspectives. One is a seemingly static nature – a passive - and the other which is more difficult to fathom is a constantly changing – an active - nature. The Buddha used such terms as sankatha and patiica samuppannna – conditioned and dependently arisen – to refer to the seemingly static nature. And he used the word sankhara to refer to the constantly changing and phenomenal nature.
Unfortunately, the living beings are either not aware of this fact or they are conditioned by other theories dictated to them by various traditions which obscure this reality for them. Whatever the reason, the Buddha called it ignorance due to which they construct a world out of the six senses. This created world is the five aggregates which they cling to with attachment. The existence bhava is this continuation with attachment to the five aggregates.
In the creation of the so called world, living beings, out of ignorance, make intentions with regard to the six senses because they do not understand the sankhara, sankhata and paticca samuppanna nature or more specifically the phenomenal nature of all which exist including the six senses. The three types of sankhara – kaya, vaci and citta – belong in this active and passive category. The Buddha said “cetana hum bhikkave kamman vadami”, intention, monks, I call action. Because, it is at this point sankhara takes on a new dimension and that is the potential of intentional actions to ripen as consequences vipaka which is commonly referred to as the ethical dimension. However, the Buddha did not invent a new word to refer to this new dimension but continued to use the same word sankhara in spite of the fact they entailed consequences.
I understand the word kamma which is translated as ethical action with an example. Suppose two persons engage in the action of walking from point A to B. The first person walks with just the intention of walking but the second person intends to destroy everything he encounters as he walks from point A to B. Both these instances of walking are sankhara with the three characteristics – impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non self – because there is no walker except on conventional terms. But, in the second, even though there is no walker, there are consequences accruing to the walker. So, in the first instance the action of walking is mere sankhara whereas in the second, it is sankhara with consequences. In the context of dependent origination, it is the second type which is considered. The Buddha used the word punabbhavabhinibbatti – production of future renewed existence – to refer to this second type reflecting the potential of the walker to continue to practice such actions because of his intention based on a self which in reality does not exist.
The actions can be classified as meritorious or demeritorious based on the qualitative aspect of it.
If we now view this scenario in the context of the five aggregates in respect of the first person in the example, the five aggregates are mere sankhara including the aggregate of intention because there is no potential for continuity. Whereas in the context of the second person, the five aggregates are abisankhara, because due to ignorance, he has assumed a self as the doer – the walker – thus, tacitly accepting responsibility for “his” actions.
Now, coming to the translation of the word sankhara, the difficulty associated with capturing all the above nuances in one single word must be pretty evident. The only solution seems to be to use two words with and without the intentional aspect. The word “choice” seems to capture both these aspects since all choices are sankhara at the end of the day. But can all sankhara be choices?. Because they become choices only to the extent they are chosen. What about the ones not chosen?. It can be argued that even those not chosen are choices because they are available to choose from. But the key issue is whether this word captures the phenomenal, impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self nature of all that exists including the six senses which we choose because of ignorance. Bhante Sujato seems to suggest that the phenomenal aspect is pure Abhidhamma and only secondary in the suttas which I fail to understand from Suttas like SN 12.20. Therefore, my personal stand is that “choice” does not capture that phenomenal aspect and I am not sure if it does more harm than good because someone reading it out of the context may come to wrong conclusions particularly with regard to the idea of self in relation to the six senses.
In conclusion, I would prefer Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of “formation” because IMO it captures the phenomenal, impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self nature inherent in all that exists just like a mass of foam.
With Metta
Thanks for providing the opportunity to ponder this from a different angle.
glad to have sorted that out in my mind 