text:
What meditation is best to learn to "control" your mind?
I want to learn to in a sense control my mind. By this i mean focus on the thoughts and mindsets that are beneficial. And not focus on the harmful, negative thoughts. I always believe that we are who we are base on are thought patterns and it will be very helpful to in to learn to focus on the thoughts and gain the traits you want and become the person you want. I am learninf jhana meditation. But is this a good fit for this?

That's a nice question.
My first thought if I may mention it is that "controlling the mind" might be an odd question. I think that the mind is a sense-organ (for ideas and feelings and so on), like the eye is a sense-organ for sights and visions. So "controlling the mind" is like "controlling the eye" or even harder. But it is a good question.

One thing it reminds me of is the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (Instructions to Rahula ). It recommends that you consider whether each (bodily, verbal, and mental) action is beneficial and not harmful. It's relevant to your question because it entails focus on whether a mindset is beneficial.
You might also find it interesting to read the answers to this question about the difference between Pāramitāyāna and Tantrayāna -- that's from Tibetan Buddhism. I think that may be relevant to your question, in that one is about progressing from imperfection to perfection, and the other appears to be quite squarely "learn to focus on the thoughts and gain the traits you want and become the person you want" as you wrote in the OP.
I'm not sure about "jhana meditation". It's a (or 'the') central and orthodox meditation mentioned in the Pali suttas (whether we're able to practice it properly is another matter), so it's difficult to say "it's not suitable". But maybe it isn't "a good fit for this".
A different, traditional meditation which might be a better fit is Metta-Bhanava -- Metta and the Brahmaviharas. I say that's a better fit (for your question) because it's overtly "focus on the thoughts and mindsets that are beneficial", as you asked ("bhavana" meaning "development or cultivation").

I would like to thank you for helping me on this journey to better myself. Im glad i found Buddhism and meditation and great people like you.

To say “to control the mind” sounds a bit too aggressive. Mind is a delicate thing, and not easy to tame. Taming it is like catching a fish with bare hands. Compare it to a Fish in a river are slippery and fast moving. They are extremely difficult to catch with your hands, so you need to concentrate on one of them and use both hands to try to grab it. That is hard enough to do! Trying to aggressively control the mind is like wanting to try to catch two, one in each hand, as you are watching one, the other will dart away. You are likely then to catch neither.
Mind is one of the sense bases. So why not you try meditation on sense bases (Āyatana Bhāvanā)
. You can develop the ability of practicing this meditation without letting your mind scatter on other objectives, while you are going somewhere, until you fall asleep, or while you are doing some work. But IMHO what is most important is the following five meditations.
In the Asavakkhaya Sutta, the Buddha explains, “Oh Bhikkhus. There are five activities which if practised, if practised extensively results in the wiping out of defilements”.
What are those five activities? These are the same as explained in the Nibbida Sutta. They are Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body), Ahare Patikkula Sanna (perceiving the impurity of material food), Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds), Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates), of Marana Sati (to be mindful of death).
In the Nibbida Sutta it was explained that if those five meditation activities were carried out dispassionateness invariably takes place. When one becomes dispassionate with understanding the next thing that happens is the loss of desire and the calming of the mind. With that calmed down mind it becomes possible to develop special wisdom. One who achieves these special wisdoms can develop the complete understanding of the Noble Truths. Such a person realises the Nibbana.
According Asavakkhaya Sutta it is explained that the individual who practises these five activities wipes out the Asavas (defilements rooted in us). If these Dhammas are accepted, if they are identified with a good understanding and confidence it will generate a sense of mastery over the mind.
Marana Sati is to be mindful of death. When you remind yourself that you don’t know how much time you’ve got, it should stir you to action—so that when the time comes, when you really do have to go, you’re ready, prepared. You’ve got the concentration, you’ve got the power of discernment, you’ve got the strength of mind to deal with whatever comes your way.  For most people recollection of death  is pretty disturbing and depressing, but it’s meant to be used in a way that’s inspiring, that helps us to follow the path beyond death to the deathless. Remind yourself that we’ve got this practice that allows us to prepare for death and transcend it.
The person who practises Ahare Patikkula Sanna reduces Rasa Tanha (craving for taste). The desire for taste gets diminished but the appetite for food does not diminish. Appetite remains. What gets diminished is Rasa Tanha. If a disgust for food is felt or if appetite gets reduced - if that happens it is due to practising the meditation in a wrong manner. The object is annihilation of Rasa Tanha. Reduction of craving for taste. It does not affect one’s appetite.
Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body) too should be viewed like that of the above. Many people try to generate a disgust forcefully. That is wrong. Disgust is not a pleasure. It is a great sorrow. If one wants to develop disgust there is no need to practise Asubha. He can look at the toilet pit. To generate disgust in food there is no need to meditate. One can look at stale food. Disgust arises. That means the object of this meditation is not the generation of disgust.
Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates) Seeing that all things are perishable, and change every moment, we also begin to see that things have no substantial existence of their own. That in our persons and in the things around us, there is nothing like a self. So in this sense, impermanence is directly related to the third of the three characteristics, the characteristic of not-self. Understanding impermanence is a key to understanding not-self. Whatever is impermanent is suffering, and whatever is impermanent and suffering is also not-self.
Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds) - This meditation is practiced in order to train our mind to progressively diminish the liking for the entire world. When this meditation is practiced the liking for all worlds such as of humans, abodes of deities, Brahma worlds, Peta worlds starts to get diminished. As one develops loathsomeness towards eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, visual objects, sounds, odors, tastes, touch and mind objects the liking for all worlds starts to cease.
Mindfulness meditation is the hardest of them all, and the one that almost all of them gets wrong. Many pages of explanation will be needed to answer this. The problem is that in the present day there is nobody (that is found on the internet) to fully explain it. There is no written material in English that fully covers all aspects of it. Those who write have only a theoretical understanding of it, and what they write is incorrect.

I know using the world control was a bad explanation. I didnt at the time know how else to describe it. So just focus my mind, using mindfulness meditation?  And hos can i learn more about the 5 activities more? Thank you.

Yes, I will try to add to answer. I have little time left - a busy day ahead. What Dhammadhatu said about 'Chanda' is also right. The 4 Iddhipada are called satara Iddhipada in Pali or Sinhala, meaning factors that are critical to accomplishing any goal, whether mundane or transcendental. They are chanda (liking, but close to an obsession), citta (thoughts), viriya (effort), and vimansa (analysis). Chanda is NOT greed, it is the determination to attain a goal. These factors are mutually supportive of each other. These factors feed on each other. Then progress  is made very quickly.

@DeusIIXII For more reading, the four Iddhipada are introduced e.g. here, with more detail e.g. here and here.

@DeusIIXII I can't find an English translation of the Nibbida Sutta but it's short, little longer than the paragraph which Saptha already paraphrased above. A French version of it says that the "5 activities" are: observe what's repulsive in the body; perceive what's disgusting in food; perceive non-complacency towards the world; observe impermanence in all conditioned phenomena; and perceive death well-established internally. "Nibbida" means "disenchantment". Doing these five, it says, are meant to lead only to disenchantment, detachment, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, awakening, nirvana.

Any thoughts, including negative thoughts, are triggered by some stimuli, and have a sensation associated with it.
The best would be to deal with them as per in the Suttas. Suttas like: "Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta", "Titth’ayatana Sutta", "Bahu,vedaniya Sutta", "Pañcak’aṇga Sutta", "Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta", "Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta" mentions "18 mental explorations / examinations". This says, essentially, look at the 3 types of sensations (which are, "pleasant", "unpleasant", and "neutral") which comes through each sense door. This helps in prevent the arising of the unwholesome roots due to any stimulus from any sene door. You just have to be equanimous towards the sensation, knowing that they are:

conditioned, and therefore subject to the 3 universal characteristics (or the Pacalā Sutta and Meghiya Sutta imply that it's enough to see impermanence, because if you see impermanence you see the other characteristics)1
dependently arisen based on contact
sustained by the nutriments, contact and mental activity
conditioned by fabrications, of past and present (breath, volitional activity)
tainted by ignorance
etc. see Sammaditthi Sutta

... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction,
  subject to passing away, subject to fading away, subject to ending ...

Mahā,nidāna Sutta

...  conditioned, gross, dependently arisen ...

Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta

... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen ...

Parileyya Sutta
You should not do any verbalisation, sub verbalisation, visualisation, etc. when doing the above as this will create verbal fabrications and hinder true and deep insight and cause undesirable results.
Needless to say to examine the mind you need some level of mastery over the mind, hence is a prerequisite before you practice the Vipassana technique above, since Panna is built on a strong foundation of Samadhi which in tern is build on Sila.

1
  Aniccasaññino hi, Meghiya, anattasaññā saṇṭhāti, anattasaññī asmimānasamugghātaṃ pāpuṇāti diṭṭheva dhamme nibbānaṃ.
In one, Meghiya, who perceives impermanence, the perception of selflessness is established. One who perceives what is selfless wins the uprooting of the pride of egotism in this very life, and thus realizes nibbāna.
Source: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna by VRI

Will this help the OP to "focus on the thoughts and mindsets that are beneficial. And not focus on the harmful, negative thoughts"?

Above is to avoid unwholesome roots (habitual reaction to sensations).  What is not unwholesome is wholesome.

Thank you. I never thought about my reactions to sensation. That is another field i deeply want to have mastery over. Thank you my friend.

The way I understand it is that the mind secretes thought in the same way your nose secretes mucus.  The function of the mind is to bring us to an understanding of the Dharma, at the same time to help us navigate this plane that we find ourselves in.
The problem happens when the mind becomes the focus, rather than the “witness” of the mind, whom we truly are.  This is why we are constantly trying to figure out what is wrong, and how to make it right.  We are searching to understand the Dharma, or the way thing are, but we keep getting side tracked by the mundane, by focusing too closely on the road map, or things that we think will make us happy.  We keep getting our priorities mixed up.
We need to understand the mind is called the “self” with a small ‘s’ or the ego.  The mind is there, like an organic machine that we have been born with, belching out random thoughts.  The flavor of the thoughts is the result of past associations, most of which you can’t remember.  These thoughts are ways you have tried to go around the Dharma in the past rather than go through it.  The Buddhists call it dependent origination, or karma.  Every human being is seeking to understand the Dharma in their own way.
We have created time in this incarnation as the number of times the Earth revolves around the Sun.  This is sort of a fabricated view of time to be able to get from A to B.  In reality, time is immortal or eternal.  Our limited “mind” cannot comprehend it, but when you truly turn inward, you can “sense” it as being this way.
Comparing a dogs mind and a humans mind, you can offer a dog an algebra problem. He may sniff the paper, but his mind is limited, so that he can never understand algebra.  In the same way, our minds are limited also.  We think we understand the complexities of existence, but in reality it is only our human ego.  We only “think” of “things” using mechanical complexity.  Thinking, reasoning, figuring, will not take you to the Dharma.  Finding-understanding-realizing-becoming Dharma relies on trust and feeling, just being and experiencing.  It’s counter intuitive to what we have been taught by human society.
This karma I spoke about earlier, being composed of past association, is where the thoughts come from.  That is why one thought comes out of your mind rather than another, according to your karma.  Place no importance on these thought-objects.   Thought belongs to this plane, and will live a while, then pass away into nothingness like all other objects.  Just observe the thought with your “real Self” and know it has no importance.  You may have to observe many “like” thoughts emerging from the mind, depending on the strength of your past associations, but knowing the Truth, the Dharma, will cause them to cease eventually in “time.”  In meditation it is an important practice to just see them, but not to act on them, which will create more of the same.  Try not to follow any of them, be they wonderful or horrible.  As far as thoughts go: they are all equal.  Just let them go.
The saying goes something like: “We must meditate by the door, and eventually it will be opened for us.”  Actually, we will let ourselves in, or have the realization that there really wasn’t a door!  Even so we must wait, without expectation, fearlessly as “time” passes.
Thank you for hearing my words.  You may be about to have a “great” understanding.  Suddenly, the pieces will fit! You will hear all the rules, like the dog that will never understand algebra.  The rules will also turn into nothingness in the end, scribbling on a paper, but study them you must.  Study the road map, then when you believe you understand it, toss it out, or pass it on to someone who is seeking.  You will walk in your human form, taking refuge in the Dharma, and you will “trust-know” that the mundane will pass.  Eventually you will understand on a deep level that although bound in human form, you are already eternally all-things-good!

Interesting description. There seem to be two general approaches, for two kinds of people: a thought-based, reasoning approach, and an insight-based, experiential approach. This is like what Robert M Pirsig said in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". The first approach can become dogmatic and lead to clinging to ideas, the second can become ungrounded and the person ends up talking about mystical and non-material things. I am more after the 2nd kind, but I have respect for those who wish to proceed surely, step by step. Neither can usually understand the other kind of approach. Metta

Yes, the "classical vs romantic" of Mr. Pirsig's book.  (He just passed away yesterday, I believe) I am suggesting that the "classical" approach, with the included practice and study, will blossom and bear fruit into the "romantic," mystical direction of understanding the inconsistency of life.  That's the change I experienced over "time" in my seeking.  Thank you for commenting, you are my teacher!

Sure. You are my teacher as well. Another thought: I heard of a psychological principle (can't recall the details just now) which says that people have strengths and weaknesses in various areas, like the classic / romantic distinction of thought process, but they are usually not as aware of their strengths (which come naturally to them) and instead focus a lot on the areas they are weak because those are the things they notice. Perhaps you are naturally a 'romantic' person, but you took a long trip through the 'classic' dimension because it gave you difficulties. Then you "reverted to type".

Rumi quote: "We thought that the name of 'Umar' meant: agitator against priests. But in Eternity his name is: The One Who Believes.

No comprende--  That Rumi quote is so funny!  Just change the places and times and you will find all major religions teach the same concepts.  It's the instinct for survival in humans that creates the agitation Rumi speaks of.  For humans to survive, to be passive means sure death (to the ego or more).  That's how we moved to the top of the food chain, by taking out the competition.  It's evidenced by the many wars and killings going on constantly in most societies, even as we speak.  The "priests" would do better to be mindfull of their human origins, and to compensate for them. y gracias.

Thank you. That quote always used to make me cry. The idea, to me, is that people only agitate about things that really matter to them. The iconoclasts, the terrorists, the evangelists are the real believers, other people are just playing around. So, how do we help the race survive by making use of their ardor? The quote is about not judging, because we do not know the motives of others. How to respond usefully without judging? How to discern, without discriminating? How to use the mind, without thinking too much? Perhaps that is what enlightenment is.

Yes, we set an example of controlling the urge to control.  It's human nature.  My mindfulness is much about my own urges to wonder why it's not going the was it should.  Life is unsatisfactory for all.  It is what drives us forward. I am mindful of that.  The AA prayer of:  control what you can, and the wisdom to know what you can't.  Be at peace with the whole thing.  The good, bad and the ugly.  We don't really understand, "nadie comprende" the big picture.

I advise you to look at "Mindfulness"
It's a very practical, down to earth, approach to meditation.
My reference book is in french, and I don't think it's been translated anywhere.
It's was written by the psychiatrist Dr. Yasmine Lienard, and the title translated would be "For a Modern Wisdom, The Psychotherapies of 3rd Generation".
In French, "Pour une sagesse moderne, Les psychothérapies de 3e génération" - Dr. Yasmine Lienard. Edition Odile Jacob.
For a soft overview, you can check Eckhart's videos. But I have not viewed a lot of them. He is famous in the Mindfulness field. I often see/read some quotes of him.
In a nutshell, what I think about Mindfulness:
It is the philosophy and (above all) the techniques of Buddhism and Zen meditation, deprived of any religious insight.
I think it is born from the desire to heal depression without medecine/drugs.

Can you add anything about maybe how, what technique[s] to use, to look at Mindfulness? Recommend any text, courses, books, suttas, or methods? I think the OP has already heard of the word "mindfulness", e.g. they used the [tag:meditation-mindfulness] tag in their question.

@ChrisW I have added some information accordingly.


text:
What is the learning sign "uggahanimitta"?
In the jhana meditation book I'm reading, Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas, it is stated that to suppress the Hindrance, you first focus your mind on a jhana meditation object. Once you mature you will be able to see the object clearly, it will become a visual object in your mind. So is (uggahanimitta) a visual representation of my breath? Where I can see my breath flowing?
Also they stated that this stage will mature the 5 jhana factors. That once you reached uggahanimitta, the 5 jhana factors start to mature and become stronger? I thought that to supress the hindrances you must change your life and incorporate the 5 factors. Sorry I'm just so lost.

Buddhism is a lived experience. Whatever is read, should be put into practise. If it works, you verify it & cultivate it. If it does not work, you discard it & find another method.
The ideas of a 'uggahanimitta' ('learning sign') & 'suppression' are found in the Visuddhimagga, which written in the 5th Century in Sri Lanka & contains lots of unusual ideas.
However, even the Visuddhimagga states to develop the uggahanimitta that:

...he should review the dangers in sense desires in the way
  beginning, “Sense desires give little enjoyment” (M I 91) and arouse
  longing for the escape from sense desires, for the renunciation that
  is the means to the surmounting of all suffering. He should next
  arouse joy of happiness by recollecting the special qualities of the
  Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; then awe by thinking, “Now, this
  is the way of renunciation entered upon by all Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas
  and noble disciples”; and then eagerness by thinking, “In this way I
  shall surely come to know the taste of the bliss of seclusion.” After
  that he should open his eyes moderately, apprehend the sign, and so
  proceed to develop it. (page 119 bottom).

Rapture can certainly arise from suppressing hindrances but it will not be jhana (even though many practitioners mistake it to be jhana).

'Mental reflex-image', obtained in meditation. In full clarity, it will appear in the mind by successful practice of certain concentration-exercises and will then appear as vividly as if seen by the eye. The object perceived at the very beginning of concentration is called the preparatory image   parikamma-nimitta The still unsteady and unclear image, which arises when the mind has reached a weak degree of concentration, is called the acquired image  uggaha-nimitta An entirely clear and immovable image arising at a higher degree of concentration is the counter-image patibhāga-nimitta As soon as this image arises, the stage of neighbourhood or access concentration upacāra-samādhi is reached. For further details, see: kasina, samādhi.

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_n.htm#nimitta

The Pali term nimitta,  means a “sign," i.e., the idea or image conceived,  or an object perceived. The keeping in mind of a nimitta, and maining it is a sign of concentration. When you develop an anapanasati nimitta (i.e., that of the breath), and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face. The ‘nimitta’ is your main object of focus. When the hindrances are being overpowered by the jhana factors inwardly, on the side of the nimitta too certain changes are taking place. The original object of concentration, i.e., in the mindfulness of breathing the touch sensation of the breath, with the strengthening of concentration the breath gives rise to another object called the "learning sign" (uggaha-nimitta).
For the breath it will be a reflex image arisen from the touch sensation of the air currents moving around the nostrils. When the uggaha-nimitta appears, the meditator leaves the breath nimitta and fixes his attention on this new object. In due time still another object will emerge out of the uggaha-nimitta. This is called the "counterpart sign" (patibhaga-nimitta).  It is a purified mental image many times brighter and clearer than the uggaha-nimitta.
These nimittas can be either beneficial or harmful, true or false, so we shouldn't place trust in them. That is why before getting into meditation, one should be very clear of the purpose for the meditation. It should be solely for the aim of attaining Nibbhana. Then you will not give into these distractions.  When meditating alpha brainwave is produced in you when your body calms down and your mind is completely relaxed. Your brain's thinking is slower, your mind is clear and you may even feel slightly drowsy. If you are not firmly grounded on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta you tend to cling in to these without contemplating the impermanency of these. If we're thoroughly mindful and alert, they can be beneficial, as you are firmly grounded on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. But if our powers of reference are weak or if we lack strength of mind, we're likely to follow the drift of whatever images appear, sometimes losing our bearings to the point where we latch on to the images as being real.
The uggaha-nimitta can be experienced in some peoples normal life too. The worldly knowledge is of two types – one that comes from studying books or ones that comes from thinking things through. This second kind of knowledge arises within the mind itself. People who are trained in the theoretical sciences work with their thinking. They think to the point where an idea appears as a picture in the mind, like an uggaha-nimitta (spontaneous image). When the picture appears in the mind, they may sketch it down on paper, and then experiment with physical objects to see if it works. If it doesn't work, they make adjustments, creating a new idea from their old idea — keeping at it until they find what works in line with their aims.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What did the Buddha say about motivation?
What did the Buddha say about wholesome types of motivation?
Is there a difference in the Pali language between "intention" (as in Right Intention) and "motivation"?
From what I understand Right Intention is renunciation, good-will and harmlessness. I can understand how good-will and maybe renunciation can be a sort of motivation, but harmlessness seems to be more passive and therefore maybe not a motivation in the same way
Basically what I'm looking for are the things that motivate us (as in "drives us") to do things, which are considered wholesome in Buddhism
(Maybe there is also a connection to Right Effort here)
Grateful for help with understanding this better!

Right effort(sammā-vāyāma) in terms of mindfulness is not a forceful , grit your teeth kind of effort. It's a moment by moment, continuous, good cyclical habit kind of effort.
Cetanā is Pali for
1- intention
2- volition
3- directionality of mind
4- attraction
5- urge
Intention(cetanā) can be defined as a mental factor that moves or urges the mind in a particular direction, toward a specific object or goal. Intention(cetanā) is the most significant mental factor involved in the creation of karma.
Sammā-vāyāma and cetanā are two different concepts. In practice, one concept(or the actual experience the concept points towards) might happen right after the other though. Then there is right intention (samma sankappa) that isn't really like sammā-vāyāma. Imho at least.
Samvega, the sense of shock and empty alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of living in the sleeping world, is what motivated the Buddha and others onto the wholesome eightfold path. Some are motivated by other things like faith(saddhā) in the  Buddha's teaching.
Right effort and right view are the two most important factors for an insight meditator to understand, it seems to me.
Right effort can be something like, effort to continue striving to remember to focus awareness on whatever experience arises in awareness and to strive in a broader sense to transcend all assumptions even the ones we don't yet see.
The Four Supreme Efforts
(cattārimāni sammappadhānāni)
1-Restraint Not to let an unwholesome thought arise which has not yet arisen(anuppādāya)
2-Abandonment Not to let an unwholesome thought continue which has already arisen.(pahānāya)
3-Cultivation To make a wholesome thought arise which has not yet arisen.(uppādāya)
4-Preservation To make a wholesome thought continue which has already arisen.(ṭhitiyā)
Effort can come easier with interest but then the path is to eventually develop a certain disinterest.

'Chanda' as an 'iddhipada', translated as 'zeal', 'desire', 'will', 'love'. I prefer 'devotion'.
Some suttas: SN 51.15 and SN 51.20.

Heedfulness motivates you. The Pali word is ‘APPAMADA’.  Supreme Buddha Himself has said that all of what he has taught, if all that can be put into ONE word, it is ‘APPAMADA’. Putting into practice what you know of Dhamma right now, motivates tou. You will not postpone any acts or decisions for a ‘tomorrow’. Life is in the today – life is here and now. For many,  this Dhamma Path has created new possibilities, that only in living in the present we can learn to live this truth.
Another factor that would motivate you in this Dhamma Path is Generosity. It helps you to be free from attachment. Giving motivates us to let go of our clinging. The more we practice giving the more we let go of our clinging. And one day, we can be free from all forms of clinging. Generosity also helps us collect merits. Merits, that come with us no matter where we go, like the shadow that never leaves.
One other factor that would motivate you in this Dhamma Path is a sense of samvega: a sense of dismay over the nature of the human condition because everybody is subject to these same problems, but no one has shown us how to deal with such.
When you really see that there’s a connection between unskillful intentions and needless suffering, you become genuinely motivated to find the escape from that suffering.
Supreme Buddha’s advice for this is that of the practise of four activities: Listening to Dhamma, participation in Dhamma discussion, Samatha and Vipassana. Only the individual who practises these four activities develops his mind up to Arahantship. This is not a short distance run, this is a marathon like no other.

Is there a difference in the Pali language between "intention" (as in Right Intention) and "motivation"?
I think that "right intention" (or "resolve") is connected with a sense of purpose -- with "purpose" meaning, for example, "I do this, in order to (for the purpose of, with the intention to) accomplish that".
I think that "right intention" is the second factor of the path and that it's closely related with "right view". I think that "right view" would explain why you want to do something, and could therefore be described as the "motive" for subsequent intention.
Similarly "wrong view" conditions wrong intention and so on.
harmlessness seems to be more passive and therefore maybe not a motivation in the same way
One of the doctrines of harmlessness is Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada, the first verse:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

To relate that to intention, I'd say that "Putting oneself in the place of another" is a view, and that the consequence of that view is the "intention" to be harmless (and, consequently, harmless actions).
Also I think that "harmlessness" and "good-will" are closely related, two sides of the same coin. I can barely tell them apart. Also you say it's "not a motivation" but I think that's a motive of all ethics (sila):

[By abandoning the taking of life, abandoning stealing, abandoning lying, illicit sex, and the use of intoxicants] ... the disciple of the noble ones ... gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression ... [these are the five gifts] — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And [these are the rewards of merit], reward of skillfulness, nourishment of happiness, celestial, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven, leading to what is desirable, pleasurable, & appealing; to welfare & to happiness.

You might be asking for the "sense of samvega" though (which is mentioned in Saptha Visuddhi's answer, see also for example here). I think that samvega is understood to mean not only a sense of dismay, perhaps as a result of view again, but also a sense of (purposeful) urgency.
And I think that samvega is associated with virya (translated as energy and, as you mentioned, effort).

He said "whatever motivates one on the path is good."

Can you reference that ... which sutta?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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


text:
How does one get closer to Buddha?
Buddha being one of the three jewels, how am I supposed to take refuge in him?
Is it through meditation? The only meditation I know is 'mindfulness', and I think that it isn't enough. That being so so, how do I reach out for him?

Buddha being one of the three jewels, how am I supposed to take refuge in him
I think that refuge-going can be (initially) an expression of gratitude, when (after) you understand dharma and find it helpful.
There's a formula at the end of some of the suttas, for example the Kalama Sutta:

Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today.

I interpret that as an expression of gratitude: gratitude for being saved or freed (liberated), "point the way to one who is lost".
Also as an expression of agreement, and acceptance.
It's also an expression of respect, or reverence, for example as told in the Garava sutta: which says that the newly Self-awakened Buddha thought he would suffer if he couldn't respect a teacher (and, lacking a teacher, he decided to respect the teaching, the dharma). That sutta (e.g. "It would be for the sake of perfecting an unperfected aggregate of virtue that I would dwell in dependence on another brahman or contemplative, honoring and respecting him") also reminds me of the Upaddha Sutta (e.g. "When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path" -- and, "It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth", so "admiration" too). Perhaps analogous to a doctor and medicine, too: out of respect for the doctor you use the medicine as prescribed.
In my mind (in my 'personal practice'), the Buddha and the dharma have overlapped. If I remember dharma, my thought might be like, "Oh yes, the Buddha told me (or, the Buddha said) such-and-such. He was right!"
Further to that (overlap) is the Buddha's statement in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha:

Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

See also Dhammakāya .
By the way the very next paragraph after that in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta is:

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'

... which goes to the "reverence" mentioned earlier.
But, getting back to the Buddha, I find it helps to consider not only the abstract, impersonal Dharma but the fact that it was conceived, improved, experienced, spoken, practiced, and proven -- by the Buddha who was born human.
Because of that humanity, human relationship, additional human factors happen, for example "faith": when you're learning something, you might have faith in the teaching, because you have faith in the teacher.
And, for example, "conceit": i.e. comparing yourself with the man, telling yourself that what was true for him could be true for you too if you apply yourself and learn to understand, experience, practice.
But the Tathagata transcends various human limitations -- defilements, and knowledge-obscurations -- so there's attempting to follow the Buddha (not as a human but as one who has "gone" before or "arrived" before).

I'm not sure why the triple jewel is listed as "Buddha, Dharma, Sangha" in that order -- whether the order (Buddha first) is meant to be significant. Respect.
There's an Uruvelā sutta, which is like the Garava sutta but with a different ending - the Buddha says:

Then, having acknowledged Brahmā’s request and what was proper for myself, I honored, respected, and dwelled in dependence only on the Dhamma to which I had become fully enlightened. And now that the Saṅgha has acquired greatness, I have respect for the Saṅgha, too.

So you might respect the Buddha at least no less that respecting the "arya Sangha".
But actually there's part of the Maha-parinibbana Sutta which says,

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?
"When he dwells contemplating [etc.]

Incidentally, apparently the word Saraṇa means not only refuge and protection but also house.

Is it through meditation?
I think it's through the whole practice: the "noble eightfold way" for example.
A lot of the suttas contain what seem to be instructions for "meditation", but that might be a partial or advanced doctrine for monks who already have a lot of other lessons.

Monks have the Vinaya (the Buddha is said to have taught "the Dharma and the Discipline").
For lay people that might start with the precepts, which you might (formally) undertake soon after a (formal) refuge ceremony.

It's quite a broad question, I suppose the whole of Buddhism is about taking refuge, reaching out (and there do seem to be many Buddhist practices, if you look at different traditions and countries; including meditation[s], but also for example dharma lessons, prostrations, tantra, mantra, remembering, etc.).

In the Vakkali Sutta – SN 22.87 Supreme Buddha said:

He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

The Buddha is rightly described as a teacher par excellence. He attempts only two things: (a) make you think and (b) gradually train you in an orderly way to lead onwards to realize immediately this truth [sandittiko, opanaiyko]. The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is INSIGHT or vipassana. But insight (vipassana) depends on samadhi or CONCENTRATION. And concentration (samadhi) depends on Sammaditthi or RIGHT VIEW.
To make Dhamma easy is a travesty. Always learn to ask: Why is the Buddha saying this and not that?
Some statements that you do not understand right now, you must put aside, till you have understood thoroughly the fundaments. Later, when you detect the structural principle of the arising and cessation of dukkha, and the principles of paticcasamuppada, in the entirety of the teaching, then you would find the answers all your questions.  Let us first know the Noble Qualities of the Dhamma, as one who  truly seeing Dhamma, one sees Buddha.
The Teaching of the Buddha also has six supreme qualities:
Svâkkhato  ~ Perfectly explained and taught with great compassion
Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed"). The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom),
Sanditthiko  ~  The benefit of the Dhamma can be seen in this lifetime, Here and Now
Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dhamma can be tested by practice and therefore he who follows it will see the result by himself through his own experience in this very lifetime.
Akâliko   ~ The timeless truth that is immediately effective
Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "immediate") The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehi-passiko ~  Inviting any wise person to come and see
Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects.
Opanâyiko ~  Each person must practice the teachings and realize their value within one's own experience
Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti. ~  To be realized by the wise, each for himself.
Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be personally known by the wise"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Ariyas) who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.
To get closer to Buddha, you will have to know His nine supreme qualities. You will find a detailed description of these nine supreme qualities HERE.
In going for refuge, when we say, "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi." (i.e. "I go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) it is important that we know of the Supreme Qualities of the Three Jewels: so we have to have a good knowledge of the Ariya Sangha too. You will find a detailed description of the supreme qualities of the Sangha HERE.

You can do Buddhanusathi Bawana. You take each quality of the Buddha and recite the quality mentally:

Buddho – Awakened
Sammasambuddho – Perfectly self-awakened
Vijja-carana-sampano – Endowed with higher knowledge and ideal conduct.
Sugato – Well-gone or Well-spoken.
Lokavidu – Wise in the knowledge of the many worlds.
Anuttaro Purisa-damma-sarathi – Unexcelled trainer of untrained people.
Satthadeva-Manussanam – Teacher of gods and humans.
Bhagavathi – The Blessed one
Araham – Worthy of homage. An Arahant is "one with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge."

(Sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Nine_virtues)
This is one of the 4 Protective Mentations, which are done before the main Kammaṭṭhāna you practice. Say if you main Kammaṭṭhāna is Anapana, you start by Loving Kindness, Recollection of the Buddha (sometimes the Noble Triple Gem), Meditation on Foulness, Meditation on Death in brief and then do your Anapana.
Like with Buddhist meditation activity it is necessary to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and also take the 5 precepts beforehand. If you are learning under a meditation master, depending on the tradition, you will have to make a formal request to the teacher / preceptor that you be given this particular meditation subject or any general mediation subject with a view to realise Nirvana. Some teachers do not give Kammaṭṭhāna without being asked formally, perhaps due to a Vinaya rule.
Buddhanusathi Bawana as a meditation where recollect the qualities of the Buddha. In taking refuge, you take the Noble Triple Gem as your teacher, guide and protector.
Also Buddha has said, you see him when you see the Dhamma. Hence if you realise the Dhamma you see the Buddha. So for this matter mindfulness will suffice to see the Buddha or to reach out to him, by realising the true Dhamma. Or you can do Buddhanusathi Bawana.

I think this is a good answer:

To take refuge in the Buddha means, not taking refuge in him as a person, but taking refuge in the fact of his Awakening: placing trust in the belief that he did awaken to the truth, that he did so by developing qualities that we too can develop, and that the truths to which he awoke provide the best perspective for the conduct of our life.

Full text here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html


text:
Where can I do a long retreat?
Could different people here recommend places I can do long retreats (in 2 months for example)?
I wanted to do a retreat in the style of meditation I do right now: Mahasi Sayadaw following Ven. Ajhan Tong sirimangalo technique -- where you do mindful prostrations, then walking and sitting while using labeling.
But they only agree for 10 days, and at the end of 10 days they tell you whether you can stay for another 10 days.
So I'm looking for a place to go do a long retreat, of say 2 months -- it can be in different technique even  (say even only metta for example) , that isn't close to it.

You can try the Kanduboda Meditation Center which teachers Mahasi Meditation. You have to inquire before hand about the length of your stay.
Also you can try Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya. Again double check the particular days. This teachers both Mahasi and Pa Auk methods under Most Venerable UdaEriyagama Dhammajiva Maha Thero
Also there are centres in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thai Land and Malaysia which you can try.
Also see: Meditation Centres in Sri Lanka by Andrew Quernmore
Also you might try to use World Buddhist Directory.
Also Goenka Centres does have long retreats if you fulfill some conditions:

10-day Courses for Old Students have the same timetable and discipline as 10-day courses. These courses are open to serious old students who have completed at least three 10-day courses and one Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta course, have not been practising any other meditation techniques since last 10-day course, have been practising this technique of Vipassana for at least one year, are trying to maintain the five precepts in their daily lives, and trying to maintain daily practice.
Special 10-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of five 10-day courses, one Satipatthana Sutta course, given Dhamma Service at least one 10-day course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.
Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.
20-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of five 10-day courses , one Satipatthana Sutta course, given Dhamma Service at least one 10-day course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.
Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.
30-day Courses are open only to serious Old Students committed to this technique who have completed a minimum of six 10-day courses (one since their first 20-day course), one 20-day course, one Satipatthana Sutta course, and have been practicing regularly for at least two years.
Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.
45-day Courses are open only to persons involved in Dhamma Service and Assistant Teachers who have completed a minimum of seven 10-day courses (one since their first 30-day course), two 30-day courses, one Satipatthana Sutta course, and have been practicing regularly for at least three years.
Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.
60-day Courses are open only to active Teachers and Assistant teachers who have completed two 45 Day courses and conduct at least 4 courses annually.
Applications must be submitted well in advance as processing may take some time. Students who speak neither English nor one of the other announced course languages may apply for the course, however acceptance into the course will depend on the availability of required course materials, suitable translators and permission of the teacher conducting the course.
Satipatthana Sutta Courses have the same timetable and discipline as 10-day courses. The difference is that in the taped evening discourses the Satipatthana Sutta is carefully examined. This is the principal text in which the technique of Vipassana is systematically explained. These courses are open to serious old students who have sat (not including courses served) at least three 10-day courses, have not been practising any other meditation techniques since last 10-day course, have been practising this technique of Vipassana for at least one year, and who are trying to maintain their meditation practice and the five precepts in their daily lives, at the very minimum from the time of applying to the course.
Old Student Short Courses (1-3 days) are for any student who has completed the 10-day course with S.N. Goenka and his assistant teachers. All old students are welcome to apply to attend these courses, including those where it has been some time since their last course.

Source: https://www.dhamma.org/en/schedules/schtapovana

http://www.watmetta.org/
Ajan Geoff is the teacher he. He is very knowledge about Buddhism in general, however is trained as a monk of the Thai Forest Tradition.

its a hassle to contact the though  -  only by phone or mail (actual mail not email)

ha yeah tell me about it. usually you can get through if you call between 5 and 6 and they are actually pretty good about calling back.

i live in israel - so it will be an out of state call which is problematic to do  - but thanks for the comment it makes me think of all options  -  really the more options the better - so thanks

I do like ajan Geoff though - read some books of his  - maybe there is another place that has the same teachings i can stay at ?

The list given by Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena is quite exhaustive.
I will just add that if you never did a long retreat before, you should probably first start by a 10 days retreat.
I already did small retreat of 3 days of zazen in Japan, but I found the 10 days retreat of Goenka to be really hard and just couldn't imagine doing it for 20 days while I was there, it's a big jump. I will certainly do a few more 10 days retreat and will look forward doing 20 days in a row when I will feel ready.
Short answer: It is up to you, but I really suggest you test yourself on 10 days (goenka or not) if you have no prior experience. Because if you were to fail during a longer retreat you will face the risk to be disgusted by meditation or blame yourself while you just gave yourself a too big of challenge.

I did 16 days intense retreat at meditation center also 10 days retreat at home (which is harder)
Im aware of how hard its going to be

Wow great ! in that case I think you won't be able to apply to Goenka unless you first do the ten days first, but depending on their schedule you can maybe achieve to do it in a consecutive manner: applying to a 10 days course, followed right after by a 20 days course etc.  I heard they do longer period then 20 days (like one or two months) once in a while. Probably India is the best bet.

These courses are the best imo, held in Hamilton, ON Canada, on an individual, on-going basis, free of charge, including room and board for the duration of the course dependent on keeping the eight Buddhist precepts for meditators
Foundation Course – 21 days (approx.)
...Foundation Course in Satipatthana Vipassana Meditation as their first course.  Meditation techniques include mindful prostration, one- to six-step walking meditation, sitting meditation based on the rising and falling of the abdomen, the sitting posture, points of bodily contact, as well as contemplation of daily activities from morning to night.
The emphasis in this course is on learning the basic technique of recognition (sati – a.k.a. mindfulness) of the body, feelings, mind, and dhammas (meditation objects) in the present moment.  The course follows, as its technical outline, the sixteen stages of insight knowledge found in primary Buddhist texts and commentaries; no formal instruction in the stages of knowledge, however, is given in the foundation course and not all meditators will obtain the same results from the course.
Course content includes daily interviews with a teacher and regular group lectures. No previous experience is required, but advanced meditators in other meditation techniques may request a streamlined course to suit their needs.
They also offer advandanced courses to people who have completed the foundation course or the online course, so one could theoretically streamline several courses https://www.sirimangalo.org/courses/#med

Thank you. Do you have any comment on the possibility of a 2-month-long retreat?

It is possible to stay for longer time if the Abbot allows it, however i would not expect an open invitation to stay for 2 months, one could probably ask to be allowed to stay if one was to complete the Foundation Course. I know of people who stayed for several months.

checked and its only available from august

I would recommend the Tisarana Buddhist Monastery in Perth, Ontario, for you. It is near Ottawa – the Capital City of Canada. I was there just one month ago. You can take a look into their FB Page too, if you like - as it will give you a better idea.
The monastery is a residence for Buddhist monks and those who wish to train as Buddhist monks. Presently there are 20 monks, and 4 'anagaarika's (trainee monks). It is also a retreat for those  interested who may visit for varying periods of time.

Ven. Ajahn Tong Sirimangalo lives at Wat Chomtong. The foundation course is 21 days. That could be a nice start. There are more monasteries with similar style that do 21 day foundation courses like Wat Doi Suthep and Wat Rampoeng.
It's possible to stay much longer at Mahasi Sasana Yeiktha Meditation Centre Yangon. I can't find the folder they gave me though, so I don't know the exact conditions.

Thanks  -  i went first to panditarama  center in myanmar for 2 months (i think they even accept 3 months there)   -  but they spoke 0 English ! i left after 2 days  went to thailand dissapointed  - but than did  20 days in chom tong  - where they speak excellent English
.... after a few days traveling went back for another ten days but it was too much for me so left after a day lol

It's good to understand the instructions, that's also why I prefer Wat Chom Tong.

After the foundation course I really had to recover! Amazing that you went back so soon. Last year I informed if it's possible to do longer stays. It's possible, but it's going to be the standard 10 day review course, take some time off, then do another 10 day review course.


text:
Are Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism the same?
Regarding the Buddhist ideal model for practitioners, is there any difference between Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism?

I could see some similarities in the Theravada  Mahayana Doctrines.
Mahayana and Theravada
Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
Both Mahayana and Theravada doctrines help us to not being influenced by the objects of the six senses. In Mahayana they call it the becoming of Buddha Nature – to be awakened. We call it being an “Arya Shrawaka” in being a part of the ideal community of Noble Ones (ariya-sangha)
The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. ‘Paramita’ in Mahayana is this ‘crossing over’ and ‘reaching the other shore’ in walking the eightfold path.
The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

Buddha discourages reincarnation in any form stating he wouldn't, even for a moment, praise reincarnation. Yet, unlike in Theravada, in Mahayana one seeks strives to become a Buddha through reincarnation.
Becoming a Buddha, or bodhisatva isn't something Buddha has encouraged (according to Buddha Jayanthi translations of the original teachings of Buddha)

Which sutra did the Buddha discourage reincarnation and becoming a Bodhisattva?

I didn't say Buddha has discouraged being a Bodhisattva. But are you interested in finding the places where Buddha discourages reincarnation? (I did say Buddha has discouraged reincarnation)

Yes. Please do.

I'm looking for it in the Tipitaka. I'll let you know once I find it. It's definitely in there.

Samyutta Nikaya, Salayatana Wagga, Vedana Sanyuttan, Sabbaniccha waggo, "Upassatta Sutta"

By Northern Buddhism, if you mean Mahayana Buddhism and by Southern Buddhism, if you mean Theravada Buddhism, then yes there are some differences.

Theravada Buddhism talks about the Four Noble Truths etc. And while Mahayana also talks about them, Mahayana adherents are taught to transcend even those doctrines. I am unsure if this is only peculiar to the Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (where I came from). A popular Chinese Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, emphasises on Sunyata or "emptiness" (空). For example, the Heart Sutra mentioned that the Four Noble Truths are "empty". (无苦集灭道)
The goal of Theravada Buddhism is to be an Arahant, while the goal of Mahayana Buddhism is to be a Bodhisavtta. The difference between the two is that an Arahant focuses on his or her personal enlightenment while a Bodhisavatta focuses on the enlightenment of all sentient beings.

Do note that I'm more familiar with Mahayana compared to Theravada. And I'm no expert. Feel free to criticise and comment my answer.


text:
Is their any Age limit to become a Buddha?
we all know Prince Siddartha, about 29 years old when he began his quest for enlightenment. His quest was accomplished about six years later, when he was in his mid-30s became Lord Buddha. so my question is, is their any Age limit to become a Buddha?

There is no such age or age limit. For example,  Kassapa Buddha, the sixth of the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity, and the third of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa practiced austerities for only seven days. Kassapa Budda attained Parinibbhana at the age of forty thousand years. At that time children would get married at the age of 500 according to legend.


text:
Is Buddhism against scientific attitude?
According to Buddhism, the cause of all suffering is desire and liberation from desire would lead to the cessation of suffering.
But isn’t curiosity a desire? Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research? (as all research is about the desire to find answers to questions.)

It's disappointing to see that the answers given so far are so focused on showing that Buddhism matches with scientific reasoning- which isn't the main question here. The answers only discuss curiosity/desire/suffering as a secondary point. People care too much about Buddhism's reputation for being in-line with science.

Well bear in mind that Desire欲 is born out of Ignorance無明. Because of Ignorance we don't know this and that, therefore curiosity born as result of contemplating for answer. If you know everything from big bang and those every fermions their plays etc., curoisity this great human/scientist desire doesn't stand a place. However, the Buddhas are not living a boring life, they are termed 神通遊戲自在, a bad translation of these 6 characters are: magically playing freely. Even the Buddhas when they see each other they have formal greeting: 少病少惱否，眾生易度否？ :D

No.
I'd say that Buddhism is or can be pro (in favour of) a scientific attitude. The structure of the four noble truths, for example, are analogous to medical thinking: symptoms, cause, cure, and prescription (or, possibly, analogous to the "scientific method": observations, hypothesis, prediction, and experiment).
Also there are different types of "desire": tanha is unwholesome craving, whereas chanda can be wholesome.
Furthermore Buddhism (more-or-less) encourages the proper functioning of lay society: including right livelihood and so on.
And a contemporary Buddhist leader (the Dalai Lama) says that Buddhism has a lot to offer or to add to science (e.g. here) -- or for example here, "The Science for Monks project is a direct result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s long-term personal interest in science".
I think it's true though that Buddhism doesn't put faith in merely technological development, any more than it says that the mere accumulation of material wealth is the ultimate solution for all life's problems.
Also, I think that "(idle) curiosity" may be endless: meaning, both "without limit" and "without (or with no good) purpose". But Buddhist Dharma is overtly purposeful and, therefore, limited (see for example Simsapa Sutta). I think it expects endeavour should be harmless, beneficial, benevolent: so I expect it opposes some types of "scientific" Research and Development (notably, probably, of weapons for example). Conversely I think there are scientific fields that have more affinity with Buddhism (possibly medicine or ecology).

For the sake of completeness I think that Buddhism (or some Buddhists) can also be dogmatic: the ancient descriptions of (for example) cosmology and pre-history don't co-exist easily with modern "scientific" theories of astronomy, geoscience, and evolution.
Some contemporary Buddhists might discount or excuse such dogma: for example as the unscientific product of its time; or as a corruption introduced into the (perfect) Dharma during subsequent history; or as having a metaphorical or pedagogical purpose which no longer needs to be taken literally.
Other Buddhists might hold that any doctrine that's canonical is therefore important (in spite of the Kalama sutta mentioned in Suminda's answer) and therefore (as you asked) be "against" modern science and "scientific attitude".
There are also some practices in Buddhist cultures and countries, which might be seen as "superstitious" rather than "scientific". But there are also Buddhists who would view these practices as "superstition" and (therefore) not "true Buddhism".
There are many suttas in which the Buddha seems to use and to encourage the use of  "scientific attitude", as opposed to the superstitions of his time.
People sometimes contrast Buddhism with Religions, which say "This is true because the prophet (or 'the holy book' or 'our tradition') says so" -- whereas I think that Buddhism's attitude is more like "This is true because it stands to reason, is observable."

One more comment -- I see people try to reconcile, compare, and/or compete Buddhism with science: for example, sometimes, saying that the Buddha taught about Atomic Theory well before "atoms" were discovered by modern experiment; or conversely, saying that science's discovery, that seemingly-solid matter is mostly empty space, is comparable to Buddhist doctrines on emptiness (sunyata).
I see them (science and Buddhism) as separate (independent) fields of endeavour and doctrine.
Within science, there's a conventional way to classify the fields of science into layers, e.g. illustrated here:

Each less "pure" discipline is arguably more complex, less simple, and is based on emergent properties of the field below (or to the right of) it.
I'd place Buddhism well to the left of that scale: highly complex, describing properties of complex phenomena (e.g. human beings). It's a study of things like:

subjective experience (suffering and non-suffering)
afflictive and affective obstacles (kilesa)
beneficial or practical qualities (bodhipakkhiyā dhammā)
ethics (sila)
social interaction (brahmaviharas)
wisdom
mahayana ideals and aspirations

Buddhism is a bit ruthless about what it considers on-topic and not. For example people ask, "Is there a Self?" and I think that Buddha's answer is that it's better not to think about that, that there's no view or doctrine about Self which would lead to the goal (of non-suffering).
There's an expression "not even wrong" which is used to describe what seem to  be muddled statements about physics. I like Wikipedia's description of it:

The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German.

I especially like the phrase, "Pauli remarked sadly".
In my opinion, Buddhism might describe science in general as neither "right" not "wrong" but as "not even wrong" -- because science more-or-less fails to make useful statements about topics which Buddhism considers important, for example "ethics" or "liberation from suffering" or anything like that.
I think that Saptha's answer and comments are that even when science has pleasant practical applications and consequences, these (and the pursuit of these) don't help to "unbind" people (i.e. to unbind from the "wheel of life").

I like the answer, but isn't that any investigation (in science or not) is to reduce a suffering from the investigator? If we view sufferings as cognitive dissonance, then clinical psychology is in fact Buddhism?

If we view sufferings as cognitive dissonance, then clinical psychology is in fact Buddhism? "Impressionists are painters. If we view cubists as painters then in fact they're impressionists?" I think Buddhism is might be defined as "the doctrine of the Buddha and doctrines derived therefrom"; and "clinical psychology" (i.e. "Western psychology") arose/developed separate, with only a little cross-over recently (e.g. the principle of "mindfulness").

Someone posted this as a (perhaps fundamentalist or academic) attempt to define recognise characteristics or doctrines of Buddhism.

You seem to be saying, "A and B both have C as their purpose, therefore B is in fact A" -- an argument like that could claim that Buddhism is hedonism, or stoicism, or daoism, or some form of christianity, etc. (which I don't think it is). But that's me being attached to a view or definition of "Buddhism". If what you're saying is, rather, "A practising clinical psychologist can be a Buddhist", then I expect that's so.

thanks for calling out my fallacy. The viewing of Buddhist sufferings as cognitive dissonance also seems problematic too. Maybe I should have referred it as "cognitive sufferings"?

Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research?

Kalama Sutta embodies scientific thinking where nothing should be accepted due to various non scientific reasoning. The non rational reasons are:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)

and accept because them when you know for yourself at a verified or experiential level that things:

These things are good;
these things are not blamable;
these things are praised by the wise;
undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,

Also not accept based on different sources as immediately truthful and free from fallacies which are:

Oral history
Traditional
News sources
Scriptures or other official texts
Suppositional reasoning
Philosophical dogmatism
Common sense
One's own opinions
Experts
Authorities or one's own teacher

The content should be verified at the experiential level.
This Sutta is also know as Kesa,puttiya Sutta
In addition, Vimansaka Sutta goes to the extend and states that even the Buddha should be examined.
It is free inquiry and experience that Faith in Buddhism is reinforced than dogmatic belief, which is very scientific.

But isn’t curiosity a desire?

It can be either or both Chanda and Tanha. In the latter cases it is not good. A scientist may crave for results. But a meditator merely observes. Objective observation is more scientific than many scientific results, were due to craving, aversion and ignorance one may have a bias towards the hypothesis.
In science or otherwise craving not not considered a good thing as it keeps us in misery.
In conclusion, buddhism is scientific that you have to rely in:

choiceless, impartial observation (not tainted by corruptions of insight - Vipallasa)
conclusions are made by personal experimentation and verification
out of what you observe and verify just take what is good for oneself and others leaving aside what is not beneficial
in Buddhism the exploration is you come out of craving than fueled by craving. To give trial to the Buddhist path you would need some intellectual curiosity. Unlike scientific endeavours you should not crave for the end result as this will lead to misery and keep the cycle of dependent arising tuning creating more misery in the future.

Also following might be interesting / related: Buddhist point of view in the research process

Yes, "ehipassiko": Buddhism teaching is meant to be evident and testable, which I think is a "scientific attitude".

OP's reason for thinking that Buddhism is against scientific attitude is because they think that curiosity is non-buddhist since it leads to dukkha. Your answer really doesn't address this at all.

My initial interest in answering was only Is Buddhism against scientific attitude? Is it against scientific research? part of the question, but updated.

Yeah I'm sure you care more about making sure that Buddhism is compatible with science instead of answering OP's doubts. Your minor paragraph about curiosity only touches the surface and doesn't explain much like: is Buddhism against a scientist who craves for results?

I am more interested that the OP + many more other users, will have some valuable information to work with. Modern science, research do share certain common goals but there are some differences. Research in making bombs (hatred) may not be beneficial. Research motivated by greed may not be beneficial. Any objective goal base exploration, with the benefit of one and others in mind is beneficial. My original answer adds no personal view or spin to the answer and try to reproduce what the Buddha had said. Even now it has little of my view, just enough to address the craving part.

The word ‘vijja’—translated here as clear knowing—also means ‘science.’ And just as science implies a method, there is a method—a discipline—underlying the knowledge that leads to Unbinding. If Dhamma equates to ‘vijja’, then the prevailing scientific attitude is ‘a-vijja’, as it leads to more binding. Unlike the Dhamma, the method, the discipline, and ultimately all results of modern/ popular science leads to more binding – resulting in the very opposite of what Buddha taught.
The curiosity that drives the scientific taught is desire. That is why science will never be able to prove or disprove the truth of the Buddha’s claims. That proof can be found only within the awareness of the person who puts those claims to the test in the way the Buddha recommended: by developing the factors of the noble eightfold path.
Buddhism concerns with feelings, emotions, sensations, and cognition, pointing both to cognitive and emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause is desire and its negative opposite, aversion. The cognitive cause is ignorance of the way things truly occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and without essential self. This is the opposite of the Scientific attitudes that are rooted in desire as evident in Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s article ‘Pushing the Limits - Desire & Imagination in the Buddhist Path:

”All phenomena, the Buddha once said, are rooted in desire. Everything we think, say, or do — every experience — comes from desire. Even we come from desire. We were reborn into this life because of our desire to be. Consciously or not, our desires keep redefining our sense of who we are. Desire is how we take our place in the causal matrix of space and time. The only thing not rooted in desire is nirvana, for it's the end of all phenomena and lies even beyond the Buddha's use of the word "all."”

So ... science, economic welfare, medicine, education, cannot be considered sukha?

They are all ‘sukha’. – that is where the problem lies. If you would truly understand the Pali phrase “ yamp'iccha"m na labhati tampi dukkha"m ” All Sukha inevitably brings forth Dukkha. -   So our indulgence in Pleasure (Sukha -iccha), and our inability to see the truth that is in Buddha’s words “ yamp'iccha"m na labhati tampi dukkha"m ” the very reason that almost all of us cannot go further in this Noble Path.

I understand "yampicchaṃ na labhati tam·pi dukkhaṃ" to mean "that-which-is-wished-for not having, that is dukkha". At one point I wondered whether that is "attachment" (to a specific or identifiable object-which-is-wished-for), which is why I asked this question.

In Dhamma-cakkappavattana Sutta, the phrase “yamp'iccha"m na labhati tampi dukkha’m” is given a confined definition. Everyone interpret “Jaatipi dukkhaa jaraapi dukkhaa mara.nampi dukkha"m,” as Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful.  There’s a broader meaning to “Jaati-pi”.  “Jaati” is all animate & inanimate things found in time & space. Other suttas point to this. When “pi” is added, it means taking all animate & inanimate things as “Sukha”, “iccha”. There is ONE word for what you said ("that which is wished for not having, that is dukkha"). It is “Ani-iccha” (anicca).

Strictly speaking, Buddhism doesn't say "desire" is the cause of suffering, but that craving rooted in attachment is the cause of suffering.
Sometimes scientific curiosity is rooted in attachment, but other times it's rooted in wholesome motives such as compassion. Often the motives are a combination of the two. So I think Buddhism is silent on this question. It's up to each inquirer to evaluate their motives, moment to moment.

Science speaks of experimentation. Buddha speaks of arya experimentation. This isn't something science can comprehend, and is more sophisticated and effective in understanding matter and energy (dark or otherwise).
For example science would say, "look, the moon could be having on its face the shadow of earth", and devise experimentation accordingly, thus understanding things like solar eclipses.
A Buddhist, ideally should say, "look, things that rise, change and destroy. This, by its very nature, gives rise to sorrow.", and devise experimentation accordingly, thus understanding the four noble truths.
Experimenting things other than dhamma is considered "anarya" (not noble) and is discouraged.

You answered the question in the title but you didn't address the source of OP's doubts. Does curiosity cause dukkha and does this mean that trying to discover is non buddhist?

Curiousity falls under pancha upadanakhanda. Pancha upadanakkanda is dukha, by definition. The thing is, while some curiousity leads to discovery of good things, in the end (Nirvana), you let go of them too.

I agree with you and I think you should edit your answer to focus on pancha upadanakhanda. Divyansh might wonder if science/curiosity leads to dukkha then why isn't buddhism against scientific attitudes especially if the curiosity is used for worldly goals.

I included some edits. Hope this helps. Endorsing things beyond this would be me exceeding my own abilities.

Curiosity is an ambiguous word. I would replace it by "a wholesome desire to know". And this wholesome desire for understanding and expanding knowledge is a pillar of science and buddhism. Buddhism and science share something in common: objectivity, and seeing things for what they are. This is far more essential than curiosity.
Now the difference between buddhism and science is that science is driven by the desire for a systemic and usable knowledge, it is not about  experiencing the ultimate nature of things it is about grasping their structural design, we approach various aspect of nature with the intellectual part of our brain, which store knowledge, find patterns and can speculate about future phenomena that will occur and analyze the past ones. Buddhism on the other hand is not interested about speculations, the goal is to intuitively and directly experience an insight of the structures and patterns of nature at the experiential level by using other part of the brain related to consciousness and intuition.
Therefore science and buddhism doesn't contradict each other, but at the same time don't use the same tools and don't share the exact same goal.

I guess the question is whether "scientific curiosity" and/or "desire for scientific knowledge" is (or can be) a "wholesome desire" -- does this answer beg the question? I think that the adjective "wholesome" is applied to "ethical behaviour", as well as "non-greed" (reference).

The answer is neither. Buddhism is not against science nor for science.
Scientific inquiry (relative measurement) and mathematics (quantity and patterns) are universal and independent of theology (beliefs & ethics) and philosophy (how to live).
The basis of your question asks to ponder the meaning of desire as "According to Buddhism, the cause of all suffering is desire."
Inquiring and desiring are quite different.
Desire as a wanting... for possession, personal use for self... a conscious self. Desire can be for tangible items as well as relationships.
Curiosity is to inquire, to learn or to know. Curiosity is innate and driven by the subconscious. On does not choose to inquire.
A curious inquiry, a measurement or recognizing a pattern is independent of desire as Buddhism is independent of science and mathematics.
Thus the answer is neither. Buddhism (any theology or philosophy) is independent of science or math.

Not to comment on the vote but to try to comment from a Buddhist perspective, your saying that curiosity is "inquiry" reminds me of the Kalamma Sutta which is subtitled here as The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry. I think that Buddhism might judge doctrine and/or endeavour according to criteria such as whether it's of "benefit", "blameless", "devoid of coveting", "hate-free", "undeluded", etc.

Also "craving" comes from good feelings (e.g. "that feels good") associated with sensory contact .. in that context (the doctrine of "contact")) there are six senses, one which one is mind-contact ... so I'm not sure, in fact I doubt, that "desire" is necessarily only for "materials" and "tangible items" -- for example a story like this, too, seems to me to include some element of craving.

Please note that I do not limit desire for tangible items, as many people desire relationships from lovers, fathers, mothers, children and grandchildren for friendship and companionship... unfortunately, these relationships always have suffering, pain, sorrow, joy, glee... many emotions. A Buddha needs nothing - is one with all, loves all, knows all as all is one.

The Buddhist take on the world and the scientific take on the world share many similarities.
Science deals with a negational 'truth' at its core - knowledge arises through disproving a negatively stated null hypothesis (that the phenomenon being measured has no effect). Scientific theory is accepted if the data rejects a null hypothesis to a certain statistical significance. This, in it self, does not provide for Absolute Truth and a theory derived from evidence gathered from the world cannot have 100% accuracy, if only because science extrapolates rules from measuring a sample of a population to which the rule is aimed at. The sample being measured must always be at most n-1 relative to a population of n, meaning absolute certainty about a population is not possible. The search for answers through negation works well in a world of non-self, and it strikes me as similar to the Buddhist approach to dealing with Nibbana. And because the Truths found are negational, there is less psychological incentive to stick to your guns against new evidence.
Science advances by discovering new phenomena and replacing theories about old ones that fit the data better - Aristotelian Mechanics to Newtonian Mechanics to General Relativity. GR is not a denial of NM, simply a superseding of it due to higher accuracy. (I think this is similar to what Karl Popper writes btw, his take on science is good). In this sense the scientific method can be seen as a method of sorting hypotheses according to accuracy.
Because of the possibility to sort theories, and of unbiased methodology, the scientific method has lead humanity to a closer experimental understanding of 'things as they really are'. And by this I mean the scientific method is rediscovering dependent origination, in a mathematical context. Science has relativised concepts - velocity is a meaningless term unless stated with reference to another body. In special relativity, simultaneity of two distant events is meaningless without reference to an observer (doesn't have to be conscious). In general relativity, the spacetime position of an object is meaningless, unless referenced to a gravitational field. Theories seem to describe more the more we take away our own assumptions within them. Remove man-made constants and theories explain more and more. General relativity is background independent - it is derived from first principles, without a man made input, and it has yet to be proven inaccurate.
The most interesting one is quantum mechanics (a theory of motion at the smallest scales), because it delves the deepest into 'things as they are', and because it has been stuck in the essentialist Copenhagen interpretation. But even this view is becoming relativised atm. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#SomConRelPoiVie, the first being the groundbreaking paper on it, the latter a simpler description.
RQM states that the state of an unmeasured system is meaningless because meaning comes from the interaction between systems, rather than any intrinsic property of a system. In fact, it says that all properties arise from interactions between quantum systems, the quanta is found empty - Anatta by definition. Because of this, RQM does not allow for the state of 'All of everything' (where would the measuring party be to measure such a state?), sits ambiguous on determinism and whether we suffer a unique history just repeating on us (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations). This is Anicca, but it naturally follows on from Anatta (can't built anything permanent and deterministic with empty building blocks).
Because the Buddha's message was an expounding of actuality as it is, it should not disagree with the scientific method - the unbiased examination of actuality as it is. In this sense, they should (and do) work with each other to enlighten our world view.. In fact, the relativisation of experience with the help of the scientific method is humanity coming around to supramundane right view imo.
However, with regards to desire, the question of whether the scientific method stands with Buddhism is probably more accurately answered if it is known whether the scientific method encourages the four right exertions. So long as the method limits unwanted qualities and raises wanted qualities within its practitioners or benefactors, then it's of benefit. In terms of the physical - bodily and mental health - it is a great asset. You can't escape dukkha by engineering it away, but you can make people's lives less miserable, which is compassionate and should give them a better chance to advance their psychology.
Science has yet to play out with regards to where it will lead human consciousness - it has never fairly stated a world view (beyond its methadology), because it never had one truth to neatly jump back to, like it is finding now with non-self across disciplines (RQM isn't really popular even though it's so parsimonious - appeared properly in 1996 and only around 5-10% of quantum physicists endorse it). As such science has less influenced how humans behave, rather more what they can do once they have chosen their behaviour patterns - both the peaceful and the violent have more tools at their disposal!
In a world of Anatta though, it would be unfeasible that the 'internal examination of things as they are' (Buddha) and the 'external examination of things as they are' (science) would ever come to anything but the same answers if the methods used are unbiased. As such, they should work together very well!


text:
Early life of the Buddha's references
Many accounts of the Buddha's life describe Śuddhodana preventing his son from leaving the palace to avoid a prophecy said by Asita. For example, this site says:

Suddhodana was determined to see his son become a king so he prevented him from leaving the palace grounds. But at age 29, despite his father's efforts, Siddhartha ventured beyond the palace several times.

In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described? The only sutta I know about Asita is Snp 3.11 but it does not mention the alternative prophecy for his future, and most suttas I know have the Buddha describing the palaces he lived in, but not his father's plans to prevent him from becoming a Buddha.
Also, it's commonly said that, after going outside the palace, he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. Is this in the pali canon? DN 14 says Vipassi was the one who encountered these people. I only know of suttas such as AN 3.39 where it says that the Bodisatta reflected on sickness, old age and death. Do these stories got conflated?

In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described?  ...

.

Asita apparently see the child Bodhisattva either on the very day that he was born, or within
  three days thereafter. The Buddha,vaṁsa Commentary mentions the 5th day as the “head lustration” and
  naming day, when 108 brahmins were invited. If these, 8 of them—beginning with Rāma
  (J 1:56, v270)
  —were versed in reading the 32 marks of the great man. Seven of them raised two fingers, predicting that
  the child would become a wheel-turner if he lived a household life, and become buddha if he renounced
  the world.
The youngest of them, Koṇḍañña, was certain of the child’s future, and raised one finger, proclaiming
  the he would surely become the Buddha. Koṇḍañña later becomes the eldest of the group of 5 monks who
  attended to the Bodhisattva before his awakening. However, Asita is not mentioned amongst these brahmins.

Source: Introduction to Nālaka Sutta by Piya Tan

...  he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. ...

Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to aging, not beyond aging, sees another who is aged, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to aging, not beyond aging. If I — who am subject to aging, not beyond aging — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is aged, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the [typical] young person's intoxication with youth entirely dropped away.

Source: Sukhamala Sutta, Four sights

And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.

Source: Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Four sights

Thank you Suminda. What about his father's desire of him becoming a wheel-turner and making arrangements for that? Do you know any references to that?

If you search though it might be in the  Buddha,vaṁsa and / or Jataka and / or cemeteries.

A good starting point would be to trace footnotes and bibliography of THE BUDDHA AND HIS TEACHINGS by Venerable Nárada Maháthera and Thus We Heard Recollections of the Life of the Buddha. Latter is a novel, historic story, with references as per the authors, with some dramatising and composed elements, as per the introduction. Also SD 49 by Piya Tan / Dharmafarer.

What about his father's desire of him becoming a wheel-turner and making arrangements for that? Do you know any references to that?
There's a version of the prophesy (which doesn't mention Asita by name, nor the king's reaction to it) on page 219 (page 265 of the PDF) of this PDF, one of the Mahabuddhavamsa translations.
The king's attitude can be inferred from page 246 (page 292 of the PDF), the section titled "Measures Taken to see the Prince from seeing the Four Omens"; and on page 262/308 (chapter 3, "Seeing the Four Great Omens") in the section titled, "King Suddodhana increased the strength of the guards".
So these details (also including the Lion's Roar and other miracles) are in the Mahabuddhavamsa (this edition is more than a 1000 pages long), not necessarily in a sutta.
I'm puzzled though: I've examined the author's introduction and table of contents of this PDF and I don't wholly understand what's what. Why are there three chapter ones, for example? Why does page 246/292 have a section titled "The Version of the Commentaries on the Buddhavamsa and the Jataka", what does that mean? How much is "commentary"?
Given the size of it, I suppose it what's described on the first page of text after the table of contents, titled "The Author", page 45 of the PDF, which says,

... he assiduously compiled Maha Buddhavamsa, being the Maynmar exposition on the lives of the Buddhas as related mainly in the Buddhavamsa Pali Text of the Khudakka Nikaya. This compilation, resulting in six volumes in eight books, commenced in 1956 and ended in 1969. The work, being the author's magnum opus, ...

Buddhavamsa is part of the pali canon. Mahabuddhavamsa is a book written by Mingun Sayadaw at the request of Prime Minister U Nu and the Buddha Sasana Council from 1955 to 1960. This is not canonical, through maybe sourced from commentarial and other earlier literary material. I am adding this just for  additional information.

The bit I quoted implies that the Maha Buddhavamsa is "the Maynmar exposition on the lives ... as related mainly in the Buddhavamsa Pali Text of the Khudakka Nikaya ... resulting in six volumes"? Is the canonical text (from the Khudakka Nikaya) much shorter? Does it mostly describe the lives of the 24 Buddhas, or does it describe the life of Gautama Buddha in great detail?

See Tipiṭaka (Roman) > Tipiṭaka (Mūla) > Suttapiṭaka > Khuddakanikāya > Buddhavaṃsapāḷi at http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/ or Buddhavaṃsa @ Sutta Central It is part of Vol 42 (of 54) of the Buddha Jayanthi edition. This volume is one of the smaller volumes also.