I was too late to reply to this thread before it got locked. Here’s an attempt at an on-topic reply.
Thanks for the analysis, Bhante @Sujato.
I tend to be skeptical regarding conclusions that the Buddha was turning specific Vedic ideas around. I mean, sometimes it is obvious that he did, like when he effectively says so himself in the suttas. But often it is not so obvious, and it seems to me mostly a guess that he did. (I’m reminded of Jurewicz’ article on Dependent Origination.)
In this case, was the Buddha really replying to Vedic concepts behind saṅkhata, thereby turning a Vedic value system around? If so, why would he feel the need to do so in the first place? Was this concept of saṅkhara such a central idea to the Brahmins? Something that needed to be refuted? To me, it doesn’t seem so. And hence it seems unlikely to me that the Buddha called nibbāna the asaṅkhata to make it “independent of Vedic or other rituals of ‘potentization’". Perhaps he did, but it is not convincing. I’d need a bit more evidence from the Buddhist texts themselves that this is what he was doing.
It still seems to me that (a)saṅkhata and (a)kata are effectively synonymous in most if not all contexts in the suttas:
- Dhp383 says: Sankhārānaṁ khayaṁ ñatvā, akataññūsi brāhmaṇa. Here the ending of saṅkhāras (i.e. the “a-saṅkhata-ed”) is synonymous to akata.
- Dhp154, on the famous house-builder, treats na kāhasi as close equivalent to visankhataṁ.
- The “unborn” passage in the Itivuttaka and Udāna uses akata and asaṅkhata right next to another. I agree with Norman that the meaning is “‘without made things’ (akata) and ‘without formed things’ (asaṅkhata).”
- Snp2.2 uses sukataṁ and susankhatehi as synonyms. The reference here is well-made/prepared food. This use of susaṅkhata also occurs in AN4.57.
The word kata without question means ‘made’ or ‘created’. So apparently the Buddha had no problems with potentially implying (to some, to me it never did) “creation from nothing.” By extent, there would be no problems regarding this if saṅkhata would be synonymous to kata. That is to say, it could mean ‘made/produced’ even if to some that would (wrongly) imply creation out of nothing.
Also, all references given in the other thread were from Vedic texts, but I think we always have to wonder to what extent we can/should adopt the Vedic/Brahmanical meaning of words and import them into our reading into the suttas. The Buddha often did adopt prior terms with a similar meaning, but he also used terms with a different meaning, either due to the evolution of language or intentionally. So instead of the Vedic texts, I think it’s more important we consider daily-life uses of sankhata in the suttas themselves. A very good example is the last reference above, but there are also:
- MN66 uses
paṇītasankhātataraṁ~~ and~~ saṅkhati, referring again to food. - Snp1.2 uses susaṅkhata for a raft.
- AN4.40 speaks of a properly made/prepared (abhisankhataṁ) sacrifice.
I do not think ‘conditioned’ really works well in any of these contexts. We don’t speak of conditioned meals, rafts, sacrifices, or houses—if we mean such things are made or produced/prepared. If we would say such things are conditioned, we would mean something very different.
For the given Vedic contexts I would even say the same, although I haven’t looked at them in context. The word saṅkhata may not mean literally ‘put together’ like sometimes derived from its etymology, but on the other hand, ‘conditioned’ also does not seem to convey the intended meaning very well. For example, is a refined language a “conditioned” language?
Something like ‘produced’ may be better. Ven. Sujato already uses something similar for the repeated phrase abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā, namely “produced by choices and intentions”. That’s indeed the idea here, that the thing is made by choices & intentions, not merely conditioned by them.
All that aside, my main gripe would still be with the negated form asaṅkhata when translated as ‘unconditioned’. This has often been taken to mean that nirvana doesn’t depend on any conditions, that it in a it sense always existed. For example, Rahula wrote in the famous What the Buddha Taught: “Nirvāṇa is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be saṅkhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvāṇa is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect.” I’ve come across such arguments more often, and they are always just based on the English term ‘unconditioned’, without establishing that asaṅkhata actually means this, in the sense that it is assumed to have.
However, if we do go just by the English ‘unconditioned’, then I think such interpretations are justifiable. It is a clear and well-known meaning of the word, one that is also natural to assume, given that the Buddha often talks about things being conditioned (by which I mean paccaya, not saṅkhata).
Gombrich (What the Buddha Thought) argues Rahula “lets us down here”, and I agree. The cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion (which is how the asankhata is defined) is not something that always existed in some independent way. It is not unconditioned, in this sense of the word. Nirvana is very much the result of something. There specifically is a condition (paccaya) and cause (hetu) for nirvana (SN35.118): namely, the cessation of craving, which in turn depends on the eightfold path. It’s like the extinguishment of a fire depends on it running out of fuel. Nibbāna is also said to be produced/generated (abhijāyati) in AN6.57.
We can argue why people like Rahula misunderstand what the word ‘unconditioned’ means in our eyes, in our translations. But ideally we wouldn’t have to explain what our translations mean; they should be transparent by themselves. At least, they shouldn’t cause unnecessary confusion. That’s why I am hesitant of the translation ‘conditioned’, let alone ‘unconditioned’.
To me, the prime advantage these have over alternatives is that they are more well-known and have become a more palatable as a result. But that’s not a very good reason to prefer them.
But I’d happily be convinced otherwise! 
What kind of a (Pāli) compound would that be?
I don’t recall Bhante Sujato joining the fray; I don’t recall whether he explains the rationale elsewhere. Anyway, moving on…
.