text:
Is Emptiness empty of Dhammas?
In this forum, while discussing emptiness as supreme truth, I came across following comment which may be relevant from Mahayana point of view:

"The realisation that things are not as how they appear in cultivated through emptiness of self (anatta) and emptiness of all phenomena."

Poster says emptiness is empty of self and all phenomena (meaning "all Dhammas"), which translates to "All Dhammas are empty of all Dhammas".
My questions are:

Are Dhammas empty of Dhammas?
Is emptiness empty of unconditioned or is emptiness empty of unborn, uncreated and unoriginated?

I think Dhammas can not be empty of Dhammas. It is like body is empty of body and there is nothing to be discarded. In my opinion Dhammas can only be empty of self.
What is your opinion?

Thanks for editing Chris!!

I am the she who has made that statement in another post. This is what I had written- "The realisation that things are not as how they appear in cultivated through emptiness of self (anatta) and emptiness of all phenomena." Then Dheeraj Verma states "She says emptiness is empty of self and all phenomena (meaning "all Dhammas"), which translates to "All Dhammas are empty of all Dhammas". That isnt mine. It is his understanding. I agree with ChrisW and Andriy Volkov especially with the latter's comment that the "translates as" offered by Dheeraj Verma is wrong. It doesnt translate into that.

@HomagetoManjushri Nibbana is supreme Truth nothing else.

@HomagetoManjushri I found this “ Now all dharmas are empty of all dharmas because they are neither eternal nor transitory. ”  link -> https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sarvadharmashunyata

Just for the sake of discussion, if Emptiness (i.e. empty of self) is a characteristic of Nibbana (the unconditioned, unborn and so on), do you find this acceptable?

@Desmon body , a Dhamma , is empty of self. See Rubén’s answer. Emptiness, a Dhamma, is empty of self and  self is not emptiness. I dispute All Dhammas are empty of All Dhammas. Self is not even Dhamma, it is like an illusion born out of ignorance. You don’t find any mention of self in dependent origination.

@Desmon similarly Nibbana , a Dhamma is empty of self. Emptiness of self is even beyond Nibbana because it is like an illusion born out of ignorance. Not real to be called a Dhamma. All Dhammas are without any self. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.

You defined Emptiness as a Dhamma, is this correct?

@Desmon yes. Emptiness is a Dhamma.

Doubly so since '… the she who has made that statement…' seems to agree, does no one notice that the statement doesn't work in simple English?
It might make perfect sense in another language; it might work in a specialised form of philosophical or theological English but in ordinary English, it could never work.
'… things are not as…' or '…how they appear…' but 'as how' will never be correct. Is that not also true in the language this came from, or in Buddhism generally?
More…

Further… nothing could ever be '… in cultivated through emptiness…' and the suggestion that it might be is clear proof that the translation is worse than wrong; it spoils any suggestion arising from it.
The proper translation might be not 'in…' but 'is cultivated…' and does no-one mind, that makes too much difference to be ignored?
I knew nothing of 'anatta' until reading your Posts but two things: the WWW doesn't seem to recognise 'anatta' as 'emptiness'.
Further, '… emptiness of self…' or '… of all phenomena' is another thing that will not work in English'
Did you mean 'absence'?

Poster says emptiness is empty of self and all phenomena (meaning "all Dhammas"), which translates to "All Dhammas are empty of all Dhammas".

This is NOT how it is stated in Mahayana. This seems to be something you made up based on your misunderstanding. We don't say "emptiness is empty of self", "dhammas are empty of dhammas" - that is some kind of nonsense.
Instead "emptiness of self" means that the self is empty, in other words self is not substantial. It appears to be an entity, a subject of perception and an agent of action, but in fact it is a loose collection of processes emerging from a number of causes.
This is a well known truth in both Theravada and Mahayana.
The emptiness of phenomena extends the same understanding to all other phenomena. To a naive observer every thing (every individual "phenomenon") appears to be something concrete and clear-cut, until under closer examination it ends up being a nuanced world of interacting currents and processes, just like the self.
Mahayana says the emptiness of phenomena has always been part of Buddha Dharma, it just wasn't properly understood by Theravada students.
This misunderstanding is exactly why (according to Mahayana) the Theravadins get so hung up on exact terminology and get obsessed over analysis of dharmas, skandhas, nidanas, jhanas and so on. Theravada operates under implicit assumption that you can capture the Buddha Dharma, and indeed the entire reality, in a fixed set of rigid well-defined concepts, and as long as you precisely understand the exact definitions you can be free from ignorance. To Mahayana this sounds funny and even absurd: from their perspective reification of concepts is the root cause of suffering, therefore taking concepts as something solid is the very trap of papanca that Buddha's Liberation By Wisdom was supposed to transcend. So from Mahayana's perspective, the emptiness of dharmas is the critical part of the Teaching that Theravada is missing.
For many centuries the favorite technique of philosophers criticizing Buddha Dharma was to take some part of the Teaching, misunderstand it, and then debate with their own misunderstanding to show how Buddhism is wrong and their own philosophy is superior. Let's not repeat that mistake here, when we have internal arguments between the schools. If you want to argue with Mahayana, approach it with an open mind and try to understand what it is saying. Once you really understand it, then you can say "here is where they are mistaken" - but not before that.

This is exactly right.

I disagree with your answer that self is empty. Suppose I have a notion of self then according to you I am empty , emptiness is mine , emptiness is myself but I reached emptiness by making choices and intentions which is the condition and therefore emptiness is impermanent therefore it can not be called self. Self is empty is a misunderstanding as well.

Emptiness of phenomena is also misunderstood. Emptiness is empty of self and not the other way round.  Body or it’s parts is not me , mine or myself but body is not empty of body ( body is the other thing)

Sounds like you keep repeating the same points instead of trying to understand. For you "emptiness" means "absence", for me it means "illusion". It's okay, I'm not going to argue.

@DheerajVerma Possibly you're misunderstanding the word "is" -- for example if I say "the sky is blue", and "the shirt is blue", I don't mean "the shirt is sky" -- and if I say something like, "X is empty", I'm not saying that X is the definition of empty, I'm saying that "emptiness is a property or characteristic of X".

@ChrisW I would also not argue but in this final comment I would explain my point of view. If Emptiness is the characteristic of X then so are the other properties like body , feelings , perceptions, infinite consciousness, emptiness, neither perceptions nor no perceptions, infinite space , earth , water , air , fire , senses etc. We relinquish all the characteristics because they are impermanent. So what is left is cessation of ignorance, feelings , perceptions,cravings. Nibbana is not emptiness. It is unborn, unbecoming,uncreated, unoriginated. Emptiness originates. I am not empty of craving

Andriy and Ruben have it right Dheeraj. You should listen and reflect.

@YesheTenley I am partly satisfied with Rubén’s answer. Buddha says test the argument yourself and then say who is right. With that spirit I am open unless the argument is unsatisfactory.

Ruben and Andriy are saying the same thing

Apparently, there are two types of emptiness. But you have the understand what emptiness means in each case.
The first type of emptiness is the emptiness related to the self. This literally comes out of SN 35.85:

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that
the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it
said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self:
Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a
self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the
world is empty."
SN 35.85

It's also explained using the lute analogy in SN 35.205.
Emptiness of the self means that something (e.g. body, consciousness etc.) that you associate with the self, is not the self, does not contain self, is not owned by the self, is not apart from the self, is not part of the self etc.
And the third mark of existence states that all phenomena is not self. We can also say all phenomena is empty of a self.
The self is essentially a transient mental idea that is associated with the five clinging aggregates.
The Madhyamaka way to state this is that the self is empty of intrinsic substance.
The second type of emptiness is the emptiness of all phenomena, coming from Mahayana's Madhyamaka philosophy by Nagarjuna.
Let's take the example of a phenomena known as the "smell of metal". I just watched this interesting video "Can you actually smell metal?".
You could take something metallic using your hand and you can smell it. You would get this metallic odor. However, it turns out that metal doesn't produce any smell. When body oils come into contact with metal, it would oxidize to produce the chemical 1-octen-3-one, that is the source of the metallic odor.
So, the "smell of metal" is simply a concept concocted by the mind to explain what it senses. So, we can say that the "smell of metal" is empty of intrinsic substance.
This can be extended to all phenomena. I would explain it as "how you think something is, is not same as how it actually is."
In this way, the emptiness of self is a specific instance of the emptiness of phenomena - "how you think the self is, is not same as how it actually is."
The usefulness of this is not getting trapped in confusing the mental idea of Nirvana or other things, with what it actually is. The same teaching can be found in SN 22.85, where Ven. Yamaka learns that his mental idea of how the Tathagata is, is not the same as how the Tathagata really is.
However, there are a few things to be stated.
First, Madhyamaka didn't invent something radically new compared to what was taught in the EBTs/ Pali Canon.
Emptiness of phenomena is related to papanca (reification or objectification-classification or mental proliferation) which was taught in MN 18 and other suttas.
Second, while Mahayana usually considers emptiness of phenomena to be more important than emptiness of self and a superset of emptiness of self since the self is itself reified, Snp 4.14 puts the mental idea of the self at the root of reification / objectification - classification. Hence, Theravada holds emptiness of self to be more important, in my opinion.

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca):
'I am the thinker.'
Snp 4.14 (also please see this footnote by Ven. Thanissaro)

Third, according to MN 1, it is not that water, earth, Nibbana etc. don't exist at all. Emptiness is not about non-existence, rather, it's about illusion. For an unliberated person, water, earth, Nibbana etc. are all tainted with reification/ objectification-classification relative to the self. On the other hand, arahants and Buddhas see things as they truly are.

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
has fully understood it, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water… Nibbāna as Nibbāna… Why is that?
Because he has fully understood it, I say.
“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened,
directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth,
he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in
earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not
conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is
that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering,
and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever
has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through
the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and
relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full
enlightenment, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water… Nibbāna as Nibbāna… Why is that?
Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and
that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has
come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the
complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and
relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full
enlightenment, I say.”
MN 1

Fourth, the Buddha was not interested in ontology and metaphysics. Does a chair exist or does a chair not exist or how does a chair actually exist was not important to him. He was only interested in ending suffering. This can be seen in the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, The All sutta and the sutta of the unconjecturables.

I would stick to Buddha. There are 3 marks of existence which are sufficient to explain the reality.

Very well explained Ruben

My (poor and uneducated) understanding of the topic is that, Dhammas are empty precisely because they contains other Dhamma -- "empty" meaning that a Dhamma is not only itself, and does not contain only itself.
Let's pick any object -- a leaf from a tree, for example. There are two topics:

Is it myself?
Is it itself?

The first question is related to anatta, the second is related to sunyata.
The first question is related to topics like, "Am I the leaf?", and, "Is the leaf mine?"
The second question is related to topics like, "Does the leaf contain leaf essence, is it essentially a leaf?" You might think the answer is yes: but would you still say "yes" after putting the leaf in a fire, or even after just waiting for a couple of years and letting time pass?
The second question is related to our perception and naming, for example "I perceive this as a leaf, and I call it "a leaf" -- but is it really?" And I think the true is that you could call it something else, and that it contains properties like both "wetness" and "dryness" and which aren't obviously leaf-like.
And the comment you quoted said that sunyata is important because it is our (incorrect) perception of things that causes our suffering -- for example "I'm suffering because a friend died" might seem like an objective and permanent truth -- but perhaps I'm mistaken in my view of "friend" and "life" and "death" and so on (where by "view" I might mean "focus", perhaps fixation).

I note that doctrine that "things are not themselves" might seem contradicted by the doctrine of "suchness" i.e. of things being as they are. I think it's the difference between an unenlightened and enlightened view of things (see also Zen on the subject of seeing a mountain as a mountain).

Excellent analysis. However how can  all Dhammas be empty of all Dhammas? Consider my body. Annata says I am not body. Body is the Dhamma. I discarded my body. Now although body is not me , mine or myself but still there is a body. Body is not empty of body. Body is empty of self but not of body itself. Similarly for feelings. Feelings are empty of self but feelings are not empty of feelings. I refuse to love or hate a feeling but feeling is still there unless it is gone. Leaf has no self but it is still a leaf unless it is gone. Sabbe Dhamma Annata seems sufficient.

You might think of the body as having or as being heart and lungs and so on -- maybe you think of "respiration" and "digestion" and "locomotion" as some essential characteristics of what "a body" is, even "solidity" -- and if so then you might be unhappy when it ceases to function in that way and is a better described as a sack of fertilizer or ashes, or memories. I think that's what the argument is, i.e. that "viewing" the body as "a body" can be misleading.

I understand what you are saying. I meant that ,body nor any part of body is me , mine or myself but body and parts of body are still there. It is just that body or any part of body is lacking any self. Lacking any self means it generates suffering due to its impermanence and therefore not worth calling self. It is not that body or parts of body are absent unless I die and cremated. Unless body is really gone how can we say that body is not present ? Unless I reach to my destination how can I claim I have no road to travel?

Unless I give up home and relationship , how can I claim there is no home and relationship. I am not empty of home and relationships. Pure and undistorted emptiness is reached through renunciation until then it will not be empty of stress due to presence of home and relationship s. Stress is real. Even emptiness is conditional therefore impermanent therefore one should seek cessation of feelings and perceptions by developing dispassion towards all Dhammas including emptiness.

Andriy has it right above.

Personally, I think the questions carried things too far. I think the original intention of sunyata or emptiness arose from the realization that all phenomena are merely constructs that are not inherently independent.
Do we really understand reality and the phenomena that surrounds it? Colours are constructs of the mind, an interpretation as science had proven. When certain light wavelengths bounce off the surface of an object, we see certain colours like red, blue or green. If an object absorbs blue and green light wavelength, logic says you will see red, right? But what if you are colour-blind? Similarly, science had proven that we only see 1% of the visible light spectrum of the real world at any one time. The rest of the 99% is a construct of the mind and we are not even talking about the non-visible electromagnetic spectrum. Similarly, do we really hear certain words or are word sounds merely constructs or interpretations of our mind? Science again proves how subjective our hearings can be. This doesn’t take into account sound frequencies too high or low for human hearing. The sensations of itch and pain too had been proven to be merely constructs of our mind.

Are Dhammas empty of Dhammas?

So, what is reality? Our mind depends on sight, sound, smell, taste and touch to know reality and its phenomena. But science had proven how wretchedly limited and constrained these senses are. If we can never truly know reality, how can we even answer the question whether all phenomena are empty of phenomena? It will be very pompous and pretentious to do so.
Then why did the sutras talked about emptiness of phenomena? I share the same sentiments as @Andriy Volkov and @ChrisW that it is merely to stress that all phenomena are constructs that are dependent on other conditions and causes, period. But don’t go beyond this with another construct that all dhammas are empty of dhammas....because that is not acknowledging that we don’t even know any dhamma inside out. We will never ever 100% grok the reality around us because of our limited senses.

Is emptiness empty of unconditioned or is emptiness empty of unborn, uncreated and unoriginated?

Again, I am afraid this question is carrying things too far. An unenlightened person would not even understand what is the unconditioned, unborn, uncreated and unoriginated all about. How can they then start to answer whether or not emptiness is a part or not a part, contains or does not contain the Deathless? If the person is enlightened, I don’t think they would bother explaining this point to the unenlightened. It is like someone who had tasted mangoes trying to explain mangoes to folks who have never encountered this fruit. With Metta!

Appendix A:
This is additional information arising from the answer and subsequent discussion with the poster to a related post.
With regards to Emptiness in MN121, perhaps a more appropriate way of treating Suññata is to approach it as a type of perceptive as advocated by Ven. Thanissaro. This appears to avoid certain issues arising from treating Emptiness as a dhamma. In MN121, Ven. Thanissaro treated Emptiness as a meditative dwelling. Take note the Emptiness experienced is different at different stages of attainment! The stress and disturbances of the previous attainments are no longer present and one realize the current perception is empty or void of the previous perceptions of wilderness, earth, infinite space and so on. With the Emptiness experienced in the final release (Nirvana) being far superior than all the previous experiences.
To further elaborate, imagine trying to focus on our studies while loud and disturbing music is being played in the background. By not attending to the music and being consumed in our studies, the stress and disturbances from the annoying music is no longer perceived. Thus, the emptiness that is experienced is not intentional. It is a byproduct of attaining a certain level of consciousness. This also means that seeing Emptiness as impermanent and can be ceased, would require a person to cease a particular attainment. This doesn’t make sense, if a person had attained Nirvana, it wouldn’t be Nirvana if it can be reversed thus causing the accompanying Emptiness experienced to be ceased.


text:
Is Emptiness (Sunyata) a dhamma?
This question arises from a comment in a related post.

Is there any mention in the sutras on the Buddha speaking of sunyata as a dhamma? How is sunyata defined? As a phenomena by itself or is it an idea, a concept, a perception, a realization, etc?

Is emptiness a characteristic of the Deathless i.e. the Unconditioned as alluded in this answer?

Thank you.

I'm not an expert on Theravada Abhidhamma, but as far as I know, in Theravada the universal characteristics such as anicca, dukkha, anatta are not dhammas but are "paññatti" - notions aka concepts.
Indeed, if e.g. anicca were a dhamma it would mean that all conditioned dhammas "have" the anicca-dhamma. This makes no sense because dhammas don't "have" other dhammas.
This makes me think that suññatā, being a kind of the deeper layer of the three universal characteristics, is also like that, a paññatti.
Furthermore, if emptiness were a distinct dhamma, it would have to be impermanent, since all conditioned dhammas are impermanent and (according to Theravada) the only unconditioned dhamma is Nibbana. Now, if emptiness is impermanent, how does it arise and cease? And does it mean the self comes back when the emptiness ceases?
Nonsense, isn't it? But that's what happens when one tries to reify concepts, including the concept of "dhamma" and "emptiness". Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika is exactly this kind of proof by contradiction, showing how reification of concepts leads to all kinds of nonsensical outcomes.
As to the second part of your question, whether emptiness a characteristic of the Deathless, the Cula Sunnata Sutta, for example, describes the final Liberation as abiding (vihara) in emptiness. Therefore even in Pali Canon the Emptiness is a way to describe the Deathless or Nibbana, not something abandoned on the way to Nibbana.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

From the New Concise Pali English Dictionary entry on Dhamma, some of the senses of Dhamma are:

how the world of experience works, the processes by which it works and is explained (especially as formulated in Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination), and the possibility and way of transcending it, as understood by the Buddha and taught by him (so that knowledge and understanding of it might bring awakening, arhantship, to others)
a constituent of experience; an aspect or quality of existence; physical sensation; a mental state or quality (good or bad); (sometimes merely) thing, phenomenon, matter; the nonindependent, conditioned constituents of processes and events, progressively more and more minutely analyzed into fundamental types of event or fundamental regularities
mental constructs, concepts, ideas, what is to be cognized by the mind, that which is the object of mental activity
the way things are; a natural law, custom, tradition; the essential nature, the way, of men or animals.

There are also a few types of sunyata:

emptiness of self, from SN 35.85
emptiness of phenomena, from Mahayana's Madhyamaka philosophy
emptiness of defilement, from MN 121

Emptiness of self as related to the third mark of existence ("all phenomena is not self"), is definitely a natural law as defined in AN 3.136.
Emptiness of phenomena is considered a natural law by Madhyamaka philosophy.
We can say that emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena as natural laws are related to the Dhamma definition #4. According to AN 3.136, natural laws are not impermanent.
Any kind of emptiness as a mental concept, an idea of the mind, is #3 and is therefore impermanent.
All 3 types of emptiness mentioned, as types of experiences, are #1 and #2, and also part of #3 (what is cognized by the mind). As such, they are also impermanent.
So, whichever way you look at it, emptiness is a dhamma.

Agreed if defined as natural law because self and phenomena lack inherently independent nature. As in my comment to @DhammaDhatu, I observed a potential logical conflict. However, #3 doesn’t make sense as a natural law as emptiness of defilements is not guaranteed. Lastly, by not treating #3 as a natural law or ultimate reality, it is more useful and relevant to most people as it highlights efforts are needed to eradicate our defilements. Upvoted as relevant, thanks!

As a phenomena by itself or is it an idea, a concept, a perception, a realization, etc?
If it is described as a "dhamma" I don't think that the word "dhamma" is very precise or that it tries to distinguish.
This dictionary definition includes both "thing, phenomenon, matter", and, "mental constructs, concepts, ideas, what is to be cognized by the mind, that which is the object of mental activity", and many others.
Is emptiness a characteristic of the Deathless
Perhaps go to the Mahayana texts for that, since I think that's the primary source of doctrine about "emptiness".
According to this sutra for example,

Therefore, Śāriputra, [in true reality] pure spiritual trainees do not enter nirvāṇa, and bhikṣus with grave sins do not fall into hell. They are neither worthy nor unworthy of offerings, neither ending nor not ending their afflictions. Why not? Because [in emptiness] all dharmas abide in equality.”

Thanks @ChrisW, I agreed that the definition is too broad. MN121 did touch on this topic of emptiness.

Sunnata (the state of emptiness of self) is synonymous with anatta (not-self). About not-self, the Suttas say:

Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles:
‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti.
‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

The word 'dhamma' does not exclusively mean 'phenomena'. Regardless, sunnata is an ultimate reality therefore it is obviously a dhamma rather than a paññatti (subjective thought concept).
Also, emptiness is a characteristic of the Deathless because all things are not-self.

Thanks for trying to answer the question, I am upvoting for the effort. Supposedly, a non-Buddhist approach me and ask, “If all things are not-self, therefore, has this emptiness within (i.e. emptiness is synonymous with not-self). Furthermore, emptiness is a characteristic of the Deathless then why are everything impermanent, subjected to death and decay? Shouldn’t they be Deathless too?”. How should we answer them?

Buddhism does not say all things are impermanent. Only conditioned things are impermanent.

Just pointing out that treating emptiness as an ultimate reality can result in logical conflicts. E.g. conditioned things are not self (void or empty of inherent nature). Emptiness is a property of the Deathless. So, if conditioned things shared the same ultimate reality (emptiness) as the Deathless, why aren’t conditioned things Deathless? Perhaps, a better way is to treat emptiness as a perspective and byproduct of attaining certain consciousness (see Appendix A of my answer).

nothing was pointed out.

(www.suttacentral.net is not working for mobile browsers for 3 days so I will not be able to provide links. I am referring to MN 121.)
While doing meditation of Emptiness or Sunyata Buddha reaches a stage where he says there is nothing at all.
He begins with house being empty of elephants,cows, horses etc and then he says there is only this that is not emptiness,namely, the oneness dependent on Sangha.
Then ignoring perceptions of village and people  focuses on wilderness. So we regard it as empty of what is not there but as to what remains they understand it is present. That’s how emptiness is born in them - genuine , undistorted and pure.
Then focuses on Earth ,Infinite space, Infinite consciousness, nothingness,neither perception nor non-perception, signless immersion of heart.
It was produced by choices and intentions therefore it is impermanent and liable to cessation. Knowing and seeing like this their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality , desire to be reborn and ignorance. When they are freed , they know they are freed. Rebirth is thus ended , spiritual journey has been completed.
We see that through meditation on emptiness there is cessation of ignorance possible.
Emptiness is liable to cessation. The ultimate aim is cessation of ignorance, cessation of desire to be reborn. Once cessation of ignorance is achieved there is no rebirth.
Emptiness is a Dhamma like body and it needs to be discarded. I am not emptiness, emptiness is not mine , emptiness is not myself.
Emptiness is born, Nibbana is unborn.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Strange zen movie - what happens here?
Can someone precisely explain me what is actually happen (and why) on this movie - ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-9pxBANek

Comments say that this is a shortened version of the video, which has been reposted many times on the internet, and that a longer version elsewhere shows his waking up again some minutes later -- and that he intended it as a demonstration.

It's not Zen by the way -- according to comments it's Theravada and the script on the coffin shows it's in Myanmar.

He consciously chose his death. It is possible for someone with great spiritual power to leave his body at will.

you don't need miraculous spiritual powers to commit suicide. It looks like these are known practices - why do they do it?

@KamilKiełczewski It is not suicide. It is leaving body at will. Generally in suicide lots of anxiety is involved. But here there is peaceful exit from the body.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Did the Buddha have unpleasant emotions?
Did the Buddha have unpleasant or negative emotions after his enlightenment? For some time I believed the Buddha only had what you would call pleasant or peaceful emotions. But as I learned that Buddha was still visited by Mara after enlightenment, I began to question this notion.
Furthermore, I read an Ajah Chah book in which he said the Buddha did have defilements, it is just that he was ‘far’ from them.
http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Opening_Dhamma_Eye1.php
What are your thoughts on this?
I think if we cling too tightly to some ideal in which we never experience any sort of emotional discomfort, then this can actually be the cause of suffering as it causes aversion in us. Because if we wish to be free from these feelings we can prolong them by giving them too much attention instead of letting them simply pass.
May all beings be well.

Unless Ajahn Chah used the term "Enlightened Ones" to refer to Stream-Enterer, Once-Returner & Non-Returner, he was mistaken, which I doubt. Keep in mind what is being read is a translation.

The Buddha said that the Enlightened Ones were far from defilements.
This doesn't mean that they ran away from defilements, they didn't run
away anywhere. Defilements were there. He compared it to a lotus leaf
in a pond of water. The leaf and the water exist together, they are in
contact, but the leaf doesn't become damp. The water is like
defilements and the lotus leaf is the Enlightened Mind.

The Buddha did not have unpleasant or negative emotions (sankhara; defilements) after enlightenment. The Buddha only experience painful sensations (vedana).

According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

After Nibbana, the Buddha could indeed experience the sensation of pain (as he did in the case of dysentery), but he nevertheless does not suffer from it. Hence, suffering had indeed ended for the Buddha.
According to Itivuttaka 44:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
property with no fuel remaining.
Footnote
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
no fuel remaining."
Commentary (Thanissaro):
With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
The "fuel" here is the five aggregates (see the Glossary). While the
arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates,
but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion.
When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of
aggregates here or anywhere else.

After attaining Nibbana, but being still alive, the Arahant or Buddha still could experience the sensations of pain because the five aggregates are still operating. But he will not suffer from it, or have passion, aversion and delusion. Meanwhile, after death, the five aggregates no longer operate anywhere.
In any case, suffering ends completely after Nibbana. The Buddha does not suffer from disease, although he may experience it.

When Buddha was about to die , he was very sick. He was in pain but he followed his practice and was aware of the Dhammas arising in him like painful feeling.
His pain was mitigated due to his meditation practice.
We need to give attention to what arises whether body , perception, feelings, choices , consciousness but we should discard them as they are not me , mine or myself. There is no lust or aversion or delusion.

Here is some mild evidence to infer an arhant feels unpleasant emotions:
FROM DN16:

Now at that time a monk named Subhadda, who had gone forth when old,
was sitting in that assembly. He said to those mendicants, “Enough,
reverends, do not grieve or lament. We’re well rid of that Great
Ascetic. And we are oppressed: ‘This is allowable for you; this is not
allowable for you.’ Well, now we shall do what we want and not do what
we don’t want.”
Then Venerable Mahākassapa addressed the mendicants, “Enough,
reverends, do not grieve or lament. Did the Buddha not prepare us
for this when he explained that we must be parted and separated from
all we hold dear and beloved? How could it possibly be so that what is
born, created, conditioned, and liable to wear out should not wear
out, even the Realized One’s body?”

Although it does not depict an arhant in particular, one can assume some of that gathering were indeed realized ones.  That being the case, perhaps Buddha himself experienced some unpleasantness too.
On a side note, I think Subhadda, seeming hard-nosed, was probably trying to create a diversion for some other monks - he even praises his teacher here.

This is an invalid question. Buddha is not some entity that owns the skandhas, so we cannot speak of Buddha "having" emotions, either positive or negative. Buddha is not one of the skandhas so Buddha is not (identified with) emotions. Therefore, if negative emotions do occur, they have nothing to do with Buddha.


text:
Can a Dhamma be made up of other Dhammas?
What is Dhamma ? Dhamma is all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. Dhamma also means different realities. Dhamma also means nature of things.
Take for example body , it is made up of parts. Dhamma is the body and it is made up of six senses and other body parts like heart , kidney, intestines etc . Each part can be called a Dhamma. However I read someone saying that Dhamma can not be made up of other Dhammas.
My question is : Can a Dhamma be made up of other Dhammas ?

Do you truly believe such a Question translates into workable English? To me, for one, the Question is doubtful and the exposition irreparably trips itself up with 'Dhamma is all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. Dhamma also means different realities. Dhamma also means nature of things.'
Whatever language you started from, to make that meaningful in English would take long chapters if not whole books.
I truly believe that in an English forum, such as here, you might better ask 'How should Dhamma be translated'?

The answer is different in different schools. In Theravada Abhidhamma, dhammas are atomic, not made from anything, and don't have more than one quality. According to Theravada Abhidhamma, all the variations we see in the world is due to the combinations of dhammas.
In Theravada Abhidhamma, there are 82 types of dhammas. That's it, you can find the list on the internet. Everything must fall under one of these.
In Theravada Abhidhamma things like "human body" are not dhammas but are labels we give to many-many dhammas arising and ceasing together.
So, for Theravada, the answer is "no, the dhammas are what we have on the official list of 82 types of dhammas and each of them exists by itself, not made from other dhammas"

Now, the answer is different in other schools of Buddhism. Soon after Buddha's parinirvana there was a school called Prajnaptivada that explained that every dhamma is basically just a concept in the observer's mind which separated a particular quality or thing from the rest and gave it a label. This is what makes dhammas unreliable (dukkha) because they are mere opinions of the observer, basically.
This idea of Prajnaptivada was later developed into the Yagacara's teaching of Vijnaptivada (every thing is just an idea) and Madhyamaka's concept of emptiness (things don't have solid existence from their own side). Both of these are different ways to explain the same basic idea.
In terms of their composition, Mahayana Adhidharma says that dharmas are always made from other dharmas. It's not a static state, instead all dharmas are constantly slowly changing like clouds, because the dharmas they are made from are also constantly changing and so on. This is why we have anicca.
But, what's very important to understand, if you closely look at any single dharma you cannot find anything stable and solid, you will only find more dharmas (not only smaller physical parts, but also external influences). This why we say dharmas are samskaras/sankharas - bundles of causes and conditions. Each of these causes and conditions is also a bundle of causes and conditions, and so forth ad infinitum. This is what we call anatta in the broad sense - dhammas don't have core.
Also, this means that if you look at a dharma up close you will see that both it's boundaries and everything inside is constantly shifting over time. So an idea of an entity is a kind of simplification of the real situation. The boundaries and the identities are abstractions assigned by us the observers, based on a rough snapshot taken from a certain perspective.
When we attach to our concepts and opinions about dharmas, we get blind to the actual situation in the real world. This is what the suffering comes from. This is why we say all dharmas are dukkha.
Now you can understand that Emptiness is just a short name for the full explanation of how things exist in the real world vs how the mind of the observer sees it, and this is where anicca, anatta, dukkha come from.

Some supporting info on what you called labels: From (Theravada) Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis: "The material elements never occur in isolation but in groups or clusters called kalaapas. A kalaapa can contain from eight to thirteen material elements. There is no cluster of matter without at least eight elements, the four primary elements and four secondary elements — namely color, taste, smell, and nutriment. A unit containing only these is called a Pure Octad."

A sankhara (conditioned and compounded phenomenon) is a type of dhamma (phenomenon).
Sankharas can be compounded i.e. made up of other sankharas.
Please see this essay by Ven. Bodhi entitled "Anicca Vata Sankhara".
My summary of sankhara from this essay:
Sankharas are "co-doings," things that act in concert with other things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Ven. Bodhi uses "formations" or "volitional formations" as his preferred translation.
There are 3 uses of the term Sankhara in the scriptures:

Second link in dependent origination - when ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, including "rebirth".
The fourth of the five aggregates - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Also covers all factors of mind except feeling and perception.
All conditioned and compounded things including mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers.

The only thing which is unconditioned and uncompounded is Nibbana.
Here's an example of compounded sankharas from the suttas:

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil
One," replied to him in verses:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me,"
sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
SN 5.10

The answer for all dhammas (in the sense of phenomena), except Nibbana, is yes, they are conditioned and compounded.

Here again , it please modify the answer to give a clear yes or no. Thanks.

I am not an expert in Pali but if we follow the English translation of the word, we can ask the following:
Can a phenomenon be made up of other phenomena? Can a process be made up of other processes? Can a thing be made up of other things?
In short, yes. But how useful is this? If I said to someone, “I have an idea that is made up of other ideas”. The natural reaction is to ask what specific idea is being referred to. The lack of specificity requires a further effort to elucidate the context in which the statement is made. Without further clarification, any discussion or debate is futile.
I would like to stress that the term, “dhamma” is at times too broad and unspecific. Follow-up efforts are usually needed to interrogate the context which it is used in order to get a clearer picture of the intentions and to avoid potential logical conundrums, misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

Dhamma is a learned concept. Dhamma as a learned concept is impermanent and is a result of impermanent mind. When we come across word Dhamma , we must ask “Dhamma of what ?”
What is the Dhamma of body ? Its Dhamma is to take birth , age , decay and die. Its Dhamma is to meditate. Its Dhamma is to observe all using six senses. Its Dhamma is to run away from pain and unattractive and run towards pleasure and attractive. And so on.
When we say “ Dhamma of “ we are talking about some truth about an entity which may or may not have parts. Different parts can have different Dhammas and overall there can be a Dhamma which serves the purpose of all of its parts.
Therefore a Dhamma may or may not have parts or a Dhamma can or can not be made up of parts having their own Dhammas.

Why are you answering your own question?

@YesheTenley yes . I understood Dhamma. It is a Truth which we learn. Truths can be made up of other truths.

Again, why are you opening questions and then answering them yourself?

@YesheTenley Many times  it happens that you understand something after sometime. Why are you asking this ?

It is bad form to answer your own question and against site policy

@YesheTenley then remove the option to answer your own question. So many people answer their own question. Nobody said anything like this to them e.g. dhamma dhatu answered his own question .. I am not sure about this site but there is an option in other sites to answer your own questions like in physics forum. Who is the coordinator of this forum ? I would like to have a word with him.


text:
Is Anicca, Anatta, & Dukkha a Dhamma?
Someone said that Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha are not Dhamma, it is a pannati or concept.
To clear my doubt I ask : Is Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha a Dhamma or not ?

Anicca/Dukkha/Anatta

No, traditionally, the 3 concepts of anicca, dukkha and anatta are defined as tilakkhana i.e. 3 characteristics and not as dhammas per se.
When something is defined as a dhamma, the immediate question is, is it conditioned or unconditioned? If the dhamma is conditioned, it leads to suffering else it is something desirable. Logically, anicca and dukkha are conditioned and as Buddhists, we strive to eradicate them. But what about anatta? Is it conditioned or not? Do we eradicate anatta to find the true atta (self)? Why do we need to realize sunyata in order to attain Nibbana then? If Nibbana is anatta, why do we need to be enlightened since anatta is already in you and me? This leads to potential logical conundrums that requires careful qualifying and phrasing in order to prevent ourselves from getting stuck in philosophical quagmire.
If Buddhists had to navigate gingerly around this maze of potential contradictions, how would non-Buddhists respond? Would they be willing to spend the same amount of time and effort to understand all the intricacies and definitions?
No, I think they would simply assume Buddhism is a self-contradictory religion and a poor example as a philosophy. This is a self-inflicted bad image that comes from using a very broad and loose term. It is an unnecessary headache. We can simply side-step this problem by avoiding the definition of anicca, dukkha and anatta as dhammas or talking about them as dhammas. Besides, if you do a Google search for these 3 terms, you'll find that the majority of the sites refer to them as signs, marks or characteristics rather than as laws, truths or principles.
Of course, if you are not a Buddhist to begin with, the state of Buddhism or its image is not of your concern then just ignore the above. With Metta.

The term "dhamma" has this sense, among others, from this dictionary entry:

the way things are; a natural law, custom, tradition; the essential nature, the
way, of men or animals.

It means "natural law" or "natural principles".
And in the following sutta, "sabbe sankhara anicca" is noted as a natural law or principle.

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles:
“Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā
tathāgatānaṁ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
all conditions are impermanent.
Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā.
all conditions are suffering.
Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā.
all things are not-self.
Sabbe dhammā anattā.
AN 3.136

So the answer is yes, the three marks of existence are dhammas, in the sense of natural laws.

The original context of this question was a debate we had about Emptiness.
The users responding from Mahayana perspective were talking about self being a bundle of skandhas while appearing as entity. That's what Mahayana means when it says that self is empty. This is known as "the [ontological] emptiness of [phenomenal] self".
The OP disagreed and said that self is not empty. Instead, he said, all dhammas are empty of self, in the sense that they are not self, not me, not mine. This includes the dhamma known as Emptiness.
Another user responded that perhaps we were not talking about emptiness as a conditioned dhamma (that has the characteristic of anatta etc.), but rather we were talking about self being a bundle with no core, so emptiness as a principle, not a thing.
To this the OP responded that Emptiness is definitely a conditioned dhamma with characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta applying to it too, resulting in this question. In my answer to that question I argued that reification of dhammas as if they were something concrete, as it is done in Theravada Abhidhamma, is absurd and leads to nonsensical outcomes.
In that answer, I said that Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta are also like that, principles rather than phenomena that themselves are subject to these principles. Because if Anicca were a conditioned dhamma, it would itself be impermanent, leading to infinite regress.
And if Anicca, Anatta, Dukkha were unconditioned dhammas, they would have to be synonyms of Nibbana, because no other dhamma is unconditioned in Theravada. (And that may be true, actually, who knows... ;)
But in this question, the OP is asking whether Anicca etc. can be called dhammas in any sense. Sure, they can be called dhammas in the sense of "some thing". But that's not what we were talking about originally. We were debating whether Emptiness, just like Impermanence and Unreliability, is a universal characteristic of all phenomena, or a conditioned phenomenon.
I hope it's clear now.
The OP should rephrase his question to ask "are these conditioned dhammas". Otherwise this looks like cheating in debate by suddenly using the same word in a different sense.
And my answer is, no they are not conditioned dhammas, and neither is Emptiness. All of these are dhammas only in the sense of "some thing", but no one ever calls them dhammas in this sense. They are known as "characteristics" (Pali lakkhana).
Reference: The Dhamma Theory. Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa
Buddhist Publication Society
Kandy, Sri Lanka.

Whenever a mendicant practices breathing while observing impermanence,
Yasmiṁ samaye, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ‘aniccānupassī assasissāmī’ti
sikkhati, ‘aniccānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
or observing fading away,
‘virāgānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘virāgānupassī passasissāmī’ti
sikkhati;
or observing cessation,
‘nirodhānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘nirodhānupassī
passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
or observing letting go—
‘paṭinissaggānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘paṭinissaggānupassī
passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
at that time they meditate observing dhamma in dhamma,
aware, and mindful, rid of covetousness and displeasure for the world.
dhammesu dhammānupassī, bhikkhave, tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhu viharati
ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
Having seen with wisdom the giving up of covetousness and displeasure,
they watch over closely with equanimity.
So yaṁ taṁ abhijjhādomanassānaṁ pahānaṁ taṁ paññāya disvā sādhukaṁ
ajjhupekkhitā hoti.
That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by observing an
aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of covetousness and
displeasure for the world.
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, dhammesu dhammānupassī tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhu
viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
MN 118

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

There is lot of confusion about what is Dhamma.
In this specific case there is a confusion about Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta being a Dhamma or not ?
Consider a concept “बहाव”. You will not understand it. Why? because you have not learned it. There is beginning of the learning of concept called “बहाव”.  It has a beginning and whatever which has a beginning must have an end. This is called looking with an eye of Dhamma.
Understanding of Concept itself is impermanent, it arises , changes and vanishes. In that sense concepts Annica, Dukkha and Anatta are sanskaras or Dhammas. The understanding of those concepts are impermanent. That is one way of looking at it . Another way to look at it is by applying the concept to create another truth. “ बहाव” is a Hindi word and it means “flow”. “Flow” is a concept which is understood because we were taught using Dhammas like water flows , milk flows , honey flows. We create another truth “ all liquids flow”. Now this is another Dhamma or sanskhara.
What we are doing is using impermanent learned concepts to create another truth.
We further create more truths :
All sanskharas are Anicca.
All sanskharas are Dukkha.
All Dhammas are Anatta.
In a way Anicca , Dukkha and Anatta were learned or had a beginning conditionally. Concepts themselves are impermanent as mind is impermanent. And using impermanent concepts we generate impermanent understanding of truths.
Impermanent understanding of truths doesn’t mean they are lies.
Therefore we see that even concepts are sanskharas.
Coming to the objection that if Anicca is impermanent then doesn’t it lead to infinite regress?
My answer is no. Anicca or impermanence is impermanent in a different way. It was learned , had a beginning of understanding therefore it is impermanent but the truth
“ Sabbe sanskharas Anicca “ remains forever true.
Therefore Anicca , Dukkha and Anatta are Dhammas of the mind. But Sabbe sanskars Anicca, Sabbe sanskars Dukkha and Sabbe Dhamma Anatta remains true forever independent of mind observing it. It is the Dhamma of immortal mind.

Is there any sutra where the Buddha talk about how anicca, dukkha or anatta begin? The claim that there is a type of anicca, dukkha and anatta belonging to the mortal mind and another type belonging to the immortal mind is something novel.

@Desmon dependent origination talks about origin of Dukkha and what liable to origination is subject to cessation conditionally. Understanding of Anicca , Dukkha and Anatta are impermanent but the truth they stand for are immortal.

Dheeraj, I think you are confusing the concept, someone's understanding of concept's meaning, and the actual something "out there" that the concept is pointing to. It seems like in your answer it's all blended together. But I agree Dukkha is one confusing example. Is Dukkha of Four Noble Truths the same dukkha as in the tilakkhana?

@AndriyVolkov all concepts are learned including that of Dukkha. Understanding of Dukkha is impermanent. But the truth sabbe sanskar Dukkha is immortal. Similarly sabbe sanskar Anicca is immortal. It has always been so and will remain so forever. These truths therefore these Dhammas are deathless. I have improved the answer.


text:
Which teachings and concepts were already existing before the Buddha and which ones are introduced by the Buddha?
My understanding is that the Buddha took many teachings and concepts already existing in his society and renewed them when needed, giving them a meaning in accord with his understanding. Is it correct? I guess he introduced new teachings and concepts as well.
My question is: which one were already existing and which one are introduced by the Buddha?

4 noble truths
8 fold noble path
5 khandha
6 sense bases, 6 sense objects and 6 consciousnesses
4 brahmavihārā
4 right efforts
4 jhāna
5 precepts
3 jewels
4 gratitudes (parents, teachers, friends, all beings)
4 kinds of nutriments
7 factors of awakening
6 paramitas
ānāpānassati
satipaṭṭhāna
nibbāna
saṃsāra
interdependent co-arising
anattā, dukkhā and anicca
sila, samadhi and prajna
rebirth and previous lives

Please add to this list if something important is missing.
In gratitude

The following were introduced by the Buddha, as explicitly stated in the suttas mentioned:

4 noble truths (SN 56.11, which says: "things unheard before")
8 fold noble path (SN 56.11, which says: "things unheard before")
anicca, dukkhā & anattā (AN 3.136, which says "a Buddha discovers & reveals it")
interdependent co-arising (SN 12.10; SN 22.65; SN 12.20, which say: "things unheard before" & "a Buddha discovers & reveals it")
4 jhāna (MN 36, which refers to jhana under a rose-apple tree)
3 jewels
4 kinds of nutriments
7 factors of awakening
ānāpānassati
satipaṭṭhāna
nibbāna
sila, samadhi and panna

Note: the four nutriments are about how the 'concept' or 'self-view' of 'a being' or 'beings' is maintained together with craving. Therefore, the Buddha must have introduced this teaching because only the non-becoming of not-self can have realisation of the opposite, which is 'becoming' via 'craving for nutriment'.

Are you sure about the concept of  nibbāna? I'm convinced it was repurposed from before.

Even in DN 1, there are records of other religions using the term Nibbana - "“Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine or view: ‘When this self, good sir, furnished and supplied with the five strands of sense pleasures, revels in them—at this point the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now.’ In this way some proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being."

OMG. Ruben. Please. My efforts are in vain.

There were many Buddhas before Gautam Buddha and there will be a Buddha in future. Understanding of Knowledge is impermanent but knowledge expressed by Buddhas are permanent.
During Buddhas period there were other wise men like Jains , Brahmins who were also had the same motive of eradicating suffering. So the concept of suffering was present during that period but when Gautama began his journey ,he was not exposed to the suffering, his father made sure that he never discovered suffering. But he saw suffering when he went into the city. He saw an old man , a diseased man and a dead man. Compassion arose in his heart and he left his palace in search for eradication of suffering. He was not taught what is suffering. He learned on his own. Brahmins and Jains reached to various levels of jhana through meditation but no one came close to the concept called Anatta or not-self. It is not that such a discovery was made first time by Gautam Buddha but from his point of view he was the first to elucidate the truth of suffering , origin of suffering, cessation of suffering and the path leading to the cessation of suffering.
Truths are rediscovered in various epochs. But the Truths are always present whether Buddha arises or not.


text:
Does the word Dukkha means same in every context of Buddha Dhamma?
To clear my and my friends doubts I ask the following question :
Does the word Dukkha mean the same in every context of Buddha Dhamma?
My opinion is that yes ,it is a general term for all kinds of stress. There is a range of stress , from subtle to deep,and kinds of stress, depending on nature of contact of six senses. Stress of heat , stress of too much cold , stress of sharp pinch , stress of bad smell , stress of loosing loved ones and so on..

It seems from your question that you have translated dukha as stress. I suggest you do not do that. While "stress" can certainly be brought under the umbrella of dukha, dukha includes a lot more. (From your name, I assume you are Indian and therefore know some Hindi. Stress is translated "tanaav" which is responsible for one feeling dukhi (is suffering) and not sukhi (happy). Dukha has a very wide connotative range. )

"You also have to make a distinction between the dukkha in the three perceptions and the dukkha in four noble truths. The dukkha in the four noble truths is the dukkha caused by craving. The dukkha in the three perceptions is inherent in everything that changes, everything that’s fabricated."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "The Three Perceptions" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/ThreePerceptions.html

Some time ago Dhamma Dhatu wrote a great answer that I can't find but the gist of what he explained was that the dukkha of three lakkhaņa-s is telling us that all dhammas are unreliable or deceptive or faulty, NOT that they are literally painful. So in that case "dukkha" refers to dhammas' potential or propensity for being the basis of dukkha.
This potential is always there, the dhammas aka appearances remain deceptive and faulty even for an arahant. It's just that the arahant no longer naively trusts appearances and does not keep grasping to his or her expectations when they don't match with reality.
So this potential dukkha, this quality of being deceptive (known in Mahayana as "Emptiness") is always there. It is not a conditioned dhamma, it is a universal principle.
However, the dukkha itself is a conditioned dhamma as famously declared in the Four Noble Truths.
So while the word dukkha has the same meaning, when we are using it in context of tilakkhanas what we are really talking about is the unconditioned universal principle of deceptive appearances ("emptiness") and how it generates dukkha due to grasping and ignorance, but when we are talking about the Noble Truths that's when we're talking about conditioned dhamma called "dukkha".

still imo, this is making some confusion where there might not be. there is only one duhkha. to say there is a duhkha that is not the duhkha of the 4 noble truths seems to be stretching the meaning, whether there is a spectrum of that same duhkha is a another topic

The main takeaway from this discussion, for me, is that all our concepts are approximate, including "dukkha", "dhamma", and even "same". We should not attach to concepts as if they were precise, and should always remember that all teachings are only rough pointers at what's going on in reality.

i scored this answer up, even though i only read: "Dhamma Dhatu wrote a great answer".

Where is this humor coming from @DhammaDhatu :=)

This is a technical term that goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the word in Pali.
The canonical definition is:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the
unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha;
not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short,
the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.".
SN 56.11

That's quite self-explanatory. But if you want a further explanation, just look at the Dukkha page for Ven. Sariputta's elaboration.
Ven. Bodhi's comments from the forum on Understanding Dukkha:

In the Pali suttas, the discourses of the Buddha, the word dukkha is
used in at least three senses. One, which is probably the original
sense of the word dukkha and was used in conventional discourse
during the Buddha’s time, is pain, particularly painful bodily
feelings. The Buddha also uses the word dukkha for the emotional
aspect of human existence. There are a number of synonyms that
comprise this aspect of
dukkha: soka, which means sorrow; aryadeva, which is lamentation;
dolmenasa, which is sadness, grief, or displeasure; and upayasa,
which is misery, even despair. The deepest, most comprehensive aspect
of
dukkha is signified by the term samkara-dukkha, which means the dukkha that is inherent in all conditioned phenomena simply by virtue of the fact that they are conditioned.

This means that the technical term dukkha has a superficial meaning which is pain, suffering, stress, lamentation, sorrow, grief, despair, anguish, dissatisfaction, encountering that which is disliked, being separated from that which is liked, and not getting something you want.
However, the technical term dukkha also has a deeper meaning in sankhara-dukkha - which is that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, and therefore is a cause of suffering, because "they cannot provide stable happiness and security" (see below). It is for this reason that some people say "unsatisfactoriness" or "discontent" is a better term to use than "suffering" to explain the deeper meaning.
The superficial meaning covers only the negative experiences, while the deeper meaning covers the fact that positive and neutral experiences cannot be sustained forever, and negative experiences cannot be avoided forever.
In "Anicca Vata Sankhara", Ven. Bodhi comments:

The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as
conditioned formations, is that they are all impermanent:
"Impermanent, alas, are formations." They are impermanent not only in
the sense that in their gross manifestations they will eventually come
to an end, but even more pointedly because at the subtle, subliminal
level they are constantly undergoing rise and fall, forever coming
into being and then, in a split second, breaking up and perishing:
"Their very nature is to arise and vanish." For this reason the Buddha
declares that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara dukkha)
— suffering, however, not because they are all actually painful and
stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of transience.
"Having arisen they then cease," and because they all cease they
cannot provide stable happiness and security.
To win complete release from suffering — not only from experiencing
suffering, but from the unsatisfactoriness intrinsic to all
conditioned existence — we must gain release from sankharas. And
what lies beyond the sankharas is that which is not constructed, not
put together, not compounded. This is Nibbana, accordingly called the
Unconditioned — asankhata — the opposite of what is sankhata, a
word which is the passive participle corresponding to sankhara.
Nibbana is called the Unconditioned precisely because it's a state that is neither itself a sankhara nor constructed by sankharas; a
state described as visankhara, "devoid of formations," and as
sabbasankhara-samatha, "the stilling of all formations."

samkara-dukkha = dukkha that is inherent in all conditioned phenomena simply by virtue of the fact that they are conditioned = sounds wrong

@DhammaDhatu That's explained by "suffering, however, not because they are all actually painful and stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of transience. 'Having arisen they then cease,' and because they all cease they cannot provide stable happiness and security."

Dukkha & transience are viparinama-dukkha. The ideas of Bodhi come from the Commentaries, which interpret MN 44 falsely, saying viparinama-dukkha is about changing feelings. SN 22.1 clearly literally states viparinama is not necessarily dukkha. Samkara-dukkha refers to the dukkha of mental formations, such as conceit.

Well it has a meaning or a broad meaning -- or you said in the OP that it's "a range of stress or kinds of stress".
Now is that "a range of meaning" (singular), or is it "a range of meanings" (plural)?
In Pali (like in German) you can combine words (several "root" words) to make a more-specific "compound" word -- for example, "dukkha-vedanā" (meaning "painful feeling"), or for example ruben2020's answer mentioned "Sankhara-dukkha" (meaning "unsatisfactoriness of sankharas").

Arahants experience painful feelings (Iti 44).
Arahants have ended thus do not experience "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering" (SN 12.2; SN 22.1).
Arahants view thus experience all conditioned things as "dukkha" (SN 22.59). MN 115 says: "It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take any condition as pleasant".
Obviously 'dukkha' does not have the same meaning if some 'dukkha' phenomena are experienced by Arahants & other 'dukkha' phenomena are not experienced by Arahants.

"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha)" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha). This is the path to
purification.

Dhammapada

Honestly, I don't even think there was any dukkah before those noble ones appeared.  I don't even remember suffering before I encountered the dhamma.  It's like Buddha came along and said now it's time you understand what suffering is. Doesn't it seem like he's saying, 'Come my good man, eat from this tree of knowledge of good and evil?'

You haven't grieved someone's illness, death, injury, loss?

Seeing "greed" in connection with "grief" is the second noble truth, isn't it? I hadn't seen that truth articulated before I read it in the Buddha-Dharma. I also like the Dharma's preaching morality, taking that as a basis: without morality a person's [mis]behaviour is a cause of grief.  Also I don't understand alcoholism, which I see as both a cause and consequence of grief, so I'm thankful that the doctrine's fifth precept says to refrain.


text:
How to break Pali compound words?
Looking at the Pali Tripitaka, many of the words are really long:

Ucchedavādo
anuppādadhammā
evaṃsukhadukkhappaṭisaṃvedī
micchādiṭṭhikammasamādānā
sambodhiparāyaṇo’’ti (btw, what does that ’’ mean, I see it a lot?)

Can you break these words down to smaller ones automatically/algorithmically somehow? Or must you understand the meaning of the word's parts, and only then could you attempt it (and even then it is not recommended).
How do you emphasize the main part of the word like you do in english "REG-yu-lear-lee" (regularly)? How do you speak or read such long words, is it normal in Pali? I know they didn't use the Latin alphabet, but not sure how they thought of words even. Just looking for some perspective / advice on how to handle them.

There's a famous word where people aren't sure what it means because they don't know where to divide it. Maybe it's a compound word where the division is at a "long a"? If someone here knows/remembers this word, or one like it, it would be relevent in an answer.

Tathagata: "Modern scholarly opinion generally opines that Sanskrit grammar offers at least two possibilities for breaking up the compound word: either tathā and āgata (via a sandhi rule ā + ā → ā), or tathā and gata."

Here are some useful resources for understanding Pali compound words:

Dissecting Compound Words from Learn Pali Language blog
Chapter 12: Compounds of A Practical Grammar of the Paali Language, by Duroiselle
Chapter 7: Compounds of An Introductory Grammar of the Pāḷi Language by Bomhard
Chapter 12: Compounds of A Practical Grammar of the Pali Language
Chapter 12: Compounds of A Practical Grammar of the Paali Language
Chapter 12: Compounds of A Practical Grammar of the Pali Language
Pali compounds: breaking them a better way by Ven. Sujato on SuttaCentral (for those interested in an algorithm for breaking compounds)

All the Chapter 12 links are probably coming from the same source i.e. the book by Charles Duroiselle.

My main question is, can words be broken down automatically (programmatically with code)?

@Lance Please take a look at the last link.

Ok great, thanks, so basically it's an unsolvable problem, and we need AI to help?

@Lance Or real intelligence. I guess you're referring to "because even for Sanskrit we have ambiguities". Consider a spoken language which has homophones -- what's the meaning of each word in a sentence, how do you understand or translate it? A human, native speaker of the language has little difficulty (e.g. using grammar and context).

get this
https://digitalpalidictionary.github.io/
get both the dictionary and the pali grammar
there's a team of people that are constantly updating the database
it will break down words correctly

Is there an associated dataset somewhere?

https://github.com/digitalpalidictionary/digitalpalidictionary/issues/5#issuecomment-1762587157

This breaks up words like tāvadeva into tāva + eva, which is not what I really wanted. I wanted tāva + deva (every letter accounted for), is that not possible?

[tāva + eva] ✓ looks correct to me. the 'd' is a sandhi, just something to smooth out the pronunciation between word parts.

These are word compounds (samāsa). I have found this short introduction booklet relatively easy to follow, page 21.
While the Pali-English function on Sutta Central is very good (click on the 'Views' icon to explore the language features only in Sujato translations), possibly the easiest & clearest assistance (for the novice) with dissenting Pali compounds in sutta is the Digital Pali Reader (here, insert the sutta number that you know contains the word, for example for sambodhi).
Gradually, we gain familiarity. The main thing is knowing how to research using Pali-English suttas & dictionaries.

Uccheda + vāda
anuppāda + dhammā
evaṃ + sukha + dukkha + paṭisaṃvedī
micchā + diṭṭhi + kamma + samādāna
sambodhi + parāyaṇa

'ti' is merely an ending. It does not mean anything, except 'thus'.
We can break down some words further when we become familiar with common prefixes & suffixes. While I am only a novice, I can see the prefixes of:

anu
pati
sam

So now I just use Sutta Central dictionaries or Pali Digital Reader and try my luck. For example:

'anu' generally means 'close'. But looking at the dictionary, my guess was wrong because anuppāda is an + uppāda therefore 'an' means 'non'. Anuppada means 'non-arising'.

Once we have the basic of researching, we just fumble along until we work it out, hopefully.

I was able to use @frankk's approach (see my comment), but it breaks down words like tiha into t + iha, or others like tāvadeva into tāva + eva (missing the d)? How am I supposed to interpret this? I was hoping for words to be split in a slightly "better" way, where each part was a main whole word (like you demonstrated). Is it not possible to do automatically?

I am not a Pali expert but I have studied Sanskrit.Pali and Sanskrit have a lot in common. Words can be formed by combining multiple words. You should have a thorough knowledge of the Pali language to combine or separate words. It can be done automatically but the machine algorithm will be very complex as words change depending upon context of singular, plural , past tense , present tense , future tense etc.


text:
What do the Four Great Elements refer to?
The Four Great Elements quite literally translate to Earth, Wind (Air), Fire, Water.
It is often taught that these are really descriptions of first person experience, and the monikers are just analogies.
These first person experiences are something like:

Earth - the felt sense of solidity
Water - the felt sense of "squishiness" or liquidity
Air - the felt sense of light motion in the body, and also wind on the skin, and sensations from breathing
Fire - the felt sense of temperature

Is there any evidence in the Sutta Pitaka that this teaching is accurate? In other words, what Suttas seem to imply that when these terms were used, the above interpretation is what was had in mind.
In contrast to the "first person experience" interpretation, one might just understand the appearance of these terms in the Sutta Pitaka as referring to material objects and reflecting the understanding of chemistry at the time.

In Longer Advice to Rahula Buddha details all the elements including space.
It is a long discourse so I will only quote a portion here:

Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything hard, solid,
and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This
includes: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews,
bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs,
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard,
solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.
This is called the interior earth element. The interior earth element
and the exterior earth element are just the earth element. This should
be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I
am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right
understanding, you reject the earth element, detaching the mind from
the earth element.

You can go and read it yourself. And it was also given as an answer in the link you provided.
Other suttas include:

'A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four
elements, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject
to inconstancy, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating. It
has nine openings, nine un-lanced heads. Whatever would ooze out from
it would be an uncleanliness oozing out, a stench oozing out, a
disgust oozing out. Whatever would be discharged from it would be an
uncleanliness discharging, a stench discharging, a disgust
discharging. For that reason, you should become disenchanted with this
body.
AN 9.15

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus,
therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold,
deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by
contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is
deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.
SN 22.79

"If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?
“Yehi, ānanda, ākārehi …pe… yehi uddesehi nāmakāyassa ca rūpakāyassa
ca paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu …pe… tesu uddesesu asati api nu kho
adhivacanasamphasso vā paṭighasamphasso vā paññāyethā”ti?
DN 15

The four elements of earth, water, air and fire, is just one way to classify physical matter, roughly corresponding to the physical states of being solid, liquid, gas and plasma.
The Buddha was not a chemist or physicist. Contrary to popular thought, he was also not a philosopher. He was an ancient psychologist, trying to solve the problem of ending (mental) suffering.
His classification of psychological elements was incredibly detailed, and psychologists and psychiatrists of today are still trying to make use of his teachings on mindfulness to devise therapies. However, his classification of physical elements, were rudimentary, and just sufficient to suit his needs.

In contrast to the "first person experience" interpretation, one might
just understand the appearance of these terms in the Sutta Pitaka as
referring to material objects and reflecting the understanding of
chemistry at the time.

Exactly here is your wrong view. The whole BuddhaDhamma is about removing first person experience(sakkay ditthi). The 'I' is virtual, unreal, worthless.
Abandon that. and be sotapanna.
When you say object, there is a subject which again is virtual. Drop both subject and object. In buddhas words internal and external earth element are just same.
buddhas words are not mare intellectual understanding. Even if you understand it intellectually, the question should be how do i practice this.
Calm your mind(it  may take years of practicing Sila and Sense restrain)then put aside your question. and see as it is. In that seeing let the 'I' drop. and see what remains. Thats earth element, there is no internal no external. just that.
Until you tame your mind(The I) by Sila and sense restrain these thing will look complex and weard.
There is no chemistry here, no electron, proton, or periodic table. because all that is knowledge arises from concepts. On experience level it is just hardness /softness. just like breath is a concept, based on sensation at nose. you can feel the sensation but can never feel the breath. similarly you will never feel atom,electron, proton. etc. but you can feel hardness/softness. Just rest on that experience and be watchful of arising and passing away of 'the I'.
Also study suddhastaka, or attakalapa, where these 4 element are explained together with their quality becomes 8.

I did not ask for practice advice or presumptions about my view. First person point of view just means the quality and texture of the perceptions/consciousness/formations/feelings or alternatively of the data presented at the six sense doors. Arahants still experience such things, but they dwell independently without craving.

Again you are rotating around person my dear. Arhant is not a person. contemplate on that. but any way I wish you get answer from someone else then .best luck.

In Longer advice to Rahula Buddha details all the elements including space.
It is a long discourse so I have not quoted it here. You can go and read it yourself. And it was also given as an answer in the link you provided.
Earth is understood as Earth. Water is understood as Water. Fire is understood as fire. Air is understood as air. And space is understood as space. There are no analogies. Body is made up of those 5 elements. When meditating on body we discover those elements as bones , blood , inner heat , breath and space of nostrils.
There is no need to complicate matters further(such as saying knowledge of chemistry is important etc)as everything is made up of those 5 elements.

I did not say that knowledge of chemistry is important, nor is what I am saying unduly complicated. My point was rather that the four great elements were taken to refer to the different types of material objects that existed, and because they understood all material objects to be composed of four elements, they would refer to material objects in general as "the four great elements." Nowadays we would instead just say, "material objects" (which are made of atoms, electrons, protons, etc). It should be noted that this does not diminish the utility of the teaching.

@Jbag1212 The great elements are sufficient to explain all including atoms. Because there is no need to delve into the composition of atoms from this point of view , we leave it at that. (What are electrons ,protons,neutrons made up of and where does this composition problem ends ? With Strings ? Moreover I do not identify with atoms in any way ,as it is too generalised therefore problem of Anatta doesn’t arise)

The great elements can sufficiently explain atoms, really? The things listed in the discourse you linked include bodily fluids, organs, hair, skin, digestions, warmth, the breath, etc. None of these can explain atoms. And regardles of where the composition problem ends it is quite clear that the answer is not "fire, water, air, earth" because those things are emergent phenomena of other fundamental units.

It is perhaps worth mentioning again that the advice given to Rahula, even though it was framed according to a model of material reality that we now know is innaccurate, is still useful from the point of view of practice.

@Jbag1212 For your kind information, reality as explained by Buddha is accurate.


text:
How were large Pali words perceived / understood originally?
I asked How to break Pali compound words? in which I tried to also ask the question I am asking here, but the answers focused mostly on how to break down Pali words (which I also find important).
But for this question, I am wondering how ancient people perhaps conceptualized, read, spoke, or otherwise dealt with these large words? Were they said as a single utterance with a single linguistic stress syllable? Or were they considered like english "multi-word terms", and we just write them as a single word for some reason in modern romanization of Pali?
Basically how were these large words or terms dealt with in the original context? I personally find the long words unwieldy and hard to pronounce because there is just so much, so wondering how the ancients did it, or how they thought of them.

If you asked this question about even the English language I couldn't answer it -- how do people speak and understand English?

I know it's a hard question to answer even in English, but having been studying a wide variety of languages (such as agglutinative like Turkish vs. fusional vs. analytic like Chinese), each native speaker doesn't know how it works from their perspective, but people outside the language generally have a say.

I still don't know how people in languages with sentence-words (Turkish, some Native American languages, etc.), feel the meaning of long sentence words vs. sentences. So a similar question.

But for this question, did they pronounce it the way it is written in the romanized version (long words with one central emphasis syllable)? Or did they think of them like English multi-word terms, and we just romanized it differently for some reason?

I heard that written Chinese combines ideograms, so instead of distinct words like car, cart, bicycle, taxi, bus, truck, they have combinations like motor vehicle, horse vehicle, pedal vehicle, hire vehicle, public vehicle, cargo vehicle. I guess the answer to your question might be not either/or, but both (a "multi-word" and a "single word").

Your question has nothing to do with the Truths Buddha elucidated.
How a language evolves is a subject of linguistics. But I will try to answer your question.Pali is a highly evolved language just like Sanskrit. Hebrew ,Classical Arabic , Sanskrit and Pali are
the languages in which ancient religious texts were written and memorised. The primary criteria of choosing a language to express the Truth or Dhamma was that the language should be able to express the Dhammas in a poetic language , so that it was easy to memorise.
Another requirement was that the language should remain pure and no diversions from the meanings of words should take place because religious knowledge was considered sacred knowledge or pure knowledge.
The text written in those languages not only made the Dhammas memorisable but easy to recite as well. Because it had limited dictionary and many words were formed by combination of words , there was lesser need to refer to some kind of dictionary.
Emergence of Pali , Sanskrit , Hebrew or classical Arabic language as a spoken language of the masses meant that people of that era were special and they came together to express their Dhammas.
You will find long words difficult to speak because you lack the environment. If you had been taught Pali from birth then it would appear intuitive to you.