text:
Is it never what you think it is?
In the Sappurisa Sutta, MN 113, Access to Insight it says:

'The Blessed One has spoken of non-fashioning even with regard to the
attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception,
for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from
that.'

Or as translated in The Middle Length Discourses, page 912

'Non-identification even with the attainment of the base of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception has been declared by the Blessed
One; for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than
that.'

and by Tang Huyen, alt.zen

'Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of
not-being-made-up-with-that) even the place of neither notion nor
not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what
(yena yena) they think it (maññanti tato), it becomes otherwise (ta.m
hoti aññathaa ti).'

The phrase in the second translation: "for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that", seems to apply generally, as if describing Maya.
The other translations could be read as saying specifically the "attainment of the dimension ..." or 'Non-identification-with' should not be construed.
Should the more general sense apply?  Is that the original meaning?

The word "atammayata" was also mentioned and referenced in this answer.

Here's an interesting link on this topic: https://www.liberationpark.org/arts/other/atmrebirth.htm

Thanks to ChrisW for additional clarifications.
In my understanding, this is a reference to a folk poem-turned-proverb popular at Buddha's times about impermanence and the futility of human condition:

Yena yenahi maññanti,
Tatotassa hi aññathā;

In whatever way you think of it
It invariably gets otherwise.

Here Buddha creatively uses it to emphasize the point he's making about confusing any particular meditative state with Nirvana. However refined, any meditative state is fleeting, "it invariably gets otherwise". In whatever way one tries to grasp it and make it into something one can own and be proud of -- true Nirvana remains unreachable to the grasping mind. It cannot be held onto, cannot be conceptualized, it can only be realized through actually letting go, or, in Mahayana terms, through embracing Shunyata as one's actual modus operandi.
You can see on my example right here in the previous paragraph that, indeed, as soon as you use a positive statement to describe Nirvana, your very words become a conceptual box limiting the vast open space and misrepresenting the living realization.
Or to paraphrase OP's apt question title, Nirvana is never what you think it is.
To answer your question directly: the poem speaks about impermanence of everything in life in the general sense, but when the Buddha quotes it he refers specifically to the impermanence of meditative states vs the letting go of grasping at conceptual boxes (atammayata) as the only true Nirvana.

Do you know where that quote is from? The closest passage I find is Snp 3.8 -- which is the same, except the second line is "Tato taṁ hoti aññathā" -- for which I think the English translation seems right, i.e., "Whatever you think it is, It becomes something else."

This particular version can be found in the non-canonical "Other texts" (Anya) \ Nīti-gantha-saṅgaho \ Caturā-rakkha-dīpanī\ text #2 (Maraṇassati-niddesa). I'm not aware of any available translations :(

The dictionary gives very similar translation of both variants: Tatotassa = "from that(genitive)"; hi = "only(emphasis)" aññathā = "otherwise". -- Versus -- Tato = "afterwards" taṁ = "it" (most likely nominative); hoti = "is"; aññathā = "otherwise".

From the dictionary I get that bhava and hoti are the same word, meaning "is" and "become" -- which is wild all by itself. In English "is" is static and "become" is dynamic, maybe in Pali they're identical (both identified by the same word) -- "wheel of being" and "wheel of becoming". Secondly, "become" has a conventional or easy-to-understand meaning in the context of Snp 3.8, e.g., "You may think that X is yours but it becomes something else" -- it's a comment on impermanence, and especially on people dying -- not so much a comment on conceptualising, nirvana, or using a chair as a drum.

Not that you're wrong but it's interesting to see different meanings in a text. Thirdly, tato ("from") might ally with the "becoming" sense of the word -- and maybe not "it becomes different from what you thought it was" or "from your conceptualising", but just "it becomes different from what it used to be (i.e. from what it was when you formed an opinion of it)".

I see your point. So the original poem was about impermanence of all things, and Buddha used it to talk about impermanence of meditative states. Putting our ideas together we now have a simple explanation that makes perfect sense. Thank you!

The Chan/Zen tradition, for this reason, has always emphasized “special transmission outside the teachings, without reliance on words and letters.”
Case 40 in the Mumonkan (Gateless Gate) illustrates this perfectly:

When Isan Oshõ was with Hyakujõ, he was tenzo [典座 head cook] of the monastery.
Hyakujõ wanted to choose a master for Mount Tai-i, so he called together all the monks and told them that anyone who could answer his question in an outstanding manner would be chosen.
Then he took a water bottle and stood it on the floor, and said, "You may not call this a water bottle. What do you call it?"
The head monk said, "It cannot be called a stump."
Hyakujõ asked Isan his opinion.
Isan tipped over the water bottle with his feet and went out.
Hyakujõ laughed and said, "The head monk loses."
And Isan was named as the founder of the new monastery.

In a more contemporary case, I've seen a Zen teacher point to a wooden arm rest and ask his Sangha: "what would you call this?" When some answered "an arm rest" he said "no it's not!", and started slapping his hands on the object, saying "now it's a drum."
It's not that what you think it is doesn't describe some of the properties of an object, it's that what you think it is or how you name it limits your perception of it.

When I want to analyse a sutta or a translation there are two places I turn to.

One is Ven. Sujato's translation with the "View root text with translation" and "Activate Pali word lookup" options enabled.
That gives this:

The Buddha has spoken of not identifying even with the attainment of the first absorption.
‘paṭhamajjhānasamāpattiyāpi kho atammayatā vuttā bhagavatā.
For whatever they think it is, it turns out to be something else.’
Yena yena hi maññanti tato taṁ hoti aññathā’ti.

I think that's more like the first translation you quoted than the second -- i.e. it explicitly references the first jhana.
The second one you quoted gives you the impression that it might be a more general statement, presumably because it says "in whatever way they conceive" and not "whatever way they conceive it".
Ven. Sujato's translation says explicitly "it" (referring back to the previous sentence); and I think that's justified by the word tato.
I'm not denying that atammayata isn't a good thing generally, but to answer your question I think that here the object is specifically the first jhana.
But the English translation says literally, "For whatever they think [the first jhana] is" -- however perhaps a different translation might be, "For whatever opinions they form [about anything] from the first jhana" ("from" being a translation of tato), which tends again towards that second (more general) meaning.

The other place I go is Piya Tan's analysis (if there is one); partly because he references other writers, and commentary, and so on.
His analysis for MN 133 is here -- https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/23.7-Sappurisa-S-m113-piya1.pdf -- (at least for the moment, the URLs on that site aren't very stable).

Spiritual practice is not based on dhyana
21a (19) CONCEIT ON ACCOUNT OF DHYANA ATTAINMENT. Furthermore, bhikshus, a false person,
quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states, attains and dwells in
the first dhyana, accompanied by initial application and sustained application, accompanied by zest and
happiness, born of solitude.
66 He reflects thus:
‘I am an attainer of the first dhyana attainment, but these other monks are not attainers of the first
dhyana attainment.’
So he praises himself and belittles others on account of his being an attainer of the first dhyana attainment.
This, bhikshus, is the nature of a false person.
21b But a true individual, bhikshus, reflects thus:
‘The Blessed One has spoken of the non-identification with the first dhyana attainment, too. For, in
whatever they conceive, it turns out to be something else.’
So, keeping at heart [keeping in mind] only the practice of non-identification with the first dhyana
attainment, he neither praises himself nor belittles others.

I think that suggests that ...

The whole sutta is is a list of various types of conceit or objects of conceit
For each possible type conceit there's a (different) remedy or counter-acting thought, practiced by the true individual
The remedy for being conceited about attainment of the first jhana is atammayata

... and therefore, again, this sutta mentions atammayata in the specific context of the first jhana.


text:
How does Buddhism deal with failure?
I've developed over the years an attachment to social media, which I've many, many times tried to break. I'm starting to suspect it is because there's no problems when things go well, but when I fail, I automatically blame myself and get discouraged and give up.
For Buddhists, is there any specific view or attitude to adopt towards failure? Something that would allow one to cope with such discouragement? I feel many factors are involved.
Thank you

In case it matters,  wasn't sure I understood the second sentence -- but now I think it's saying, that the reason why you "try many times" (i.e. haven't succeeded finally) is that when you fail (to break your attachment) then you "automatically blame myself and get discouraged and give up".

I guess I was trying to say that the blaming and discouragement and giving up is causing the failure. If I didn't blame myself, or get discouraged, I'd preserve my motivation and keep trying to abandon my attachment to social media.

Both Eterna's and asd123's answers are good advice. I will say though, with regards to asd123's advice, that although one should certainly embrace those feelings and not be afraid or angry or upset at them, don't indulge them and fall into a pit of self pity. Respect them but don't let them drown you.
Failure is natural, we all make mistakes, learn from them. Maybe it was good that you made this or that mistake, maybe it was a lesson that you needed to learn which will help you in the future. Maybe this failure now will lead to success in the future you otherwise wouldn't have. To quote Ajahn Brahm: "good, bad, who knows?".
I am not sure I understood your question correctly, but it seems you are also dealing with social media addiction? If you are relapsing, try to think about why that happens, get to know the rationalizations your mind offers. Think of reasons not to give in to them, and have those reasons on the tip of your tongue. Are you getting a lot of urges? Then sit for a bit and meditate, clear your mind, remember impermanence and suffering (as Eterna said).
Not sure if this last part is what you were looking for, maybe you could clarify your question? Are you saying that failure in other parts of life is causing you to relapse to your social media addiction, or is it the failure to stay away from social media that bothers you?

I guess what I meant has been addressed in the answers.  Judging myself for having failed intensifies my experience of failure. It causes me to get discouraged and to self-sabotage. There are many addictive behaviours that I experience which share the same pattern of failure and relapse.

For Buddhists, is there any specific view or attitude to adopt towards failure?

First of all, don't be too hard on yourself. We are all failures here in Samsara.
The Buddhist way to deal with this is to be mindful of the thoughts and feelings that arise. We use the Four Foundations of Mindfulness which encompass The Five Aggregates. They're the primary field of work when practicing Vipassana meditation.
Try to be mindful of the thoughts and feelings and you will come to see the Three Marks of Existence and (part of) Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda)
Most important thing is to do consistent meditation practice in order for the mind to see things clearly. When that happens the majority of our "problems" will subside.
May you have a fruitful practice.

Why would you want to cope with those feelings?  Feeling bad about failure is the whole point!  It makes you less likely to do it again.  Embrace those feelings.  They are a gift that will help lead you to further success.

I read of a modern experiment: two groups of children are given a task, and afterwards one is praised for how well/successfully they did it, and the other is praised for how much effort/attention they put into it. Then they're given another, more difficult task -- the children who were praised for their success would get discouraged and give up ("I can't succeed, so no point in trying"), and the children who were praised for their effort persevered.
Similarly it might be worth mentioning that Buddhism promotes "Right Effort".

According to the Vinaya, I think that most "failures" (to keep the rules) are considered "faults of confession" and so on -- i.e. a monk confesses the fault and then continues.

Another doctrine I learned of pre-school teachers, is that you should criticize or redirect bad behaviour, not condemn the child -- so you'd say, "You mustn't hit people when you're angry, use your words", and not say, "You're a bad boy (or bad girl)".
Similarly according to Buddhism it might help to not identify with failure -- say, "this is misbehaviour", not, "I am a failure", and not "this is my failure".

There's a sutta, AN 7.61 which lists about a dozen ways to overcome drowsiness, along the lines of, "Try this, maybe that'll work. And if that doesn't work? Then try this other method. (etc.)"
That reminds me of what medical doctors do, incidentally.
Another Buddhist doctrine is that things arise because of conditions -- so if you want to change what arises, perhaps change the conditions -- who you're with, where you are, and so on.
For example I avoid junk food by not buying it -- so it doesn't exist where I live, conditions don't exist for my being tempted by it. Perhaps to a similar effect, Buddhist doctrine recommends "seclusion". A social media web site might be harder to "cut off" if you have internet access at all for some reason, but you can (and I do) edit the computer's configuration so that it can't access certain web sites that I might otherwise use excessively (I do this by editing the "etc/hosts" file, you can also do it using "parental control" software).
Another useful technique might be substitution -- instead of trying to "eliminate" something harmful, try to replace it with something more beneficial.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What's the Jataka tale about a previous life of the Buddha sacrificing himself to get a dharma teaching (because dharma was so scarce and rare then)?
If I'm remembering right, in a previous life of the Buddha, because dharma teachings were so rare at that time, a being offered to give a teaching, but only if he sacrificed his life to this being.
What is the text and reference for this?

Did this incarnation of the Buddha really die, or he (somehow) got resurrected after sacrificing himself? If the latter, I know one particular Jataka story in the Mahayana tradition.

There are 5 stories that I’ve managed to found which fit your description. Each story follows the same structure: a previous incarnation of the Buddha was privileged or successful, he yearned for the Dharma but was unable to find a great teacher. A celestial being (or enlightened or both) in disguise would appear before the would-be Buddha and require him to sacrifice himself (or what/those he held dear) in order to acquire the teaching. Each incarnation got the teaching and performed the required feat, emerging unscathed afterwards.
Here are the names of each incarnation (Chinese/Vietnamese) and what they have to do:

修樓婆/tu lâu bà, to surrender his wives and children to a yakṣa.
虔闍尼婆梨/kiền xà ni bà lê, to have holes drilled in his body and be burned alive.
毘楞竭梨/tỳ lăng kiệt lê, to be nailed with a thousand nails
曇摩鉗/đàm ma kiềm, to jump into a pit of fire.
欝多羅/uất đa la, to have his skin removed and grinded into pulp, bones chopped to make brushes (writing instruments), blood drained to make ink.

All 5 stories can be found in the Taisho edition of the 賢愚經, roughly translated as Sutta on the Fool and the Wise. The Sutta, although sharing the same name with the Bālapaṇḍita Sutta, is drastically different from the latter since the Bālapaṇḍita Sutta contains none of the above stories. I’m not a Buddhist scholar and my Chinese is inadequate, so I’m not sure what is the original spellings of these transliterated names. Consequently, I couldn't provide the names in Sanskrit or Pali.
I did ponder whether these stories were fabricated as they seem to be less well-known in Theravada circles. This doesn’t seem to be the case as:

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche mentioned the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stories in his book Zurchungpa's Testament.
A PhD thesis “The Jataka Stories in Mogao Caves” by Wu Ming-Kuo briefly summarised the first four stories, along with another one where the incarnation offers his head to the celestial being. This thesis also reveals the exact cave number of each story in the Mogao complex.

This implies that the stories can also be found in Vajrayana traditions, not just Mahayana, and have circulated for millenia. They were supposed to be treated as Jataka stories, but somehow ended up not being so.

Upon more digging, I found out that there exists an English translation from Mongolian of this whole sutra. It's a book called Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish by Stanley Frye. You can preview the book on Google Books. The first chapter (pg. 1-13) contains all of the stories I mentioned above.

Thanks so much for this research. Perhaps it could be 4 (or one of the others). Any ideas if any of these have english translations? If remembering right the entire Chinese canon is currently being translated into English

@vimutti Hi, upon more digging, I found out that there exists an English translation (from Mongolian) of this whole sutra. It's a book called Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish by Stanley Frye. You can preview the book on Google Books. The first chapter (pg. 1-13) contains all of the stories I mentioned above. I'll update my answer with the link.

The Buddha, who was actually a Bodhisattva in that particular tale, sacrificed himself before a starving tiger who was just about to eat her newborns. This was a compassionate response to the situation, or one might use the term loving-kindness.

13-15. Now, below in a cavern of the mountain, he beheld a young
tigress that could scarcely move from the place, her strength being
exhausted by the labour of whelping.
Her sunken eyes and her emaciated belly betokened her hunger, and she
was regarding her own offspring as food, who thirsting for the milk of
her udders, had come near her, trusting their mother and fearless; but
she brawled at them, as if they were strange to her, with prolonged
harsh roarings.
16, 17. On seeing her, the Bodhisattva, though composed in mind, was
shaken with compassion by the suffering of his fellow-creature, as the
lord of the mountains (Meru) is by an earthquake.
It is a wonder, how the compassionate, be their constancy ever so
evident in the greatest sufferings of their own, are touched by the
grief, however small, of another!
And his powerful pity made him utter, agitation made him repeat to his
pupil, the following words manifesting his excellent nature: “My dear,
my dear,” he exclaimed,

“Behold the worthlessness of Saṁsāra! This animal seeks to feed on her very own young ones. Hunger causes her to transgress love’s law.

Alas! Fie upon the ferocity of self-love, that makes a mother wish to make her meal with the bodies of her own offspring!

Who ought to foster the foe, whose name is self-love, by whom one may be compelled to actions like this?

Go, then, quickly and look about for some means of appeasing her
hunger, that she may not injure her young ones and herself. I too
shall endeavour to avert [5] her from that rash act.”
The disciple promised to do so, and went off in search of food. Yet
the Bodhisattva had but used a pretext to turn him off. He considered
thus:

“Why should I search after meat from the body of another, whilst the whole of my own body is available? Not only is the getting of the
meat in itself a matter of chance, but I should also lose the
opportunity of doing my duty.

Further,
22-24. This body being brute, frail, pithless, ungrateful, always
impure, and a source of suffering, he is not wise who should not
rejoice at its being spent for the benefit of another.
There are but two things that make one disregard the grief of another:
attachment to one’s own pleasure and the absence of the power of
helping. But I cannot have pleasure, whilst another grieves, and I
have the power to help; why should I be indifferent?
And if, while being able to succour, I were to show indifference even
to an evildoer immersed in grief, my mind, I suppose, would feel the
remorse for an evil deed, burning like shrubs caught by a great fire.

Therefore, I will kill my miserable body by casting it down into the precipice, and with my corpse I shall preserve the tigress from
killing her young ones and the young ones from dying by the teeth of
their mother.

If I'm remembering correctly now, this Jataka involved a demon or some sinister figure and perhaps the previous life of the buddha falling off a cliff or involvements with rocks somehow. Again, oops on such vagueness. Thanks for sharing this Jataka tale though.

Interestingly, this story seems to come from a Sanskrit text, the Jatakamala, presumably a Mahayana text. It's not found in the Pali Jataka or Cariyapitaka according to the footnote of this page.

Good householder, not being aware of such - also: who would had taught the Dhamma when there is no? - here maybe the root of idea:
There is a famous Jataka where the Bodhisatta was a rabbit and a hermit dwelked in the forest. All animals giving alms, the rabbit thought that grass wouldn't be proper to give and he decided to sacrifices himself as food. As he jumped into the fire to grill himself, the King of Devas made it that he wasn't burned at all.
This story, as a teaching of how eager one should try to give alms to ascetics, is celebrated as the "Rabbit in the moon" on Anapanasati-day, the end of ling Vassa in South-East Asia.
Sasapaṇḍitajātakaṃ
Teaching, being taught, of the Dhamma requires relation, Upanissaya: giving is the way of building up relation. In this way the Bodhisatta increased his Nissaya toward recluses, pacceka Buddhas, monks, later way to find the Dhamma within right lifelihood by himself.

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


text:
What was the name of the great compassion meditation the Buddha did for a significant part of his daily routine?
Didn't the Buddha do some kind of great compassion meditation  for a significant part of his daily routine while teaching? If so, what's the name of it and what did it involve?

Great Compassion, Mahākaruṇā, is different than simple karuṇā, or compassion. It is more properly translated as “great responsiveness” and is the activity, or functioning, of Emptiness. Unlike karuṇā—compassion that must be developed—mahākaruṇā is the intrinsic naturing of all appearances, is Buddha-nature, and thus the Buddha naturally manifested this responsiveness in his every word and deed. Technically, this is not the result of any practice, but is, rather, the fruit of enlightenment. See:

The final attribute of emptiness to be mentioned is a quality peculiar
to the Buddhist analysis: responsiveness. It is the third and final
denominator in the list of categories or aspects by which emptiness
can be defined: essence, nature, responsiveness. It appears anomalous,
an attribute rather than a category. The third logical category is
function, or manifest function, and the attribute found in its stead
is responsiveness and its qualifier is all-pervasive. Viewed as a
functional attribute of inner space, total presence, and light, the
implication is that the dynamic, the intentionality, the purpose of
being is compassion, which is a synonym of responsiveness and
demonstrable as the responsive aspect of love. It is this compassion
that is coextensive with space, the buddha-heart pervading all beings.
Viewed as the potential form or manifestation of emptiness, the
implication appears to be that every vibration of body, speech, and
mind is a form of compassionate energy, nothing excluded. Consider the
distinction between responsiveness and compassion. In Dzogchen,
compassion is much more than the virtue of loving-kindness. Nor does
the word compassion in the Dzogchen context denote its English
etymological meaning, “suffering together” or “empathy,” although both
these meanings may be inferred. Essentially, compassion indicates an
open and receptive mind responding spontaneously to the exigencies of
an ever-changing field of vibration to sustain the optimal awareness
that serves self-and-others’ ultimate desire for liberation and
well-being. The conventional meaning of compassion denotes the latter,
active part of this definition, and, due to the accretions of
Christian connotation in the West, response is limited to specifically
virtuous activity. Responsiveness defines the origin and cause of
selfless activity that can encompass all manner of response. On this
nondual Dzogchen path, virtue is the effect, not the cause; the
ultimate compassionate response is whatever action optimizes presence
— loving-kindness is the automatic function of primal awareness. (Excerpt From: “The Flight of the Garuda,” by Keith Dowman, Wisdom Publications, 2003, pgs 37-38)

However, the meditation that Buddha continued throughout his life, the meditation practice that brought him to realization, is explained in the Surangama Sutra, and its results, in the Surangama Samadhi Sutra. In the Surangama Sutra it is explained by Avalokitasvara as being his practice, resulting in the perfection of mahākaruṇā.
Manjushri, in the same Sutra, explains why this practice is different than all others—it has to do with the support used—and asserts that this is the practice used by he himself, Avalokitasvara, the Buddha, and all Buddhas. He explains why this is so, in the case of all Buddhas—because there is no Dharma extant when a Buddha arises in the world, thus, something other than the Dharma is needed to reach full enlightenment since all other meditation supports are discontinuous. I recommend reading the sections in that Sutra: “The Method Of Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva,” and “Manjushri’s Summation”.
There is also a prophecy disseminated by Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro that prescribes the use of this practice to attenuate the suffering of our current time, and specifically during the years 2026 through 2032.
So, to directly answer your question, the name of the meditation is just Great Responsiveness Meditation, at least as used in the prophecy. A variant of it, called the Yoga of the Supreme Sound of the Four Elements was once used in Dzogchen practices from Tibetan Buddhism, and Bön, where is was lauded as the most efficacious practice leading to the manifestation of great responsiveness, i.e., enlightenment.

Thanks! Is this a legit link for the Yoga of the Supreme Sound of the Four Elements https://medium.com/tranquillitys-secret/mystery-of-the-four-elements-sound-practice-f87dd4a13a71

That article talks about a common modern misconception about the practice itself, and its accurate depiction in the Dra Thalgyur root tantra of the Dzogchen practices. That article is useful to get a quick orientation about what the "supreme sounds" are. The actual practice is described in another article in that (online) book, "Overview of The Inner Spontaneous Sound Practices - Part I" which you can find here:
https://medium.com/p/dee9ae71d5a7

Thanks StillJustJames! Is a collected copy of that online book available in physical or electronic/PDF format too?

Compassionate meditation aka (Karuna meditation) is a form of meditation to develop compassion for others and ourselves. Buddhism holds a significant amount of importance towards compassion. Practicing Loving Kindness, using Mantras, Mudras, Affirmations are ideal for this form of meditation.
Steps to be followed while considering this form of meditation are:

Find somewhere quiet where you will not be disturbed. Sit with a good and comfortable posture. Place your feet shoulder width apart. Sit with a straight but relaxed spine.
Close your eyes and spend sometime with mindful breathing. This helps in promoting relaxation and focus.
Bring to mind a person who has currently or is suffering. Begin with people for whom  you feel the most sympathy. Sincerity is everything in Karuna meditation. Therefore, start with someone you love.
Consider the struggles this person is facing.
Wish the individual freedom from suffering. Wish for them to be happier, healthier, more fortunate and more successful. Or if a person is ill you wish for them to get healthier!
If you feel any conflicting emotions as such, just observe them don't be judgemental about the situation.
Observe the feeling of compassion. Be mindful of it. How does the feeling feel in the body and mind?. Are there any obstacles in the way to genuine compassion? Compassion is a feeling. And feelings are a source of energy! Connect with the inner energy of compassion. And thats the gateway towards feeling like a Boddhisatva.
Repeat the script meditating on different people.
Finish with a wish to free all sentient beings from suffering.
Sometimes, we may not feel compassion for others and sometimes even for ourselves, if that is the case, we need to start off with forgiveness.

And thats where Meditation on forgiveness starts.

Welcome! Is this the Buddha's great compassion meditation? Please add sources. The OP is asking if the Buddha had a daily practise on compassion.  How does your answer relate to this?

Hello NeuroMax!
Well, this is a technique used by laymen to practice Compassionate Buddhism.. these are steps! Well, we all know that Buddha had meditated for a sustained period of time, and had different experiences.. I’ve answered the question relating to what was the compassionate meditation called, it’s Karuna meditation.. the source is from thedailymeditation.com.. hope this answers your question?

Thanks Nandita! It looks like there's an implication towards a sutta reference in the OP"s question, but it's not entirely clear.


text:
What is the real meaning of the Pali-word adukkhamasukham in the Mahasatipatthana-Sutta?
In the Mahasatipatthana-Sutta are mentioned three kinds of sensations: pleasant sensations (dukkha vedana); unpleasant sensations (sukha vedana) and adukkhamasukha vedana.
What is the meaning of adukkhamasukha vedana? What are those sensations?

adukkhamasukha vedana is neither painful nor pleasant feeling i.e. neutral feelings.
The definition of the 3 feelings come in MN 44 and their relationships to the 3 underlying tendencies towards greed, repulsion and ignorance:

“Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
perishes.
Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when it
perishes.
Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and painful when
there is ignorance.”
“The underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The
underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The
underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.”

In Contemplation of Feeling, Nyanaponika Thera explained this:

Pleasant feeling is habitually linked with enjoyment and desire;
unpleasant feeling with aversion; neutral feeling with boredom and
confusion, but also serving as background for wrong views.

Also in SN 36.5:

“Mendicants, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant,
painful, and neutral feeling. Pleasant feeling should be seen as
suffering. Painful feeling should be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling
should be seen as impermanent. When a mendicant has seen these three
feelings in this way, they’re called a mendicant who has cut off
craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has
made an end of suffering.

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings. For e.g. the sight of the room that you're in, may not invoke any pleasant or painful feelings. It's neutral.
For e.g. if you look at a calendar, for days of a certain month, it may not invoke any painful or pleasant feelings. It's neutral. But when you see the date of your birthday, it may invoke memories of past birthday events and those memories may be pleasant feelings.
Neutral feelings normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction.
No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction. From the same article by Nyanaponika Thera, we read the commentary of the suttas and his comment:

Comy.: "From the fourth Jhana onwards, it is the
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (that is present in these
meditative states). But this neutral feeling, too, is called
'pleasure' (sukha), on account of its being peaceful and sublime. What
arises by way of the five cords of sensual desire and by way of the
eight meditative attainments is called 'pleasure as being felt'
(vedayita-sukha). The state of Cessation of Perception and Feeling is
a 'pleasure, not being felt' (avedayita-sukha). Hence, whether it be
pleasure felt or not felt, both are assuredly 'pleasure,' in the sense
of their being painfree states (niddukkhabhava-sankhatena sukhena)."
In AN 9.34, the venerable Sariputta exclaims: "Nibbana is happiness,
friend; Nibbana is happiness, indeed!" The monk Udayi then asked: "How
can there be happiness when there is no feeling?" The venerable
Sariputta replied: "Just this is happiness, friend, that therein there
is no feeling."

To the arahant, neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana are all pleasant.

I think it's literally close to 'not suffering but not pleasure'

“And what is the pleasure-faculty? Any physical pleasure, physical comfort born of body-contact to be experienced as pleasure & comfort. That is called the pleasure-faculty.
“And what is the pain-faculty? Any physical pain, physical discomfort
born of body-contact to be experienced as pain & discomfort. That is
called the pain-faculty.
“And what is the happiness-faculty? Any mental pleasure, mental
comfort born of intellect-contact to be experienced as pleasure &
comfort. That is called the happiness -faculty.
“And what is the distress-faculty? Any mental pain, mental discomfort
born of intellect-contact to be experienced as pain & discomfort. That
is called the distress-faculty.
“And what is the equanimity-faculty? Anything, physical or mental, to
be experienced as neither comfort nor discomfort. That is called the
equanimity-faculty.
“With regard to this, the pleasure-faculty & happiness-faculty are to
be seen as a feeling of pleasure. The pain-faculty & distress-faculty
are to be seen as a feeling of pain. The equanimity-faculty is to be
seen as a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. Thus, by this
exposition, the five are three; and the three, five.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN48_38.html

"'The thirty-six states to which beings are attached should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Six kinds of
household joy & six kinds of renunciation joy; six kinds of household
distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds of household
equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity.
"And what are the six kinds of household joy? The joy that arises when
one regards as an acquisition the acquisition of forms cognizable by
the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, connected with
worldly baits — or when one recalls the previous acquisition of such
forms after they have passed, ceased, & changed: That is called
household joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises
when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change,
fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually
is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject
to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of household distress? The distress that
arises when one regards as a non-acquisition the non-acquisition of
forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming,
endearing, connected with worldly baits — or when one recalls the
previous non-acquisition of such forms after they have passed, ceased,
& changed: That is called household distress. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress
coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing
for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of
those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with
right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present,
are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with
this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the
noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation
distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations,
& ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
of action [2] & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as
it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.137.than.html


text:
Appo Deepo Bhava or Atta dīpo bhava | Which is the correct wording?
I was looking for some good Buddha Quote and I find this very interesting. ' Be light of yourself.  But I found two versions of this  in google as

Appo Deepo Bhava
Atta dīpo bhava

Which one is the correct wording? I would like to get the proper Pali wordings for the phrase " Be light to yourself".
thank you

I think that's addressed at the linked topic -- Attadīpā


text:
Is there a point to delaying detrimental behaviours?
I noticed that for me, it is very difficult to cease certain behaviours, such as eating junk food for example. Does Buddhism suggest a benefit to delaying such behaviours to later in the day, as opposed to early on? Is there an inherent benefit in delay, or does it change nothing, given the behaviour will have occurred that day anyways?
Is delay a viable strategy for urges?

https://quitnow.ca/stay-quit/surviving-quit-day/tips-craving-and-withdrawal says, "Delay: Here is the big secret to beating cravings: they rarely last more than a few minutes" etc. (also, "Cravings and withdrawal are strongest during your first few days").

Delay is not a viable strategy.
Instead you should use a wholesome mental reflection, in the spirit of the following sutta quote:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

There is a sutta quote about moderation in eating:

“When a man is always mindful,
knowing moderation in eating,
his discomfort diminishes,
and he ages slowly, taking care of his life.”
SN 3.13

Perhaps your mental reflection can be along the lines of reflecting on what long term suffering will be brought on by consumption of junk food. You will be the owner and heir to the consequences of this action.

My friend,
What you're describing is the temporary suppression of sense desire, but if, during what you call the delay period, there is no kusala citta brought about by right concentration  - or an inclination towards dharma discovery - then your efforts would be a waste of time. That is entirely the point; to quell the sensate noise such that you can realise ever more subtle parts of the mind; regions of mind that will spur you forward with curiosity, motivation and newfound discoveries, and may just blow your mind to smithereens only to leave behind a glorified, unmovable wisdom that no single person can claim!

The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is five-factored noble right concentration? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath
powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again
and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated,
moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not
drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body
with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of
his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from
withdrawal. This is the first development of the five-factored noble
right concentration.
Samadhanga Sutta

Delay is a viable strategy, so long as you capitalize upon the delay time with concentration and a wholesome mind. I wish you well.

Is there a point to delaying detrimental behaviours?

Delaying or suppressing unwholesome intentions/actions is not skillful or beneficial. It will only cause these phenomena to increase in size and intensity.
The Buddha's teaching is not meant to cause temporary release from suffering. It's meant to effect a lasting and permanent change, eventually leading to a total release from suffering.
Mindfulness meditation is the only way to go about this. Why is that?
Unskillful behavior stems from Ignorance (Avijjā) in the mind. The only way to dispel Ignorance is to gain clarity of mind through mindfulness meditation practice. The more clarity of mind the easier it is to see how harmful unwholesome actions are.
When the mind sees that clearly again and again, it will gradually begin to let go. The more the mind lets go of unskillful behavior the more freedom, peace and happiness arises.
That's the only way to become free from suffering permanently.

Of course it's beneficial..
Think about it a little, if you make peace with yourself resolng on moderation then you might just die or otherwise change before you ever do any bad thing.
It's a lot better than dying whilst doing the bad thing or to die having done the bad thing.
If you can moderate yourself it is to be praised and encouraged.
There is a canonical incident where a monk wanted to disrobe for a woman and was talked out of it as the Buddha promised him heavenly nymphs if he stayed in robes. This led up to the monk attaining Arahantship and The Buddha's promise with that being nulified, monk's name is Nanda.

Then the monks who were companions of Ven. Nanda went around
addressing him as they would a hired hand & a person who had been
bought: "Venerable Nanda, they say, has been hired. Venerable Nanda,
they say, has been bought.[1] He's leading the holy life for the sake
of nymphs. The Blessed One is his guarantor for getting 500
dove-footed nymphs."
Then Ven. Nanda — humiliated, ashamed, & disgusted that the monks who
were his companions were addressing him as they would a hired hand & a
person who had been bought — went to dwell alone, secluded, heedful,
ardent, & resolute. He in no long time entered & remained in the
supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from
home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself right in
the here-&-now. He knew, "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the
task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And
thus Ven. Nanda became another one of the arahants.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.02.than.html


text:
Is this fake Buddha quote synonymous with Buddhas quote in Dhammapada?
Is this fake Buddha quote, 'Everything that has a beginning has an end', synonymous with Dhammapada verse, ‘All conditioned things are impermanent', the Buddha quote from the Dhammapada, verse 277?
If it's not synonymous, can somebody explain to me, how it's semantically different?

It is somewhat synonymous, just a bit simplified.
The original quote is:

yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman'ti
SN 35.74

or

"whatever is samudaya-able -- all that is nirodha-able".

Samudaya means "to come together", "to arise from coincidence of multiple conditions". Nirodha means "to stop" or "to arrest".
So the detailed meaning of the phrase is "Whatever phenomenon emerges from the coincidence of multiple conditions, it will be no more when one of those necessary conditions is removed so it no longer contributes to the arising of the phenomenon."
Compare that with "everything that has a beginning has an end". If you really think about it, the meaning is the same, but while the detailed analysis is very obvious in the original quote  it's rather hidden in the simplified one.

It is quite fascinating that even in SN35.74, it is not the Buddha who spoke those words. The words arose in the listener.

Wow. I searched for "everything has a beginning..." in 4000 suttas and in all 16 suttas having this phrase, the words are NOT spoken by the Buddha. The words arise in the listener! Amazing.

Hmm that's true, it's a stock phrase symbolizing the insight into the essence of Dhamma.

Brahmāyu said this:

MN91:36.7: in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in the brahmin Brahmāyu:
MN91:36.8: “yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti.
MN91:36.8: “Everything that has a beginning has an end.”

And then the Buddha said this:

MN91:39.6: “Mendicants, the brahmin Brahmāyu was astute. He practiced in line with the teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings.
MN91:39.7: With the ending of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”

So the Buddha would find no issue with that phrase.
Now the second question about whether beginning/end is the same as "All conditioned things are impermanent", is similar but requires another insight that points to a deeper wisdom:

SN22.81:5.5: And what’s the source, origin, birthplace, and inception of that conditioned phenomenon?
SN22.81:5.6: When an uneducated ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.

And even deeper:

MN1:172-194.26: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

Understanding the impermanence of beginnings and endings provides a crucial basis for setting foot firmly on the Noble Eightfold Path to the end of suffering. And if a fake Buddha quote inspires one to read the actual teachings of the Buddha, isn't that beautiful?

I think that "All conditioned things are impermanent" implies a mechanism or reason -- they're impermanent because they're conditioned.
Whereas to say "they end because they began* seems less reasonable, less obvious, less logical.

Also "begin and end" might imply "creation from nothing" and "specific moment of ceasing to exist".
Whereas "impermanent" implies "continuing in an altered state" as well as ceasing -- cars are taken apart and the parts are recycled, etc. -- they're also subject to change (impermanent) even while they still exist.

And "everything" implies every "thing", every physical object.
Whereas "conditioned things" implies also (or even, implies especially) "mental fabrications".

According to SN 15.3, samsara has no discernible "beginning", no evident "first point" -- so a statement about "everything that has a beginning" maybe isn't optimal in that context.


text:
Is it ok to eat after midnight after observing the 8 precepts?
if I observe the 8 precepts today,fast in the afternoon and eat at 12am the next day, is it considered a sin?

Real Buddhism is not a set of rules to follow. It's all about seeing the reality of the mind.

No. It's also not a cheat, when one resolves to keep the Uposatha-precepts for one day, good householder. Sadhu. Nevertheless maybe taking the Buddhas further encouragements into consideration: Sakka Sutta: To the Sakyans (on the Uposatha)
(btw. day starts with sun rise, and eating at right time means from sun rise till sun at zenith, lesser a matter of time by clock as this could be differently.)


text:
What raised mudra is depicted on the Buddha rupa at the London Peace Pagoda and what does it mean?

What raised mudra is depicted on this particular Buddha rupa at the London Peace Pagoda and what does it mean? Also, which Buddha is this?

This guide -- The Battersea Park Peace Pagoda -- says,

In this statue the Vitarka Mudra, associated with explaining the Buddha’s teachings, with the right hand right raised and the tips of the forefinger and thumb touching, is combined with the Tarjani Mudra for warding off evil, with forefinger and little finger outstretched.

Thanks! Interesting the different variations for each mudra compounded with the addition of the variations from another mudra give all kinds of possibilities for meanings

Yes thanks for the question. The mudras chosen seem wonderfully appropriate, fitting the intention of the creators of the pagoda.


text:
Buddhism and Astral Projection
I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the possibility of there being “Astral Projection” in Buddhism. I know “Tibetan Sleep Yoga” is involved with Lucid Dreaming, which is the internal. Yet I was wondering if Buddhism had a concept where you could leave your body.
Any help would be amazing!

If you mean by this definition:

Astral projection (or astral travel), is a term used in esotericism to
describe an intentional out-of-body experience (OBE) that assumes the
existence of a soul called an "astral body" that is separate from the
physical body and capable of travelling outside it throughout the
universe

Then there are only a few verses that can be interpreted as such in the Pali Canon, for example in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made
body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made
of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.
Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought
would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath
is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from
the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard.
The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the
scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword
has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a
snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is
the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough
another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the
same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright,
unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and
attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to
creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body,
endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not
inferior in its faculties.
...
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of
supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been
one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He
vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as
if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were
water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land.
Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With
his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and
powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the
Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft
from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or
as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from
well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled
goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any
kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He
exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds."

The term used here is translated as "Mind-Made Body" (S. manomaya-kāya, C. yisheng shen 意生身). This text also details supernatural features, such as clairaudience and mind reading. Manomaya-kāya appears in various contexts in the Pali canon, which provide it with different shades of meaning. These are divided into three categories with nine subcategories:

Buddhist practice and attainment,

the body as part of a path of practice by practitioners bound for arhatship,
the body as the post-mortem destiny of disciples who achieve a certain level of attainment,
the body in which the Buddha visits the heaven of
Brahmā,
the form in which the Buddha comes to a disciple to teach him (once),
the kind of body of a generous lay person reborn in a certain heaven.

cosmology,

the form in which certain devas are incarnated in some heavens
the form in which certain beings are reincarnated in the early part of a kalpa in various cosmogonic accounts

views of other schools

one of a range of objects of identification that can be mistaken for a permanent self, in a teaching where the Buddha refutes the notion of such a self,
part of one of seven nihilist views refuted by the Buddha in the
Brahmajāla Sutta

In Mahayana texts, the term manomaya-kāya is frequently associated with the dharmakāya (Sanskrit: धर्म काय, "truth body" or "reality body", Chinese: 法身; pinyin: Fǎshēn, Tibetan: ཆོས་སྐུ་, Wylie: chos sku, rdzogs sku). This is one of the three bodies (trikāya) of a Buddha in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The dharmakāya constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" (acintya) aspect of a buddha out of which buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution. Buddhas are manifestations of the dharmakāya called the nirmāṇakāya, "transformation body"
Note that this is only a short summary to answer your question for textual references that could be interpreted as OBE. These texts are not taken literally by the majority of Buddhist schools. For an in-depth scholarly analysis of the term, I recommend the following studies:
The Meaning of ‘Mind-made Body’ in Buddhist Cosmological and Soteriological systems
Early Buddhist Dhammakāya: Its Philosophical and Soteriological Significance


text:
Are there any Buddhist suttas in the scriptures about retaining memory?
As I understand, the early Buddhist teachings were transmitted orally and memorized by monks and they were written down only much later. It must have been tremendous feet of human memory to retain so many of the sutras in the Tipitaka.
I want to ask, are there any teachings, maybe in the vinaya pitaka, which will help a monk increase his or her memory in order to remember the sutras.

In the sutta quote from AN 6.51 below, Ven. Ananda explains how one learns, understands and remembers the teachings.

Ānanda said this:
“Reverend Sāriputta, take a mendicant who memorizes the
teaching—statements, songs, discussions, verses, inspired
exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and
classifications.
Then, just as they learned and memorized it, they teach others in
detail, make them recite in detail, practice reciting in detail, and
think about and consider the teaching in their heart, examining it
with the mind.
They enter the rains retreat in a monastery with senior mendicants who
are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have memorized
the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the outlines. From
time to time they go up to those mendicants and ask them questions:
‘Why, sir, does it say this? What does that mean?’ Those venerables
clarify what is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt
regarding the many doubtful matters.
This is how a mendicant gets to hear a teaching they haven’t heard
before. It’s how they remember those teachings they have heard. It’s
how they keep rehearsing the teachings they’ve already got to know.
And it’s how they come to understand what they haven’t understood
before.”
“It’s incredible, reverend, it’s amazing! How well said this was by
Venerable Ānanda! And we will remember Venerable Ānanda as someone who
has these six qualities.
For Ānanda memorizes the teaching … statements, songs, discussions,
verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing
stories, and classifications. Those venerables clarify to Ānanda what
is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt regarding the
many doubtful matters.”
AN 6.51


text:
Is Buddhist insight non-conceptual?
For me, until recently, an insight was this: having been mindful of some phenomenon that I contemplated, I then have a spontaneous idea about that phenomenon. For example, I might be contemplating suffering and then get a cognitive insight, a thought, comprehending and summarizing suffering and its nature.
Is this what is meant by insight in Buddhism? I have been considering that maybe Buddhism means insight in an altogether different way. I know that in insight meditation, in vipassana, one examines specifically non-self, suffering and impermanence.
But:

Is there such a thing in Buddhism as general insight, that is an insight into any type of phenomenon?
And as I mentioned, is there in Buddhism some other type of insight than a conceptual thought, an insight that might require mere awareness without thought?

Question 1:
Many different Buddhist words are translated as "insight" or "enlightenment" (the latter being a terrible Victorian choice of word). The following list is by no means exhaustive:
Vipassanā is a Pali word derived from the older prefix "vi-" meaning "special", and the verbal root "-passanā" meaning "seeing". It is often translated as "insight" or "clear-seeing". But the "vi" in vipassanā has many possible meanings, it could mean to '[see] into', '[see] through' or to '[see] in a special way.'
A synonym for vipassanā is paccakkha "perceptible to the senses" (Pāli; Sanskrit: pratyakṣa), literally "before the eyes," which refers to direct experiential perception. Thus, the type of seeing denoted by vipassanā is that of direct perception, as opposed to knowledge derived from reasoning or argumentation.
Kenshō (見性) is a Japanese term from the Zen tradition. Ken means "seeing", shō means "nature, essence". It is usually translated as "seeing one's (true) nature", that is, the Buddha-nature or nature of mind. Kenshō is an initial insight or awakening, not full Buddhahood. It is to be followed by further training to deepen this insight, and learn to express it in daily life.
Satori (悟り) is a Japanese Buddhist term for awakening, "comprehension; understanding" (thus: insight)
Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajñā and Buddhahood.
Bodhi (Sanskrit, Pāli), from the verbal root budd, "to awaken", "to understand", means literally "to have woken up and understood".
Prajñā : In Theravada Buddhism pannā (Pali) means "understanding", "wisdom", "insight". In Mahayana Buddhism Prajna (Sanskrit) means "insight" or "wisdom", and entails insight into sunyata. The attainment of this insight is often seen as the attainment of "enlightenment".
Wu (Chinese: 悟) is a concept of awareness, consciousness, or spiritual enlightenment borrowed from the Chinese folk religion.
Many of these terms have a gradual quality to them, implying that insight in most personal cases is a journey (like the Buddha's own journey). Even in Chan/Zen (often called the Sudden Teaching) the "sudden" refers to the insight "striking like lightning" after considerable time walking the path. This is perhaps best illustrated by the "Oxherding Pictures" detailing the stages of insight.
Question 2: yes, but this is generally not regarded as the end of practice. This is generally associated with the 9th step in the "Oxherding Pictures":

Reaching the Source
Too many steps have been taken
returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf
from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode,
unconcerned with and without -
The river flows tranquilly on
and the flowers are red

The final step is to learn to apply this insight in daily life (i.e. to conceptualize it) to help others. You can interpret this in two ways:
a) If this insight was purely non-conceptual, no sutras or books from Masters would exist to "point at the moon".
b) All writing and conceptualization is allegorical, i.e. "pointing to a reflection of the moon in a pond"


text:
Sankhara on a wave, a wood, and a rock?

Purpose:

I want to know which sutta is this story coming from.

Background:

I remember that when I joined the 10-day Vipassana course held by S.N.Goenka, he said,
You can carve your Sankhara like an ocean wave. If you keep carving the Sankhara, eventually, it becomes stronger, like carving it on wood. Someday, it becomes like carving it on a rock.
Something like this. It might be incorrect.

Comment:

Does anyone know it?

That sounds like the simile in AN 3.130 below.
This describes three types of individuals and their anger. Anger is a sankhara (volition, mental formation).

"Monks, there are these three types of individuals to be found
existing in the world. Which three? An individual like an inscription
in rock, an individual like an inscription in soil, and an individual
like an inscription in water.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in rock? There is the
case where a certain individual is often angered, and his anger stays
with him a long time. Just as an inscription in rock is not quickly
effaced by wind or water and lasts a long time, in the same way a
certain individual is often angered, and his anger stays with him a
long time. This is called an individual like an inscription in rock.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in soil? There is the
case where a certain individual is often angered, but his anger
doesn't stay with him a long time. Just as an inscription in soil is
quickly effaced by wind or water and doesn't last a long time, in the
same way a certain individual is often angered, but his anger doesn't
stay with him a long time. This is called an individual like an
inscription in soil.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in water? There is the
case where a certain individual — when spoken to roughly, spoken to
harshly, spoken to in an unpleasing way — is nevertheless congenial,
companionable, & courteous. Just as an inscription in water
immediately disappears and doesn't last a long time, in the same way a
certain individual — when spoken to roughly, spoken to harshly, spoken
to in an unpleasing way — is nevertheless congenial, companionable, &
courteous. This is called an individual like an inscription in water.
"These are the three types of individuals to be found existing in the
world."
AN 3.130

This is exactly I was looking for. Thank you so much for your help!


text:
Non-vegetarianism
I feel guilty about eating non-vegetarian food (fish, eggs and chicken). I know Buddhist followers, brahmins (Hindus) and Jains follows strict rules for vegetarianism. Does eating any sort of meat have an impact on your overall mentality?

I have seen Buddhist Monks returning from their Takuhatsu with cakes (eggs) and even meat. They eat what is given to them, and do not let it go to waste.

No vegetarianism doesn't have a real impact on mentality. But if someone wishes to be vegetarian as a social responsibility or for health concerns, they may do so. The Buddha has stated that non-veg food is bad for longevity. But with respect to the practice of mental well being, it has no affect. This is because by eating food, we do not harm anyone or intend to harm anyone, thus no bad karma. It is only the people who kill animals and keep them caged and sell them, who are doing real harm.
There was one occasion in the Buddha's time when a monk needed to eat meat for medicine. For monks, only certain types of meat like human flesh, dog meat and some other specific types of meat are forbidden. But for lay practitioners, there are no rules regarding non-veg food what so ever.
The most important thing is to not to crave food, either it's Veg or Non-veg.
Edit : Also it is not good to ask someone to kill an animal so that we can eat the meat. But buying meat that was not specifically killed for you is not harmful.

Do you have any evidence that the Buddha taught that non-vegetarian food is bad for longevity?

"It is only the people who kill animals and keep them caged and sell them" - does eating meat not give these people a reason to do these things?

@ruben2020 Yes. There is a Sutta i the Therawada cannon. Unfortunately I don't remember it's name or location..

The most important thing is to not to crave food, either it's Veg or Non-veg. Monks have to eat what ever they get or have, since they are not supposed to buy food for themselves. So it's hard to be picky about the types of food.. For lay people, there can be times when we are not able to choose between the types of food we have as well. If being picky about the nature of the food hurts someone's feelings, if it isn't unhealthy, then we rather eat that food than hurt that person...

@sandeepani I think you may be mistaken. Those suttas I believe, talk about reduction of longevity as being the consequence of killing or injuring others. It's not specifically about eating meat.

@ruben2020, there were 2 Suttas. Each had a list. One had the consequence of killing or injuring others and another had meat/flesh eating.

My answer is simple but I know many here won't like it. Supply follows demand, active or passive. If you take frozen meat imagining that you did not kill the animal so it is okay, as suggested by some here, you are simply justifying your craving with left-handed logic. The animal was killed not only because someone openly demanded to eat flesh but also because some other person acquiesed to the killing of the hapless creature by accepting it as an offering or buying it in the market. The second person is as much a part of the demand as the first one. At least, the first guy is honest while the other is not.

It's the same principle as eating non-organic vegetables which would have been grown with the use of pesticides to kill pests. You can't be responsible for that. You did not have the intention to kill those animals. The same applies to frozen meat in the supermarket.

Your answer contradicts the teaching of the Buddha in MN 55, hence I downvoted it.

Consider this answer which talks about a monk accepting frogs to eat -- perhaps if "frogs again" is all the villagers have to offer, then that's what monks ought to accept. Monks are supposed to be "easy to support".

Please see Snp 2.2: “Killing living beings, hunting, cutting, binding, theft, lying, fraud, deceptions, useless recitations, associating with the wives of others: This is a raw stench, not the eating of meat."

As a follower of the Theravada tradition, I could find no teaching by the Buddha specifically prohibiting a layperson from eating meat under any circumstance. Preference, perhaps, prohibition, no. I’d appreciate correction.
But also, @Sushil Fotedar seems to imply the idea that a Buddhist consuming market meat fails the 3rd test disallowing meat killed specifically for the individual. That seems fallacious. If no Buddhist ever bought meat, it still would be offered as others would continue to buy. So this meat cannot be offered specifically for any Buddhist purchaser.

I know Buddhist followers, brahmins(Hindus) and Jains follows strict rules for vegetarianism.
I don't think so -- I think that Buddhist doctrine teaches a middle way (avoiding extremes), including in rules about diet, perhaps in contrast to (some more extreme elements of) Jain doctrine.
So far as I know, Mahayana Buddhists are more likely to be vegetarian, but the Theravada doctrine in more-or-less as summarised in sandeepani's answer -- see Are all Buddhists vegetarian? for further details.
My question is does eating any sort of meat have an impact on your overall mentality?
Perhaps it depends on your beliefs.
My wife had the view that she couldn't "love animals" and at the same time want to eat them, so she became vegetarian to avoid feeling hypocritical or guilty.
Other people argue there's an important difference between compassion towards live animals, versus willingness to consume non-living flesh, and so see nothing wrong with the latter.
I guess there's more to it. At a minimum you possibly shouldn't feel superior ("I'm better than you") as a result of having a vegetarian diet -- and other behavioural characteristics (generosity, non-anger, mindfulness) may be more important.
There might even be a Buddhist practice -- perhaps not a mainstream practice -- of eating some meat specifically in order to avoid the "conceit" of considering oneself superior because of diet.

"At a minimum you possibly shouldn't feel superior ("I'm better than you") as a result of having a vegetarian diet" Reminds me of the old joke about how you can tell whether or not someone is a vegan...

It is an old joke. Though in fact, that's only how you can tell whether someone is a vocal or a militant vegan -- it's also "whataboutism" and "tone policing" too, but whatever -- it is also a joke, insightful, and on-topic.

It's amazing to me to see how people use religious justifications to justify things that against the spirit of their own religion.
The Buddha advocated for loving kindness, compassion and non-harming. For me, it strictly follow that if we can avoid harm, then we should. If we can live on a diet that's healthy and avoid harm, then what is the reason not to do it?
2500 years ago in India, people were probably straggling with getting food anyway, and it was not realistic to ask from them to cut out meat of their menu when it's an important source of food from them. Today, most people are no way near the conditions of ancient India, and it is quit easy to avoid animal products and live a healthy life. The fact that the Buddha didn't forbidden meat then does not mean that we can use the same justifications given 2500 years ago.
Also, in the time of the Buddha the conditions of the animals were compliantly different. Today, animals that are born and raised in the meat, dairy and egg industry are living an actual hell realm, when their body parts are being cut while they are still awake, they live in crowded small cages when they can barely move, they are separated from their children in the moment of birth, and they're killed in various horrific ways like gas chambers, electrification, spinning blades, and so on. Raising animals for meat today is not the same as it was at the time of the Buddha.
The Buddha did allowed monks to eat meat, but only is the animal was not slaughtered just for them. As monks were beggars, and they were supposed to eat everything that is served to them, it is impolite to say no to a piece of meat that is served to you. Today a lot of monasteries are not living in a beggar lifestyle, but has their own kitchen, and most of them do serve meat, because "the Buddha didn't explicitly forbidden it". If they buy meat at the store, doesn't that means they are paying someone to slaughter animals just for them? I think it's absolutely ridicules and it's an example of religious dogmatism, rather then connecting to the true spirit of the Buddha of non-harm and compassion.
Anyway, that's only my own opinion, and I'm not arrogant enough to say that my own opinion is the one that the Buddha would have if he was alive today. I only know that through the compassion that had opened to me through my own practice it has become impossible for me to consume animal products, and I encourage anyone to open to their own compassion and to see where does it takes them.

Please see Snp 2.2: “Killing living beings, hunting, cutting, binding, theft, lying, fraud, deceptions, useless recitations, associating with the wives of others: This is a raw stench, not the eating of meat."

ruben2020, I explicitly said in my post that the Buddha permitted eating meat. Please read my post before you comment on it.

I believe Ruben read your post and was kindly offering a sutta that might be of help to you as it appears you have not understood the sutta in question.

@ZivCohen My point was not about telling you that the Buddha allowed eating meat. Rather, my point was that Kassapa Buddha did not consider eating meat to be bad karma or morally deficient in any way. Eating meat is not the same as killing animals, in the same way eating non-organic vegetables is not the same as killing small animals using pesticide. Karma in Buddhism is about mental intention and not the impact of one's action on the world, like it is in Hinduism and Jainism. It's not a system of universal justice or retribution.

ruben, I didn't claim that eating meat creates bad karma, and I personally know really kind and compassionate people and advanced practitioners that consumes meat. As you say, you can consume meat without an intention of harm. Nevertheless, harm is caused by eating meat, whether one has intent for it or not. Immense suffering is caused by the meat industry today, witch is unnecessary suffering that can be easily avoided, simply by switching a diet. Why do you act morally, is it because of some "karmic score", or because you want to ease the suffering of others?

My question is does eating any sort of meat have an impact on your
overall mentality?

Yes Nandita, as you testify, you experience much guilt because you intuitively feel that eating meat goes against the Buddha’s intrinsic selfless compassion and his teachings on that subject. For example:

The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to
escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from
suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you
can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness
and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the
bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally,
no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to
how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly
annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will
ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts
dwell. You of this great assembly ought to appreciate that those human
beings who might become enlightened and attain Samadhi, because of
eating meat, can only hope to attain the rank of a great Raksha and
until the end of their enjoyment of it, must sink into the never
ceasing round of deaths and rebirths. (Surangama Sutra: Importance of
Keeping the Precepts)

The Buddha said, “Son of my lineage, my teaching is not like that of
the naked ascetics. I, the Tathagata, established rules of discipline
in relation to specific individuals. Consequently, with a certain
purpose in mind, I did give permission to eat meat regarded as
suitable for consumption after it has been subjected to threefold
examination. In other contexts, I have proscribed ten kinds of meat.
And yet again, with someone else in mind, I have declared that it is
improper to consume meat of any kind, even of animals that have died
of natural causes. But I have affirmed, O Kashyapa, that henceforth,
all those who are close to me should abstain from meat.
(Mahaparinirvana Sutra: Abstaining From Eating Meat and Fish, Even
Died by Natural Causes)

Unfortunately, there are many who will try to persuade you to think that eating meat is ok, as long as you don’t kill the sentient being yourself. The Buddha foresaw this:

After my Parinirvana in the last kalpa these different kinds of ghosts
will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that
they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment. But how can any
faithful follower of the Lord Tathagata kill sentient life and eat the
flesh? (Surangama Sutra, Ibid)

The root tantra of Kalachakra says: Wicked people, hard to train, kill
harmless beasts as sacrifice to gods and for their ancestors, to gain
protection, profit, and fulfil their aims. To buy the meat, to wish to
eat it, is indeed an evil act.

The Buddha was quite clear that he taught compassion, not evasion of responsibility:

For innumerable reasons, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva, whose nature is
compassion, is not to eat any animal flesh. I will explain the
reasons: Mahamati, in the long course of transmigration, all sentient
beings have been our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and
daughters, and we have felt many different kinds and degrees of
kinship with each and every one of them. These sentient beings have
been beasts, domestic animals, birds, and humans in different
lifetimes and have often been related to us in some way. This being
the case, how can the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who desires to respect
all sentient beings as he or she would respect himself or herself and
who is committed to devotedly practising the Dharma eat the flesh of
any sentient being whose nature is the same as himself or herself?
Even, Mahamati, the Rakashasa, when they listened to a discourse on
the highest essence of the Dharma by the Tathagata, were inspired to
protect Buddhism. Through this they had awakened to the feeling of
compassion, became sensitive to the sorrows of sentient beings, and
therefore chose to refrain from eating animal flesh. How much more
should human beings who love the Dharma do the same! Thus, Mahamati,
whenever and wherever there is evolution among sentient beings, let
people cherish the thought of kinship with them, and holding the
thorough intention of treating them as if they were our only child,
and therefore refrain from eating their flesh. So much more should
Bodhisattvas, who are committed to being compassionate towards all
sentient beings, and whose inner nature is compassion itself, choose
to refrain from eating animal flesh. For a Bodhisattva to keep good
integrity with the Dharma, he or she should not make any exceptions to
the eating of animal flesh. He or she is not to eat the flesh of dogs,
donkeys, buffaloes, horses, bulls, humans, or any other sentient being
whether or not such flesh in generally eaten by some humans in some
culture or society. Nor should a Bodhisattva eat flesh sold by others
for monetary profit.” (A Re-translation of the Eighth Chapter of the
Lankavatara Sutra and Commentary, By William Bagley, 2006)

Pure and earnest bhikshus, if they are true and sincere, will never
wear clothing made of silk, nor wear boots made of leather because it
involves the taking of life. Neither will they indulge in eating milk
or cheese because thereby they are depriving the young animals of that
which rightly belongs to them. It is only such true and sincere
bhikshus who have repaid their karmic debts of previous lives, who
will attain true emancipation, and who will no more be bound to wander
to this triple world. To wear anything, or partake of anything for
self-comfort, deceiving one's self as to the suffering it causes
others or other sentient life, is to set up an affinity with that
lower life which will draw them toward it. So all bhikshus must be
very careful to live in all sincerity, refraining from even the
appearance of unkindness to other life. It is such true hearted
bhikshus who will attain a true emancipation. Even in one's speech and
especially in one's teaching, one must practice kindness for no
teaching that is unkind can be the true teaching of Buddha. Unkindness
is the murderer of the life of Wisdom. (Surangama Sutra, Ibid)

Whoever, having laid aside violence in respect of all beings, moving
or still, does not kill or cause to kill, him I call a brahman.
(Sutta-Nipata III.9:629)

These are just a representative example of quotes. There are many more. There are also reinterpretations of the Buddha’s teachings that stray from his heartfelt-intent. In those cases, ask yourself if he meant selective compassion, or compassion for all sentient beings. And follow your heart—don’t listen to others.

Thank u so much for such a detailed explanation! You completely convinced me now on the whole partake of not consuming non veg! I've a query, does dairy products and tamas foods have an impact on our minds?

“All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.” - Dhammapada 129
Now it is up to you Nandita whom you want to consider as another !!!.
Related to the other question about the impact of meat eating on mentality why can't you experiment yourself ?
Stop eating meat for some time and see yourself if it improves your ability to concentrate or if it improves meditation and overall well being.
If it doesn't improve anything then you know what to do.
Lastly, whatever may be the food, has it become a craving for you? Couldn't you resist not having certain kinds of food?  Be honest with yourself.
Any craving can hinder your spiritual progress.

For overall mentality, being vegetarian may have positive or negative consequences. It will depend a lot on your reasons and circumstances. The intention matters a lot. And your other actions in life (both actions in the world and mental actions in your own mind) will have more effect on overall mentality.
Interpretation, variance in results
Many people practice vegetarianism out of compassion for all living beings. And that is helpful for their development of right effort, right view, compassion, discernment and other skillful qualities.
Some people practice vegetarianism with a strong sense of moral superiority. Or, they don't have a lot of compassion for all living beings, they might just do it to look beautiful. In this case, this wouldn't lead to any development.
Buddhists do eat meat, even monks
There is also a (false) idea that good buddhists don't eat meat. This is not true if you consider the traditions of practicing monks, in both the Buddha's time and today.
Present Practice

Please be advised that the food served at the monastery is not vegetarian. The monks respect the generosity of all lay donors and do not refuse any food offerings. Lay visitors eat the same food that is offered to the monks. Because of that, the monastery is unable to accommodate strict vegetarian diets. https://forestdhamma.org/visit/

The food at the Monastery is not vegetarian as is sometimes assumed. The monks respect the generosity of all the laypeople and do not refuse any offerings of food. The food available to lay visitors is the same as what’s first offered to the monks. If you have special dietary needs due to illness or allergies, please call to confirm that the kitchen will be able to accommodate them. Lacto-ovo vegetarians do well enough as long as they’re not set on absolute purity. The Monastery cannot accommodate vegan diets as it’s proven to be too disruptive. https://www.watmetta.org/overnightVisitors.html

In my personal understanding, seeing the generosity (dana) of the gift of food is more important than the quality or type of food.
I know some Tibetan buddhist monks who eat meat in religious ceremonies and also eat it regularly in everyday life.
In the Buddha's time: Devadatta
Devadatta was a cousin of the Buddha who tried to kill the Buddha and take over the Sangha. One way he did this was trying to say the Buddha was too lax for allowing monks to eat meat, which would have been donated.
He proposed a rule that monks "abstain completely from fish and flesh" (wikipedia, devadatta) or " It would be good if they should, their lives long, abstain from fish—if whosoever should eat fish, should thereby commit an offence." ([Cullavagga 7, Khadanka 7, Chapter 3][https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/vinaya-3-the-cullavagga/d/doc370296.html] ) And this was rejected by the Buddha, although the Buddha did say that monks could choose to follow a no meat rule. (Presumably, not following the rule and eating meat is not an impediment to the training and path of monks. Otherwise, the Buddha would presumably make it a rule.) "Sleeping under trees has been allowed by me, Devadatta, for eight months in the year; and the eating of fish that is pure in the three points—to wit, that the eater has not seen, or heard, or suspected that it has been caught for that purpose.'"
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta

Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".
According to the Theravada school of Buddhism (and possibly also other schools), it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.
Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.
As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.
To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.

OP: My question is does eating any sort of meat have an impact on your overall mentality?

The answer is NO. Deliberately and intentionally killing an animal directly, affects your mentality. Eating food cooked from frozen meat doesn't affect your mentality, in Buddhism.
The Hindu idea of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic food (i.e. food affecting the mind) from BG 17.7-10, or that food conveys good or bad vibrations, doesn't apply to Buddhism.
Two quotes which are useful:

“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Snp 2.2

In three cases I say that meat may not be eaten: it’s seen, heard, or
suspected. These are three cases in which meat may not be eaten.
In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or
suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.
MN 55

Ruben is correct in this OP with his comments and answer.


text:
Why does Snp 2.2 not consider eating meat to be killing karma?
The teaching of Buddha Kassapa in Snp 2.2:

“Killing living beings,
hunting, cutting, binding,
theft, lying, fraud, deceptions,
useless recitations,
associating with the wives of others:
This is a raw stench,
not the eating of meat.
Snp 2.2

(and more similar statements in the whole text of the same sutta)
From Buddha Kassapa's quote above, we see that eating meat by itself is not killing karma.
However, it is popular opinion that eating meat is definitely killing karma because it indirectly causes the killing of animals. This was also Tissa's attack on Buddha Kassapa, a brahmin by birth.
What is the correct understanding of the principle of karma in Buddhism, for this case of eating meat? Why does Snp 2.2 not consider eating meat to be killing karma?

@ChrisW I have deleted the first quote and summarized its view as "However, it is popular opinion that eating meat is definitely bad karma because it indirectly causes the killing of animals." And yes, I'm trying to prove this popular opinion wrong but at the same time I'm asking why is it that way? How does karma work in Buddhism, which explains this?

Recent questions/answers on the forum remind me of https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/37281/13375

Manufacturing meat during those times was a very different undertaking, and took place mostly out of the need for survival. As such, there was little to no akusala citta in the process. These days, meat manufacturing has reached a ridiculous impetus fuelled by greed. The animals suffer tremendously as a result. What was once a basic need for survival has now bled into full-blown akusala citta. Therefore, the sutta needs to be disregarded in terms of the changes in how we now produce meat.

The issue of meat (or fish) came up with Devadatta and the Buddha directly addressed it allowing it. See my answer in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45003/non-vegetarianism
It's in the Vinaya, Cullavagga. Specifically, it is about conduct for monks.

Because anyone with even a basic understanding of ecology recognizes that it is literally impossible to live on this planet without your existence causing the death of another creature.  Let me ask you this- which is more horrible, the millions of cattle that are slaughtered for beef or the 70 billion creatures that die each year to produce staples like corn, wheat, rice and soy?  At best, you can say they are karmically identical in that both resulted in the death of a creature, but at least in the case of beef, that animal is allowing another to live and isn't rotting in an open field somewhere, forgotten and abstracted away by the supposed ethical purity of vegetarian food.
Animal livestock can be used regeneratively in a way that fosters life.  There are no sustainable agricultural systems either man-made or natural that don't involve animal inputs in some way.  Either we can align ourselves with the rapacious practices of broad acre modern agriculture culture - the monocultures, the chemical inputs, the destruction of habitat - or we can live closer to closed loop natural systems that create habitat and improve the life conditions of all associated sentient beings.
I'm not saying every meal you eat should involve meat.  That isn't sustainable either.  But to eschew all animal products is to wholly disconnect yourself from the life web just so you can delude yourself into thinking you are eating a harmless diet.
And I think the Buddha was pretty clear as to what constituted killing and the negative karmic consequences of you personally engaging in that act.  No action is pure if you pan out far enough. Every action, no matter how noble, has unintended negative consequences.  To be a Buddha isn't to be perfect or to engineer a perfect world.  We are all hanging from a tree by our teeth.  If we can offer one word of wisdom, we fall to our deaths.  If we stay silent we will be killed.  Our practice in this world is to find a way out of that predicament.

Since you ask, an ecological argument against meat is that a lot of soy and so on is grown in order to feed cattle -- which is inefficient -- it requires less soy in total, less agricultural land, if you eat it directly, instead of using it to feed cattle to produce meat. More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production

That is indeed true ChrisW, but it does not pertain to the question. Is the eating of dead flesh necessarily entail bad karma accruing...?

Cattle don't eat soy.  Or at least they shouldn't.  Feeding to them is frankly abhorrent.  Managed properly on pasture, their natural habitat, they can subsist entire on forage (i.e. "grassfed" which is a bit of a misnomer; they also eat all sorts of dicots).  The same holds true for sheep, bison, goats, and any other species who's digestive process uses fermentation. Essentially these animals eat sunlight - just at one remove. Back in the way back, pigs, chickens, and "fatted" calves were luxury items. The inputs required to raise these species was cost prohibitive to all but the wealthy.

I raise a couple of pastured chickens for myself.  It's a cleaner product, tastes better, the birds are happier, and most importantly, all of the waste is recycled back into the soil.  But FWIW, you're looking at about $10 a bird in supplemental organic feed and a grow out time of 12 weeks vs. the 7 weeks and pennies you are looking at with factory farmed chicken.  If I were to sell these birds, you're looking at at least $5 a pound retail vs. the less than $5 a bird for the industrial raised stuff.

That's the price of sustainability and it's going to put a lot of people off grain-fed meat if we switch to that model.  That's a good thing.  It's a more realistic accounting of the value of life.

Kamma is intention in Buddhism.
A person who kills an animal or instructs another (like a butcher or hunter or chef) to kill an animal, clearly has the intention to cause the death of that animal. That's the kamma of killing imbued with aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha).
However, a person who eats a meat dish (made from an animal that was long dead) only has the intention to eat meat and taste meat. So, that's the kamma of eating and tasting meat imbued with greed (lobha). This is not the kamma of killing.
Eating any food that was grown in farms or wearing cotton clothes harvested from cotton farms, are also fraught with the indirect killing caused by tillage, use of pesticides etc. Surely one eating rice or bread doesn't have the intention to kill animals either, by doing so.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.
AN 6.63

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of
the ox that draws the cart.
Dhp 1

This is great Ruben! However, “… the kamma of eating and tasting meat imbued with greed” is “bad karma” so maybe adjust your question because the OP assumes that eating meat is not “bad karma”… where I think you meant it is not “killing karma”?

@YesheTenley Thanks for the hint!


text:
Does Buddhism have a view on the "gut feeling?"
Does Buddhism have a view or agree with the gut feeling? Is this considered the same as intuition?

Related: Intuition in Buddhism, What can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition?.

Thank you @ruben2020 I'll take a look.

Does this answer your question? Intuition in Buddhism

In Zen, there's some importance to that.  Look at it this way, our mental patterning and habits have a tendency to reign in our perceptions.  We fall into traps of our own devising and cut ourselves off from the outside world and even our experience of ourselves.  That little bit of stirring, that gut feeling, isn't some mystical voice trying to communicate to you.  It's actually your one true voice trying to get in touch from under all the crap you've piled on top of it.  It speaks from a place that is beyond thought and knowing in the conventional sense.  What it's telling you is usually worth listening to even if it is conventionally wrong.  Mind, I said listen to it.  Not do what it says.  The act of listening is Zen.
See the following:

One Source of Bad Information
by Robert Bly
There's a boy in you about three
years old who hasn't learned a thing for thirty
Thousand years. Sometime it's a girl.
This child had to make up its mind
How to save you from death. He said things like:
"Stay home. Avoid elevators. Eat only elk."
You live with this child, but you don't know it.
You're in the office, yes, but live with this boy
At night. He's uninformed, but he does want
To save your life. And he has. Because of this boy
You survived a lot. He's got six big ideas.
Five don't work. Right now he's repeating them to you.

What is that child telling you?  How will it save you in this matter of life and death?

A practitioner of vipassana would learn how to be in the here and now, this would dissolve most socio-psychological feelings over time; and anything left should be deemed important.  Always consider the consequence before acting on gut feelings.  Myself, as I have become a more experienced practitioner, I have come to accept that I don't seem to have any reliable psychic powers.