The discussion on the meaning and purport of sankhara has revealed a number of important facts; not only the uncertainty regarding its exact or precise meaning, but also the problematicity of “intention” or “volition” as possible meanings of it, in the context of a Buddhist perspective on free-will. Discussion has further revealed that there is ambiguity regarding that very Buddhist view on free-will itself, which is quite an important matter, because confusion about this issue can easily give rise to doubts about Dhamma, or misunderstanding Dhamma or confusing it with nihilist or fatalist views (where human action is entirely predetermined). This perhaps warrants a discussion in another thread.
Some have approached this discussion concerning the meaning of sankhara with certitude about its purport, others, myself included, with uncertainty and curiosity, and doubts regarding the proposed meaning. It is noteworthy, however, that uncertainty here is not founded on delusional or sceptical obsessions, but rather on the fact that there are amble occasions in the Pali text where sankhara couldn’t possibly be a reference to intention, volition, action, choices, or any such like meaning; and further on the fact that other connotations of sankhara, such as those referring to conditional productivity and functionality in the most generic sense, seem to present a more convincing meaning particularly in the context of the paticcasamuppada, just as it does in so many other contexts across the suttas, including in verse.
Further, the function of “volition” or “intention” in the context of the paticcasamuppada (as that which begets further existence and, hence, consciousness) is highly questionable, especially given that this makes it identical with “bhava”, which appears later in the 12 links and is represented as the most direct precursor of the cycle of life and death (rebirth). Whether it is indeed the case that consciousness is produced specifically, fundamentally, or solely from a process of potent intention (rather than the exact opposite!), is a question that should be considered; and there are further questions regarding the psychological significance of “intention” in general, within the context of a Buddhist psychology. But you will agree that the investigation and discussion of all of this immediately places one in the realm of abstract conceptualisation and speculation rather than retain one in the realm of direct observation and intuitive awareness; all of which seem characteristic, in my humble view, of an Abhidharmic influence, and at the very least makes the occasion for uncertainty and agnosticism, if not even nonchalance, valid and ripe! This is so because, ultimately, what sankhara could mean in the Pali text, or in doctrinal terms, should not be a concern that exercises a significant influence on one’s actual Dhamma experience and practice, and there’s much wisdom in wearing the gloves of dispassion before handling this old dusty thicket, lest one be stung by bees and bitten by snakes.
The various meanings of sankhara are discussed in several commentaries, and some of these meanings (and interpretations) have gained prominence over others in the course of time. However I believe that those meanings were not discussed well enough! As I mentioned earlier, there is poverty of discussion regarding doctrinal concerns in our Theravada tradition, which so happens to be the one tradition most closely connected with the foundation, the base, or the “original” teaching, which is now preserved only in the Pali text. Relying predominantly (if not solely) on linguistic methods to grasp the meaning of spiritual or transcendental teachings is, it appears quite clearly to me, rather inadequate and ineffective, if not even misleading - this has been one of the main reasons behind the poverty of discussion and debate over doctrinal concerns in our tradition. Debates in other traditions, including those whose text is written in Greek, Latin, or Arabic for example, (languages and literatures which are far more developed than Pali), refer to linguistic methods of analysis with moderation and wisdom, in the course of their pursuit of an interpretive understanding of their old spiritual and philosophical texts. A direct inquiry of the intellectual content of the text itself remains to be the most significant manner through which debate unfolds and leads to the generation of understanding, and there is a tendency of those who rely predominantly on linguistics (or on authoritative interpretations) to develop their understanding into an increasingly dogmatic form, which later manifests in condescension in relation to novel ideas (or revived ideas), aversion to opposition, and intolerance of debate. This is a historical pattern, and one of its direct effects is, secterianism, as those giving expression to doubt or presenting alternative views, especially about important or fundamental doctrinal principles, become exorcised and branded as delusional and heretical, etc. Though many are those who believe that the danger of debate lies in its potential to give rise to sectarianism, history suggests, and demonstrates, that the opposite is the case! Thus it is only fortunate for us that all Buddhist teachings point to the importance of being able to think freely and independently. From that very fortunate situation we can surely embark on creating and joining an inclusionist culture of tolerant debate and non-violent communication, even in the event where we have continued to disagree on the purport of “sankhara” or failed in pinning it down in unison.
but… The Buddha actually said that the entire teaching, and ‘foundation’ is within the 4 Noble Truths. So to me… this is back to basics. Investigation of what causes suffering. So in regards to this exchange, it is rich in opportunity to examine what causes suffering. Desire for certainty.
and the image, in a causally generated way - it’s not a View. It’s not in Meat-space but rather in deep experience of vipassana, without making it too complicated.
I’m afraid I don’t really understand your comment 
It was a parody of 
Now I just have to tame my “activity” 
Somehow that feels much more doable