I agree with Tilt’s analysis that the string of epithets “ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ” are modifiers, rather than nouns.
Here’s a boring grammatical analysis.
Let’s take a look at Ajahn Thanissaro’s translation of Ud 8.3, which is pretty representative of the translators who render the epithets as nouns –
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time the Blessed One was instructing urging, rousing, and encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with Unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
It will be obvious that these translations rely on the presence of the antonyms to the epithet, ie “the born, the become, the made, the fabricated” to furnish a basis to treat both sets (ie the ajāta and jāta sets) as referring to nouns, instead of predicates.
The Pali for Ud 8.3 is –
669Evaṃ me sutaṃ— ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā bhikkhū nibbānapaṭisaṃyuttāya dhammiyā kathāya sandasseti samādapeti samuttejeti sampahaṃseti. Tedha bhikkhū aṭṭhiṃ katvā, manasi katvā, sabbaṃ cetaso samannāharitvā, ohitasotā dhammaṃ suṇanti.
670Atha kho bhagavā etamatthaṃ viditvā tāyaṃ velāyaṃ imaṃ udānaṃ udānesi—
671“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyatī”ti.
The issue is this – are the translators justified in translating the antonyms jāta bhūta kata saṅkhata as nouns, instead of being predicates?
Note, that the “jāta bhūta kata saṅkhata” are all inflected in the genitive case. Now, translating this genitive formation as the most common sense of the possessive, ie "birth’s escape", would not make sense at all. Ajahn Thanissaro et al therefore translate the genitive as an ablative, ie "escape from jāta bhūta kata saṅkhata". Grammatically, nissaraṇa/escape is always escape from something, ie the jāta bhūta kata saṅkhata are all treated as nouns from which one escapes. This construction therefore leads to the reading that the antonyms ajāta abhūta akata asaṅkhata are also nouns.
Is it meaningful to render the genitive as an ablative in this case, even though it is grammatically permissible?
Bear in mind that the grammars reminds us that the genitive form has overtaken the old dative form, ie the genitive can be read as the dative instead. Instead of reading the “-ssa” genitive in the ablative sense, Sue Hamilton proposes to give it the dative sense (Early Buddhism – A New Approach, p 187). She translates jāta bhūta kata saṅkhata in the sense of “the issuing of what is born, become…” (the dative here expressing result). This sense depicts Nibbana as the escape from Dependant Origination.
The udana recorded in Ud 8.3 is not a solitary occurrence. It appears again in It 37. The Pali for that is –
272Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā vuttamarahatāti me sutaṃ—
273“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyatī”ti. Etamatthaṃ bhagavā avoca. Tatthetaṃ iti vuccati—
274
“Jātaṃ bhūtaṃ samuppannaṃ,
kataṃ saṅkhatamaddhuvaṃ;
Jarāmaraṇasaṅghāṭaṃ,
roganīḷaṃ pabhaṅguraṃ.
275
Āhāranettippabhavaṃ,
nālaṃ tadabhinandituṃ;
Tassa nissaraṇaṃ santaṃ,
atakkāvacaraṃ dhuvaṃ.
276
Ajātaṃ asamuppannaṃ,
asokaṃ virajaṃ padaṃ;
Nirodho dukkhadhammānaṃ,
saṅkhārūpasamo sukho”ti.
277Ayampi attho vutto bhagavatā, iti me sutanti.
The entire udana from Ud 8.3 is repeated verbatim, but It supplies a commentary (presumably the Buddha’s) on the verse. This is Ajahn Thanissaro’s translation of It 38
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned."
The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
is unfit for delight.
The escape from that
is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.
On the other hand, we have Rune Johansson’s translation –
This said by the Blessed One, the Worthy One, was heard by me
in this way: "Monks, there is freedom from birth, freedom from
becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning.
For, monks if there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from
becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning,
then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making,
conditioning, would not be known here. But, monks, because there is
freedom from
birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from
conditioning, therefore the escape from that which is birth,
becoming, making, conditioning is known."
[Here the Buddha, The Blessed One, offers his own verse commentary
on his statement.]
This meaning the Blessed One spoke, it is spoken here in this way:
That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned,
And thus unstable, put together of decay and death,
The seat of disease, brittle,
Caused and craving food,
That is not fit to find pleasure in.
Being freed of this, calmed beyond conjecture, stable,
Freed from birth, freed from arising, freed from sorrow,
Freed from passions, the elements of suffering stopped,
The conditioning [of greed, hatred and delusion] appeased,
This is ease [bliss].
Copied from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/16590" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here again, you see that the genitive for jāta bhūta kata saṅkhata can easily accommodate the dative.
This reading gives a picture of the epithets as modifiers, rather than being nouns.