How should the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' be translated? In MN 44 is found an explanation of the terms  'kaya, vaci &amp; citta sankhara' (which are terms also found in Anapanasati steps 4, 7 &amp; 8 and in the 2nd nidana of Dependent Origination).
Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is:

Now, lady, what are fabrications (sankhara)?
These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications (kaya sankhara), verbal fabrications (vaci sankhara) &amp; mental
fabrications (citta sankhara).
But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal
fabrications? What are mental fabrications?
In-&amp;-out breaths are
bodily fabrications. Directed thought &amp; evaluation are verbal
fabrications. Perceptions &amp; feelings are mental fabrications.
But
why are in-&amp;-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought
&amp; evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions &amp; feelings
mental fabrications?
In-&amp;-out breaths are bodily; these are things
tied up with the body. That's why in-&amp;-out breaths are bodily
fabrications.
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an
evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed
thought &amp; evaluation are verbal fabrications.
Perceptions &amp; feelings
are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why
perceptions &amp; feelings are mental fabrications.

The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the &quot;verbal fabrication&quot; when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?
Similarly, in MN 10, contemplating the 'citta' means observing to see whether the citta ('the mind-heart') has greed or not, hatred or not, delusion or not, etc. Therefore, how can perception &amp; feeling be the &quot;mental (citta) fabrication&quot; when many suttas state it is feelings &amp; perceptions that are the cause of mental states of greed, hatred &amp; delusion (as shown below)?

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes
it or remains fastened to it, then one's lust-obsession gets
obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves,
&amp; laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's
hatred-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of
neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is
present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback or escape
from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. MN
148

In the English language, the term &quot;fabrication&quot; refers to something that is 'fabricated' (such as a 'building'). Therefore, should not the translation here of 'sankhara' mean something that fabricates (such as a 'builder')?
The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?


In Pali just one word, sankhara, or pair of words.

English, being precise, has a lot of grammar. You can't construct an English sentence without a verb, a subject, maybe an object, and "prepositions". Maybe English has too much grammar (maybe there's a similar problem translating from Chinese into English), i.e. that to create a grammatical English translation you need to add extra grammar which didn't exist in the original.

Insisting on having a subject (an actor or an agent) for each verb (as English does), doesn't that invite the same kind of mistake as I-making or I-assuming, or reification?

So FYI (and I might be wrong) I think of (i.e. I mentally translate) sankhara as "putting together", i.e. as a kind of verb or a kind of process ... but without assuming there's a corresponding subject ... or you might translate is construction or constructing (or fabrication) without assuming there's a corresponding constructor.

So if you take thought as the cause (or prequel) of speech, I understand it as saying that it's the putting together (creation or construction) of speech.

You said that "speech is the fabrication" but in this context I think it's the fabricated.

Also I think that in English the word "fabrication" can refer to the process and to the end result (so "a fabrication" can be used as a synonym for "the fabricated"): e.g. "the story is a fabrication" means that telling the story is the process of telling a lie, and the told/completed story is the result of telling or having told a lie.

I think that sankhara is the process of constructing/fabricating something (e.g. breath, speech, thoughts) and also the product or result of that construction/fabrication.



Another thing is (and again I may be wrong), isn't the direction of the causation deliberately a bit vague? I read the answers to this topic as saying that it isn't as simple as "A causes B", nor "B causes A". It's not that "body causes breath" nor "breath causes body", rather it's "body and breath co-arise", or "body is the condition in which breath arises and vice versa". I might be wrong but does Western science/philosophy/logic/religion for one maybe try to teach us to believe in "cause and effect"? But isn't Buddhist logic rather about "co-arising", which might be a better description than simplistic "cause and effect"?

Assuming "causation" leads to (it invites) logical problems/fallacies like Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For example, I think, it is that "fire causes heat", or is it that "heat causes fire"? Instead of one or the other, let's say that "heat and fire co-arise".



A final comment, if you read the Dharmafarer commentary on MN 44, the author distinguishes (or tells us to distinguish) between the singular saṅkhāra and the plural saṅkhārā -- saying that the singular (e.g. thought forming speech, or mindful speech, or "functional consciousness") is a quality (property or function) of the relatively enlightened mind, whereas the plural is "mental proliferation" or papañca.