text:
What are metta and karuna?
I'm wondering what these terms, mettā and karuṇā (loving-kindness and compassion), mean.

Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from?
Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing?
The words in the metta chant are translated into English as being "free" from various forms of suffering. I think the Pali is just saying things like, "May I be with no-emnity" etc.
Given these definitions, is "free from suffering" more a type of karuna rather than a type of metta, if so why is it in the "chant of metta"? Are they simply exact opposites, therefore the same thing?
In a translated phrase like "May you be well" or "May all beings be at ease", is that always the word Sukha being translated? Or are there other adjectives (states of being) that are wished for?
How is metta (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity?
These Dhamma Lists warn that "indifference" is the "near enemy" of "equanimity"; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with metta?

Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred
Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison, hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy
Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

How is metta compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't metta imply that there are people and that they can be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite?
Do you agree with the following statement, copied from here:

People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

In summary, is metta necessarily a wish that other beings be enlightened, or could it mean something other than that?

Funny, I just read curiously with the intent of possibly give an expected answer, but when I arrived at your point "How is metta (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity?" I got the strong impulse to simply react: "you should practise this/explore your emotions when practizing" - just what the vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Tanh once said to me on my question in a sangha-meeting. Perhaps there is something similar- not to try to understand the termini technici but to bring out and clear up the inner instance and then see, whether the given words agree with this..

The answer below draws from early buddhism material: from the four nikayas/agamas and ven. Analayo's studies on the subject (Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation, CEEBM from now on).
"I'm wondering what these terms, mettā and karuṇā (loving-kindness and compassion), mean."
First, on matters of translations, while mettā is frequently translated as "loving-kindness", alternatives include "benevolence" and "amicableness"1. According to CEEBM, etymologically, it's root is mitra, "friend", thus conveying the idea of being friendly (and it favors "benevolence" over "loving kindness").
This contrasts with karuṇā/compassion which is a desire for others [in suffering] to be free from suffering. More on that below.
"Are there suttas in which they're defined, otherwise where do the definitions come from? Is there any important difference between these two terms, or do they mean the same thing?"
It seems there's no sutta that really defines compassion. The essence of it is the "concern for others to be relieved from suffering and affliction" (CEEBM). A simile that illustrates it (in the context of a teaching on how to subdue hatred) can be found in AN 5.162:

Just as when there is a sick man — in pain, seriously ill — traveling along a road, far from the next village & far from the last, unable to get the food he needs, unable to get the medicine he needs, unable to get a suitable assistant, unable to get anyone to take him to human habitation. Now suppose another person were to see him coming along the road. He would do what he could out of compassion, pity, & sympathy for the man, thinking, ‘O that this man should get the food he needs, the medicine he needs, a suitable assistant, someone to take him to human habitation. Why is that? So that he won’t fall into ruin right here.’

In terms of practice, while contemplating other people's suffering would be contemplation of dukkha, contemplating the wish for others to be free from dukkha would be contemplation of compassion and both "should be undertaken with a positive or even joyful mind [and] steer clear of sadness" instead of "commiserate to the extent of suffering along with the other" (CEEBM) -- as the Visuddhimagga formulations of "near enemy" indicate.
Furthermore, it's said in the suttas that it is "impossible, it cannot be that cruelty remains pervading the mind of one who has practiced, cultivated, and made much of the concentration of the mind by compassion" (AN 6.13). That is, cultivating the desire for others to be free from suffering eliminates the desire for others to suffer.
Ven. Analayo, in CEEBM, further clarifies that:

Moral conduct is an expression of compassion
For example, abstaining from killing beings.
Right speech is an expression of compassion
For example, evaluating if something to be said is benefical.
Both learning dhamma (seeking freedom from dukkha) and teaching dhamma can be expressions of compassion

If one does not think of harming oneself, does not think of harming others, does not think of harming both; and instead ... one thinks
  of benefiting others, benefiting many people out of compassion for the affliction in the world, seeking what is meaningful and of benefit for devas and humans, seeking their ease and happiness; then in this way .. one is bright, intelligent, and with vast wisdom
-- AN 4.186 (Analayo trans.)

Also see AN 3.60 where the Buddha counter-argument a Brahmin who says that one who goes forth on the dhamma only benefits oneself.
Finally, ven. Analayo concludes that, in early buddhism, teaching dhamma is the compassionated action par excellence.
Accordingly, going into seclusion can be an expression of compassion

[ven. Mahakassapa]: "Considering two benefits, venerable sir. For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have compassion for later generations, thinking, ‘May those of later generations follow my example!’ For when they hear, ‘The enlightened disciples of the Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest dwelling … were energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy,’ then they will practice accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Considering these two benefits, venerable sir, I have long been a forest dweller ... and have spoken in praise of arousing energy."
-- SN 16.5

...and seclusion, being a necessity to build a strong foundation and practice, is then a requirement for correct teaching: "if one is not tamed oneself and wishes to tame someone else who is untamed, that is impossible" (MN 8). Also "One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others." (Dhp 158)
Early buddhist discourse on compassion practice does not focus on a specific person (as elaborated on Visuddhimagga); instead, it's a practice of "boundless radiation in all directions" (MN 7).

On mettā, ven. Analayo comments on a passage of the Mettā sutta (Sn 1.8) that uses a simile of the love of a mother for her only child to illustrate the practice of mettā: "Her love of her son is not the main theme here -- the main point is protection. The providing and receiving o protection is in fact a recurrent aspect in the conception of mettā in the early discourses. [...] In contrast to the bounded love of mother for her child, which easily comes with an admixture of attachment, mettā should be boundless and free from attachment." (CEEBM).
In MN 104 we also find mettā associated with cordiality:

"Here a bhikkhu maintains bodily acts of loving-kindness both in public and in private towards his companions in the holy life. This is a principle of cordiality that creates love and respect, and conduces to cohesion, to non-dispute, to concord, and to unity."

Thus, mettā has a broad role in the daily activity establishing the modes of interactions with everyone around toward wholesome actions of body, speech and mind mind with a sense of appreciation for them (MN 31 illustrates it beautifully).
Furthermore, mettā is the very antidote for subduing (and is the opposite of) ill will, anger and aggression (MN I 424). It's also related to physical/mental beauty (and lack of it, associated to ugliness). Finally, it seems to have a proeminent role compared to other seemingly compassionate practices ("If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will, that would be more fruitful than...",AN 9.20).
So, briefly, I understand mettā to be the desire for others to be well and attitude that promotes wellness, in contrast with compassion: the desire for others to be free from dukkha -- and attitudes that extinguish existing dukkha.
"How is mettā (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity? These Dhamma Lists warn that 'indifference' is the 'near enemy' of 'equanimity'; but could you maybe explain briefly what the right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to make equanimity compatible with mettā?"
In CEEBM, ven. Analayo writes: "Equanimity or equipoise, upek(k)ha, from the etymological perspective suggests a mental attitude of 'looking upon', not an indifferent 'looking away'. The term thus conveys an awareness of whatever is happening combined with mental balance and the absence of favoring or opposing" and also "equanimity is [...] a mental equipoise that rounds off a systematic opening of the heart which has been brought about through cultivation of the other three divine abodes".
As an illustration of the function of equanimity, consider teaching dhamma with the attitude of compassion to an uninterested audience. In such situations, equanimity (or lack of it) comes into play. The same could be said about the role of equanimity when we treat others with mettā and find ourselves being treated with aggression (and, conversely, when we find ourselves being praised). In this way, equanimity helps with subduing aversion and lust. Moreover, it helps putting compassion "on track", which can steer out to unwholesome mental states (by being affected by the suffering of others, or by being inflated with sense of superiority for others, etc).
The suttas have the Buddha reacting equanimous in many of these situations (see MN 137, MN 65, MN 128 and SN 7.2).
"How is mettā compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't mettā imply that there are people and that they can be happy, whereas anatta and dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the opposite?"
Other related questions I found here:

Conceptual reality, mettā, ignorance
Do mettā practices and anatta contradict each other?

As I understand, mettā is not the idea that "other beings should be happy" (opposing dukkha), not does it reify a conceptual construction of a (everlasting) person. From mettā alone, I don't think we can infer anything, doctrinally or otherwise, about someone else (or any "object" of mettā), it's about us. It is the inclination and attitude that promotes wellness (freedom from suffering) for all beings. Like cleaning up a bathroom after using it to have it ready for the next person that need it.
The way I see it, "whishing for others to be well" is just a practice, a way to create the mental habit of such inclination and attitude -- culminating with one actually becoming a friendly, kind, "easy to be with", person.

1 from http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/

I didn't think it means that "other beings are happiness" but rather "other beings can be happy" -- but I often fear that it's not possible for other beings to be or to remain happy, and so I fear that hoping that they might is kind of questionable. Maybe it's foolish of me to think that way though, because many people do seem happy. @БаянКупи-ка's comment is quite helpful: that I might vary between metta and karuna depending on the circumstance (depending on the current/observed state of others),

(Sorry I'm being slow to upvote your answer -- it's not because it's an inadequate answer, it's that it's taking me a while to read it thoroughly).

I just revised the last paragraph based on your comments. Yeah, "wish" might imply some "hope". But this is not about hoping (an expectation) for others to be something. I think its about becoming, oneself, a kind, friendly, compassionate person. While manifestations of metta or karuna can be visible on certain occasions (and these can put us "to test" these modes), this answer shows how these aspects, when cultivated (e.g. with the aid of brahmavihara meditations), really permeate the entire day-to-day, and, say,  "become second nature".

(it's fine, it was a great question, and researching and writing the answer made me learn a lot :)

How is metta (having desire for someone's well-being) compatible with equanimity?
These Dhamma Lists warn that "indifference" is the "near
enemy" of "equanimity"; but could you maybe explain briefly what the
right view is, how to distinguish indifference from equanimity, or to
make equanimity compatible with metta?

i entertain three possible explanations of equanimity as brahmavihara:
a) impartiality, i.e. directing the other three equally at everyone irrespective of their qualities - mine
b) lack of involvement with and attachment to others - Laurence Khantipalo
c) watching carefully and ready to act (in helping others) - suggested by some other person

How is metta compatible with anatta and dukkha? Doesn't metta imply
that there are people and that they can be happy, whereas anatta and
dukkha being characteristic of all compound things kind of implies the
opposite?

with dukkha easily: everyone is subject to dukkha and so it's only natural that one would sympathize with them being in the same boat

[The Blessed One was at Saavatthii]
At this time King Pasenadi of Kosala was on the upper terrace of the
palace with Queen Mallikaa. And the king asked her: "Mallikaa, is
there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"1
"Your Majesty, there is no one dearer to me than myself. And you,
sire, is anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"Nor is there anyone dearer to me, Mallikaa, than myself."
Then the king went down from the palace and visited the Blessed One
[and told him the whole story.] And the Blessed One, understanding,
thereupon uttered this verse:
Though in thought we range throughout the world,
We'll nowhere find a thing more dear than self.
So, since others hold the self so dear,
He who loves himself should injure none.

Mallika sutta (SN 3.8)
in the aspect of existence of other beings i don't think it's contradictory to the concept of anatta, otherwise the concept of dukkha would as well be at odds with it, because if there's no self there's supposedly no one to experience suffering
also such understanding would effectively undermine the concept of kamma, because if everything is suffering anyway, there's supposedly no point in securing for oneself a happier future life by moral conduct in the current one

In summary, is metta necessarily a wish that other beings be
enlightened, or could it mean something other than that?

i see it as a wish of good for other beings, wish of their freedom from suffering, and not only a wish but a mode of practical relation to them, much like Christian agape
in my opinion brahmaviharas are more about the person themself than about other people, it's about how one relates to the world regardless of whether the aim of that relationship is fulfilled.

Do you agree with the following statement:

People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is
food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no
complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to
rejoice in their success (mudita).

i do agree with it
i don't agree however with the initial supposition, rejoice in the happiness of other beings is still Dhamma (i prefer it over the term 'Buddhism'), so one needs it at all times

There are clear definitions given in Chapter IX -- The Divine Abidings of the Visuddhimagga:

Now, as to the meaning firstly of loving-kindness, compassion,
  gladness and equanimity: it fattens (mejjati), thus it is
  loving-kindness (mettá); it is solvent (siniyhati) is the meaning.
  Also: it comes about with respect to a friend (mitta), [318] or it is
  behaviour towards a friend, thus it is loving-kindness (mettá).
When
  there is suffering in others it causes (karoti) good people’s hearts
  to be moved (kampana), thus it is compassion (karuóá). Or
  alternatively, it combats (kióáti)11 others’ suffering, attacks and
  demolishes it, thus it is compassion. Or alternatively, it is
  scattered (kiriyati) upon those who suffer, it is extended to them by
  pervasion, thus it is compassion (karuóá).
Those endowed with it are
  glad (modanti), or itself is glad (modati), or it is the mere act of
  being glad (modana), thus it is gladness (muditá).
It looks on at
  (upekkhati), abandoning such interestedness as thinking “May they be
  free from enmity” and having recourse to neutrality, thus it is
  equanimity (upekkhá).
As to the characteristic, etc., loving-kindness is characterized here
  as promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare.
  It is manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is
  seeing loveableness in beings. It succeeds when it makes ill will
  subside, and it fails when it produces (selfish) affection.
Compassion is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying
  suffering. Its function resides in not bearing others’ suffering. It
  is manifested as noncruelty. Its proximate cause is to see
  helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering. It succeeds when it
  makes cruelty subside and it fails when it produces sorrow.
Gladness ... (etc.)
Equanimity is characterized as promoting the aspect of neutrality
  towards beings. Its function is to see equality in beings. It is
  manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval. Its proximate
  cause is seeing ownership of deeds (kamma) thus: “Beings are owners of
  their deeds. Whose [if not theirs] is the choice by which they will
  become happy, or will get free from suffering, or will not fall away
  from the success they have reached?” It succeeds when it makes
  resentment and approval subside, and it fails when it produces the
  equanimity of unknowing, which is that [worldly-minded indifference of
  ignorance] based on the house life.

You do not practice Metta and Uppekkha together. As per the definition, Upekkha is characterized as promoting the aspect of neutrality towards beings.
An example for worldly-minded indifference of ignorance is thinking that breaking the five precepts is ok.
Metta meditation is a Samatha (concentration) meditation. Which means the object of meditation is a concept.
Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta are the 3 natures you come to see in Vippassana (insight) meditation. Vipassana meditation deals with ultimate realities.
Metta meditation is usually recommended to people who are irritable, before they practice Vipassana.
"People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk." - People do not realize that their rafts were never above water in the first place. First noble truth doesn't mean sadness. Even happy feelings are instances of suffering. But ignorance covers it up. That is why the first noble truth is something to be realized. Lord Buddha has compassion towards all beings, including gods. Because he sees suffering in all unenlightened beings, regardless of their living conditions.
"In summary, is metta necessarily a wish that other beings be enlightened, or could it mean something other than that?" -
Wishing enlightenment towards others is just one instance of Metta(or Karuna depending on the context). There are many other forms of promoting the aspect of welfare.
Ex: Using pleasant words, giving a cup of tea to a guest, helping your parents with chores, smiling, greeting etc.

Metta is a feeling of love or loving-kindness and is cultivated in a variety of ways.  You can listen to various techniques and talks on dharmaseed or find a teacher with whom you vibe with and watch a video or read it in a book.
The earliest reference is the Metta Sutra, as far as I know, and it is all about engendering a mind of good-will and loving, dearness, and fondness directed at sentient beings (and eventually all phenomena).
Karuna is often translated as compassion.  Karuna means you are aware of what suffering is / how you yourself do not wish to experience it, and therefore when you see it in another you wish for them to not have to carry it.  Karuna is also the yearning to remove suffering and its causes.  Compassion literally means "to suffer with" so it is based on an understanding of our equality as beings and our mutual striving towards happiness.
They are not opposites.  In the teachings I have been studying lately, it is stated that from the field of loving kindness a mind of compassion can easily blossom, so they are mutually helpful.  When we have love for beings then it is a natural extension that we wish them to not suffer and to be free of any cause that could lead to future suffering.
Anatta implies that what benefits one can and shall benefit us all, and dukkha is simply what needs be abandoned.
Metta and Karuna, as you may know, are two of the four Brahma Viharas or Divine Abodes or Divine Dwellings.  Also known as the Four Immeasurables, they are called Dwellings or Abodes because a mind steadily accustomed to their contemplation and saturation easily "dwells" of "finds home" in such wonderful states.

When I wrote, "exact opposites, therefore the same thing", what I meant was -- is "may you be well" an example of metta, and is "may you be free of suffering" an example of karuna, and are these two exactly the same wish or motive? Are metta and karuna always, not just in this one example, the same thing?

@ChrisW i see 'metta' as a more proactive and a blanket quality, whereas 'compassion' is relevant specifically for when other beings are in trouble and suffering, while 'mudita' - when they're in good spirits and rejoicing, being kind of modes of 'metta'

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
How is the faculty of persistence developed?
I see a lot of texts hailing this quality, but I have not seen any practical advice on how to actually cultivate the quality.
In a similar vein, how do you banish laziness?
For example, I have plenty of downtime, which is basically me being lazy and wasting time. I'd like to be productive the majority of my time, but I don't know how.
Thank you

I struggled for a very long time with sloth and torpor and just could not find a way to increase my persistence. However, I kept up my meditation practice and study (despite the intense sloth I experienced very often). Something shifted in the mind along the way and sloth reduced (and persistence increased). It's hard to explain these shifts but I feel like they must be happening to everyone who just keeps at it. My suggestion is to try out different methods for reducing sloth but most importantly just keep doing it (practice + study) and something will shift along the way...

You phrased that as a personal/practical question, but here's a theoretical or terminological answer.
"Persistence" is listed as one of the Five Strengths but also one the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.
In the latter article, in the table named "Balancing enlightenment factors & hindrances", it's grouped with other factors ...

Joy or rapture (pīti)
Investigation (dhamma vicaya)
Energy (viriya)

... as a counter-balance to ...

to be used when experiencing sloth & torpor (thīna-middha) to regain mindfulness.

There are texts which describe "sloth-torpor" -- it is is one of the Five hindrances (Wikipedia), or for example The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest lists some dozens of ways to overcome it.
It's also counted among the ten or six "perfections" ('pāramitā' or 'pāramī') so people will mention it if they talk about the several/various perfections.
It's also associated with 'Right Effort' (so it may be understood in context of the Noble Eightfold Path).

Thank you, I was looking for something along the lines of the sutta you linked. Do you have any other similar ones?

If you search Access to Insight for 'torpor' it returns nearly 100 results (and 'sloth' returns nearly 150). If there's a particular sutta you find interesting you might look for it on dharmafarer.org -- though it might not have as many of the suttas translated, those which it has have extensive commentary and cross-references for other suttas ...

... for example here is its 'Pacalā Sutta' (AN 7.58).

How is the faculty of persistence developed?
Persistence is cultivated by

guarding and abandoning
developing and maintaining

One way to guard and abandon unwholesomeness while developing and maintaining wholesomeness you have to note what has arisen within you.

Aversion / unpleasant feeling - something is not agreeable
Craving / pleasant feeling - something is agreeable
Ignorance / neutral feeling - you are neutral to the experience yet not in touch with the the true nature of the experience

By maintaining total equanimity with the knowledge of arising and passing then you abandon and develop. Though this analysis what is abandoned is the roots or defilements and what is developed is the 7 Enlightenment Factors leading to Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida).
For more detailed and comprehensive explanation see: Wings to Awakening
 - The Four Right Exertions by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Also see: Right Effort - samma vayamo

how do you banish laziness?
Laziness or lethargy is abandoned through development of the sense of urgency. Contemplation of death is one of the main meditation tools for this. Live each breath as it is your last trying (see: (Aṭṭhaka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 1) to establish mindfulness or conduct your activities without procrastination. This should be done at least twice a day when the day breaks and day ends contemplating that mishap may end your life and time will run out on what needs to be done. Also see: Maraṇa Sati Kathā and How to do “contemplation of death” meditation? and is it dangerous?

“But how, bhikshu, do you cultivate the mindfulness of death?”
“Here, bhante, I do it thus:
'Indeed, should I live just the time it takes to breathe in and then out, to breathe out and then in,
  I would wisely attend to the Blessed One’s teaching, much indeed would be done by me!'
Thus, bhante, I cultivate the mindfulness of death.”

Source: (Aṭṭhaka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 1 and also similar passage is in: (Chakka) Maraṇa,sati Sutta 1
Sloth and Torpor can also contribute to laziness as this makes you drowsy and sleepy. This can be a big hindrance especially during meditation. One way to abandon it is similar to the method outlined above.  Especially see the section on Insight towards the end of Pacala Sutta

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
  “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to.
  And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all].
  Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all
  things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings,
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world.
  Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

I think that to strengthen your persistence and banish laziness, so to speak, one should concentrate on strengthening the bond that you have with yourself.
Mindfulness alone can have a great impact on the way you see yourself internally and can increase your need or desire to satisfy yourself.
Though, overall I think persistence is something you gain over time, by being conscious of negativity and a lack of motivation, and knowing how to react to such emotions.
I have had a look around and everywhere I look seems to relay the same message:

Lack of persistence is often present due to the absence of faith (or self belief)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Earliest occurrences of meditation?
What are the earliest records of people meditating?
The Wiki page for History of meditation mentions "prehistory" but provides no details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_meditation
The only other mentions begin at around 1500 BC.

Note that "prehistory" is (or means), by definition, "earlier than the earliest written records".

Maybe that's why the section provides no details :) Anyone know of evidence that would suggest early meditative practice?

Other sites where you could try asking a question like this include Hinduism.SE or History.SE.

Did you lookup "harappa" or "indus-culture"? If I remember correctly there are small statues showing some Shiva-like figure sitting in Lotus-position. And the Harappa-culture has been a very early one in the Indus-valley, may be earlier than 1500 BCE

In the wikipedia at "indus valley culture" there is the following remark: Seals have been found at Mohenjo-Daro depicting a figure standing on its head, and another sitting cross-legged in what some call a yoga-like pose (see image, the so-called Pashupati, below).
This figure, sometimes known as a Pashupati, has been variously identified. Sir John Marshall identified a resemblance to the Hindu god, Shiva.[68] If this can be validated, it would be evidence that some aspects of Hinduism predate the earliest texts, the Veda.

Shiva is not mentioned in the Pali suttas, where Brahma, Indra & Prajapati are mentioned. Wiki states Shiva is absent in the Vedas (the Brahman texts when Buddha was alive). Aboriginal people in Australia traditionally sat cross legged.

According to various internet sources, 5000 years ago, or approximately 3000 BC, references to the form of mediation used at the time is found in Hindu scriptures.
According to Lovetoknow.com, A recent archaeological find in the then capital city of Moheyo-dara, capital city of the Indus Valley civilization, by John Marshall of a seal of a meditating yogi is dated at 2600 BC approximately. Of course , it may be assumed that meditation was taking place for an indefinite period of time prior.

In the Indian tradition the earliest appearance of meditation seems to be during the Indus Valley period (3300-1300 BCE) in the form of a bronze seal possibly depicting an early form of Shiva (Pashupati), seated in cross-legged pose with an obvious erection. It was found in Mohenjo-Daro, dated at about 2500 BCE. The figure is also surrounded by animals, and has been associated with the archetype of the Lord of the Animals (a.k.a. the Theriomorphic Ancestor).

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


text:
Love versus Hatred
I think Hatred and Love comes together.

Sometimes people hate each other due to misunderstandings. But when the misunderstandings vanished they start to regret and Love each other.
Other way sometimes we love each other due to misunderstandings. But when the misunderstandings vanished we starts to again regret and Hate each other.

In both these Love and Hatred what we finally get is Suffering as I see. So is there really a connection between Love and Hatred according to Buddhist Teachings ?

Love and hatred is rooted in craving and aversion. In essence they are related as they take opposite polarity or dualism like the 2 sides of the same coin. It is so easy that things you crave for turns into aversion and vis versa. Generally is it people who were once close and deer who become foes as their shortcomings hurt the most. Also when foes to reconcile they are more friendly as they have an inclination to make up for the past. When you do not get the thing you love the most you get the most upset.
Both these are roots are associated with negative consequences, i.e., suffering follows. The methods to address this is to you have to cultivate non attachment and non hatred and finally let go of them also. Non attachment and non hatred led to positive consequences but still you are in Samsara.

Attachment <-------->     Averse
  |                            |
  |                            |
  |                            |
Non Attachment <----> Non Averse

I think they are connected -- at least according to Tibetan Buddhism, and perhaps according to other schools of Buddhism as well (1) -- and the connection is, as you said, misunderstanding.
Wikipedia's description of the Three Poisons says ...

Of these three, ignorance is the root poison. From ignorance, attachment and aversion arise.

... and gives several Tibetan Buddhist references for that sentence.

(1) "at least according to Tibetan Buddhism, and perhaps according to other schools":

I think that the "three poisons" (including both desire and aversion) are an important or central part of the doctrine of Tibetan Buddhism ... and, that "ignorance" (perhaps what you called "misunderstanding") is seen as the "root" poison from which condition the other two.

That may also be true of other forms of Buddhism too, but I'm not sure. The "three poisons" are in Theravada suttas (sometimes also known as "three fires") but maybe they emphasize craving more than aversion. For example in this Theravada respresentation of the Wheel of Life, the "three poisons" aren't at the centre and in fact "aversion" isn't shown at all. Instead there are several conditions or causes: including ignorance but also desire, attachment, fabrication.
Actually "aversion" seems to be in Theravada as one of the defilements (kilesa) rather than as one of the causes (nidāna).

Returning to the Pali suttas, something like the Vipallasa Sutta: Distortions of the Mind (AN 4.49) warns what the misunderstanding (or ignorance) might be about: that fundamentally it might happen at three levels (perception, thought, and view), and on three four characteristics (impermanence, dukkha, and anatta, and subha).

what is the e.g. Tibetan Buddhism: that you have mentioned ?

I rewrote my answer slightly to try to clarify what I mean when I wrote, "e.g. Tibetan Buddhism".


text:
Has Buddha Gautama ever had problems with some autorities about his teachings and way of live?
I thougt that Siddarta Gautama lived in a Hindu society. But were there Brahmans who disagreed with Siddartha or was Siddartha ever in an argue with them?

Is your question about Brahmans (religious authorities), or is it about civil authorities (e.g. kings or police etc.)? Because I think that there were several arguments with Brahmans recorded in the suttas, but I don't remember his having problems with civil authorities.

Primairly with the Brahmans but I think that because of the unity of state and religion the civil autorities would be interesting too.

i'm totally not sure about 'the unity of state and religion' in the ancient India of the Buddha's days... the picture which transpires from the suttas is of religious and philosophical pluralism... the fact that kings and officials frequented Buddha shows that they weren't bound by or had to be loyal to certain creed

I thougt that Siddarta Gautama lived in a Hindu society

As far as you mean he lived in India, immersed in India culture of the time, yes. But as far as hindu refers to an India majoritarily submsersed in the Vedic tradition, it's not clear this is so.
The period of the Buddha and early Buddhism is marked by a variety of religious movements known as sramanas (which included Buddhists and Jains, for example, among many others). So there was already a culture that rejected the vedic traditions of the time. Also, the geography seems to be of a region with many individual states and kingdoms, not of a "single India". I'm not sure if these states were, largely, supporters of brahmins or not (and if they were, it was soon in decline with the rise of the empires -- from the Nanda empire which seems to have supported the Jains, through the Maurian empire, when the emperor Ashoka converted and supported Buddhism).

But were there Brahmans who disagreed with Siddartha or was Siddartha ever in an argue with them?

Buddha disagreed not only with Brahmins, but with all the other sramanas whose teachings were not in agreement with the Buddha's teachings. These encounters, philosophical disputes and criticisms are massively documented in the buddhist canon.

Has Buddha Gautama ever had problems with some authorities about his teachings and way of live?

I don't remember the Buddha ever been in legal trouble, though sometimes kings came to him to solve some issue involving the sangha.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Should I use autosuggestion to make myself meditate
Would like to hear what people here think about subconsciousness and autosuggestion
Is using autosuggestion to make myself do sitting meditation a good idea ? If so how to do it  ?
Because I have a very bad procrastination problem and I tried many solutions to it without success but heard of autosuggestion and wondered if it can help me doing the meditation sessions daily.

Autosuggestion engages the subconscious mind, and or a hypnotic state where one can induce self-oriented behaviors. This is not in keeping with calm abiding meditation, or insight meditation. One needs to stay awake and mindful in order to direct the meditation. In calm abiding the goal is to empty the mind of conceptual thoughts or at least push them aside so as not to dwell on them. One can use a focal point such as a picture of a deity, or the breath. However, when using an aid do not allow yourself to become hypnotized...keep mindful. This clear mind meditation will eventually lead to insight meditation, where one can meditate solely on matters related to dharma, without being interrupted by what needs to go on your grocery list!! Your success will come with practice. Your procrastination is an obstacle to be overcome, and that too is a beneficial practice.

Yes. This is good to do before and after meditation (as opposed to DURING meditation) for the beginner and advanced student alike. (This is traditionally included in the form of loving kindness meditation e.g. "May I/all beings be free from suffering" etc.)
DURING meditation however, whether it is samatha or vipassana, it is generally important to focus on practicing the technique: calmness abiding or naked awareness. On the other hand, one can use affirmations to summon specific qualities. I would recommend only using the same words as found in Buddhist manuals.
For example, the Five Faculties are important to have in balance. One can make up affirmations relative for each characteristic. For example for mindfulness: "my mindfulness faculty is balanced and strong"
Your question though was aimed at the preliminary aspect of just setting up meditation habit which is absolutely crucial and I would recommend the following affirmations:

I find it easy to sit in samatha
I sit without distraction for however long I like

Be intelligent in your affirmation design and do not make them unrealistic.
Conclusively, understanding Buddhism in relation to purpose and life's priorities is the best fix-all though (i.e. motivation) and I would recommend the free book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" to get a good modern understanding of this.

Presumption is that subconcious mind is not allowing you to sit in meditation. That is true to some extent. All repressions due to cultivated civilized behavior enters subconcious mind. But auto suggestion will not take it out. It is trick to fool the mind. I suggest you go for oriental detox first. there is a threshold below which you just cant meditate. You should hit the threshold first. you will feel calm and composed after detox. Thoughts and negative emotions will subside. That is a good start point.


text:
Is Buddhism "opposed" to striving, or working towards a goal that you really want
I've found that it is pleasant and exciting to work towards a goal, for example: wanting to run a 21km race, imagining the crowds, imagining the personal accomplishment. This requires a certain amount of dissatisfaction with your current situation (I can only run 5km, I need to train more).
However, what I understand from Buddhism is that this attachment to an end result in the future causes suffering. Does one live with some attachment and accept it, or is it something to be avoided entirely?

I guess this is four questions:

Is it 'wrong' to really want something?
Is it 'wrong' to really work towards something?
Is it 'wrong' to imagine a desired outcome?
Is it 'wrong' to be attached to the goal?

Is it 'wrong' to really want something?
There's a tanha (desire) mentioned in the Second Noble Truth. This is also translated as "thirst"; I imagine it as some blind urge or drive or dissatisfaction. This article, Three Kinds of Desire, describes three kinds of tanha. The example you gave, of running, of being able to run 21 km instead of 5 km, might be an example of bhava tanha, the desire to become, specifically the desire to become a runner -- and maybe kamma tanha, a craving for a pleasant feeling.
Not all desire is 'bad' though: for example Right Intention might be a form of desire (or at least of deciding to do something because of reasons). Part of what makes it 'Right' though is that it's informed by Right View -- which you might think of as being similar to a 'knowledge of Good and Evil' except that Buddhist often instead categorize things into 'skillful' (which might mean enlightened, enlightening, or helpful towards enlightenment) and 'unskillful' (which might mean the reverse i.e. the increase of suffering etc.).
Even so, relatively speaking 'running' doesn't seem to be desiring something that's especially wicked. There are for example five precepts for laypeople (which are to avoid killing, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, and intoxicants), and running doesn't break any of these, so what's the problem? The worst you could say of it is that it may not be satisfying, and could be an occasion for defilements such as pride or envy ... but if you benefit from it somehow and don't hurt others then perhaps people ought to feel mudita i.e. be pleased for your success.

Is it 'wrong' to really work towards something?
Really working towards something isn't obviously and necessarily wrong.
One of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right Effort.
I suppose that, again, one of the ways to judge whether it's right or 'wrong' is to assess, not whether you're striving, but what you're striving for.
You might be interested in reading a description of the technique of Right Effort: it appears to be, not concentrating on or being attached to the goal, but making sue that the present conditions are right -- for example that you have positive factors such as 'energy' and 'concentration' and don't have corresponding negative factors.
Perhaps it's like driving a car i.e. if you want to get somewhere, you don't do that by concentrating on the destination.

Is it 'wrong' to imagine a desired outcome?
I don't know how to answer this from a Buddhist POV. I've read that it's one of the technique used in sports psychology (another technique is described in this The Pursuit of Happiness article).
It is a standard part of e.g. planning to build a house: i.e. to pre-plan the desired result.
Buddhism warns though that house-building is a metaphor for 'mental fabrication' in general, and I think that one of the goals of Buddhism is to cease (or at least develop insight into) 'fabrications'.

Is it 'wrong' to be attached to the goal?
Maybe there's a difference between aiming and attaching; e.g. it would be normal to aim an arrow, but a cause of suffering if you're so attached to the result that you're hurt if you're half an inch off-centre.
Furthermore some Buddhist meditation is about experiencing reality (e.g. sensations) as they actually (are) are, without confusing them with past and future hopes and fears.
Maybe this Zen story, Publishing the Sutras, illustrates combining striving with non-attachment.

In one perspective, buddhism shows something you likely already know: if your goal is not accomplished, and if you created expectations (to win, to see a crowd, to have personal accomplishment, etc), you have invited suffering. And because you don't have full control of the outcome, it's always possible the goal may not be reached.
It also shows that, depending on nuances of the "dissatisfaction with current situation", that dissatisfaction might denote a suffering in and on itself.
But it's quite possible for one to formulate goals without clinging to their outcome -- so that reaching or not the goal is not a source of suffering. And it's possible that the dissatisfaction is not an impediment in one's life, but something useful (e.g. a source of motivation for reaching a goal).

However, what I understand from Buddhism is that this attachment to an end result in the future causes suffering.

Generally (and ultimately) speaking, any attachment is a source of suffering because it presupposes the object of attachment can be obtained, and if it is obtained, that it is stable and persists through time. Because we can't guarantee we can have what we want, nor we can guarantee what we "have" won't change or be separated from us, craving and attachment are ultimately bogus from the point of view of happiness.

Does one live with some attachment and accept it, or is it something to be avoided entirely?

Attachment of any kind, from the buddhist point of view, is something to be done away with. But not everyone (buddhist or not) feels the urgency or will to go through the process of doing that. So it's up to you. Generally, the choice to remove an attachment comes from seeing the "bug" in it and develop enough dissatisfaction to do something about it.
So, just like the amount of race training you do is up to you -- ranging from training a few hours per week to full dedication under an olympic training --, the amount of buddhist training is also up to you -- ranging from a a few hours per week to full dedication as a monk.

Is attainment of nonattachment something one can become attached to?

@StevenGubkin There might be a few different ways to answer that. Maybe creating a new Question on the site?

Setting goals is fine as long as there is no attachment to the outcome. Attachment to outcome is what causes you to suffer.
You perceive the outcome is within your control when it is not entirely in your control.
So train hard and accept the outcome whatever it is gracefully.

attachment to the activity instead. Like the boat sutta: when you are in the boat love the boat, not the destination.

i think in the worldly life the quality of the set goals is what counts, meaning that the results from achievement of that goal and accomplishments must be wholesome and beneficial objectively and not only gratifying one's ego
if the goal is striven for, for the sake of self-satisfaction only, as normally is the case with sensual pleasures, it's not noble
please consider

These are the four other things that lead to obtaining the four things
  that are wished for, desired, agreeable, and rarely gained in the
  world.
“With wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by the strength
  of his arms, earned by the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth
  righteously gained, the noble disciple undertakes four worthy deeds.
  What four?
(1) “Here, householder, with wealth acquired by energetic striving …
  righteously gained, the noble disciple makes himself happy and pleased
  and properly maintains himself in happiness; he makes his parents
  happy and pleased and properly maintains them in happiness; he makes
  his wife and children, his slaves, workers, and servants happy and
  pleased and properly maintains them in happiness; he makes his friends
  and companions happy and pleased and properly maintains them in
  happiness. This is the first case of wealth that has gone to good use,
  that has been properly utilized and used for a worthy cause.
(2) “Again, with wealth acquired by energetic striving … righteously
  gained, the noble disciple makes provisions against the losses that
  might arise from fire, floods, kings, thieves, or displeasing heirs;
  he makes himself secure against them. This is the second case of
  wealth that has gone to good use … for a worthy cause.
(3) “Again, with wealth acquired by energetic striving … righteously
  gained, the noble disciple makes the five oblations: to relatives,
  guests, ancestors, the king, and the deities. This is the third case
  of wealth that has gone to good use … for a worthy cause.
(4) “Again, with wealth acquired by energetic striving … righteously
  gained, the noble disciple establishes an uplifting offering of
  alms—an offering that is heavenly, resulting in happiness, conducive
  to heaven—to those ascetics and brahmins who refrain from intoxication
  and heedlessness, who are settled in patience and mildness, who tame
  themselves, calm themselves, and train themselves for nibbāna. This is
  the fourth case of wealth that has gone to good use, that has been
  properly employed and used for a worthy cause.
“These, householder, are the four worthy deeds that the noble disciple
  undertakes with wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by the
  strength of his arms, earned by the sweat of his brow, righteous
  wealth righteously gained. When anyone exhausts wealth on anything
  apart from these four worthy deeds, that wealth is said to have gone
  to waste, to have been squandered, to have been used frivolously.

Pattakamma sutta (AN 4.61)

I've haven't read this before. Very nice, thank you.

Attachment to anything causes suffering. Not just the end result. But lay people are not expected to give up worldly goals as long as they don't break the 5 precepts, don't get into wrong livelihoods etc. Such conflicts occur when one tries to implement aspects of monk life while still staying in lay life.

If you love running run like hell. I believe you do not love it. 21 is a figure someone gave it you. It is goal somebody else is setting for you. Somebody is challenging your ego. If you love something or someone do you set goals. do you tell your wife if you love me you have to do following ten things to show it? Get out of this goal/success business and run. If you are a natural runner there will be a joy abound. This joy can take you to nirvana. Meditation in action is the real thing not sitting in some posture with closed eyes.

I would think Buddhism is against overly sticky to your goal. Without a goal is also kind of a goal in that sense.

It's not at all opposed to striving. The philosophy arose partially out of the lack of agency the local population of India/Nepal displayed in their spiritual and temporal endeavors. The philosophy posits that individual action through careful thought, emotional control, physical control and positive spiritual connection is the "correct" way of life as opposed to relying on a deity to initiate an action. Read about the life of Tzu Chi founder Cheng Yen to see how she strove for a result.
Even dissatisfaction/attachment arising from failure is not necessarily something to be avoided. Dissatisfaction can be a catalyst for positive action/thoughts, and it's up to you to put Buddhist practices into place to rationally dissect the reasons to achieve a positive outcome.
Additionally, theistic Buddhism would say that God gave you an intellect, a body, emotions and a soul for a reason - you better use them!

I found it a very nice description of which is the main virtue of someone who wants to proceed. One evening, the eminent monks met at Sariputta's place to listen to the dharma. It must have been a very sweet evening/night this day and Sariputta gave one after the other the question: "Friend, the Gosinga Sālatree Wood is delightful, the night is moonlit, the sāla trees are all in blossom, and heavenly scents seem to be floating in the air. What kind of bhikkhu, friend, could illuminate the Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood ?” Each one answered as well as he could/understood his own practice, and even Maha Mogallana took then the role as asker and asked Sariputta too for his interpretation of the question.
After that they wanted to know: how would the Buddha, their master, judge their different answers. So they went to the Buddha, told him what each one had said. The Buddha answered that each of them (!) has spoken well - and then took himself part of the quiz and gave them his answer to Sariputta's question. This is his answer (as reported in the Palicanon Sutta MN32):

When this was said, the venerable Sāriputta asked the Blessed One:
  “Venerable sir, which of us has spoken well?”
  “You have all spoken well, Sāriputta, each in his own way.
  Hear also from me what kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood.
  Here, Sāriputta, when a bhikkhu has returned from his almsround, after his meal,
  he sits down, folds his legs crosswise, sets his body erect, and
  establishing mindfulness in front of him, resolves:
‘I shall not break this sitting position until through not clinging
  my mind is liberated from the taints.’
   That kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sālatree Wood.”

I think it shows very nicely the role which the simple virtue of determined-ness for the goal of liberation from the clinging plays.

I found your question reveals a Western leaning in understanding. If you really want something that is in itself expectation that leads to suffering. What if you fail?  What if you win? Do those concepts have the same meaning you think they do?  You should work towards a goal and accept what comes of it. Life is an illusion. You are merely passing your time until the void.
Consider the Eightfold Path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
Not sure what your interpretation of working means although not all action is running.
Right Action is allowed: You can act in an ethical way.
Right Livelihood is allowed: if you are working at a job you "want"
that is OK so long as its not weapons etc.
Right Intention is allowed: you can train for a run but it's wise to accept your time as it is.
Right Effort is allowed: but be mindful / abandon all the wrong and harmful thoughts, words, and deeds.
All of these are guided by the rest: right concentration, right speech, right mindfulness and right view are what guides you to live the other four.
In Western mindset, right means "winning", American exceptionalism, better than the rest, second place is first loser, and so on. But take out the superiority concepts from the implication and you are left with reality.  On some days, the world's best teams lose to a "worse" team. But this has as much to do with stochastics as personal factors. It's a meaningless determination.
These concepts are the poison that makes people ill; makes them disappointed at what would otherwise be a serious accomplishment.
There is no such sin as pride, you can take a moment to reflect on a goal that is accomplished.  SO LONG as you are not celebrating at the expense of the vanquished, etc. That would not be right intention, right speech, right view and so on. Don't "achieve" the Western way and you are fine.

Nichiren's Buddhism, based on the historical Buddha's final teaching, The Lotus Sutra, is pro desire.
This philosophy holds that by striving maximally, one becomes skillful at helping oneself and others, ultimately causing harmony globally.

"At all times I think to myself:
  How can I cause living beings
  to gain entry into the unsurpassed way
  and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"
(From the Lotus Sutra)

This practice of Buddhism differs markedly from others in this respect, and other respects.

That quote is from the end of The Lifespan of the Tathāgata chapter of The Lotus Sutra (e.g. page 247 or 231 of this PDF).

I deleted the link to sgi-usa.org -- when you post a link, please post a link to a specific article or page which helps to answer the question. In general if you post a link then you should also quote from that page in your answer, and the quote (in the answer) should be relevant to the question. For example I found this which seems to be an SGI-authored page about "desire" that could be relevant to the question (but I don't know whether that's what you would want to include in your answer).

The Buddha was not opposed to working towards goals, he was opposed to things that lead away from arahantship.
Arahantship or enlightenment comes from the destruction of the Âsavas, usually translated as cankers, pains, taints, or fermentations, not from merely giving up desires or wishes.
In many Suttas The Buddha refers to arahants having "wants" or "wishes", though obviously not the same as ordinary humans having wants.
There is the Akankheyya Sutta (MN 6) where The Buddha encouraged monks to fulfill their desires (through proper means):

'If a Bhikkhu (monk) should desire, Brethren, to become beloved, popular, respected among his fellow-disciples, let him then fulfil all righteousness, let him be devoted to that quietude of heart which springs from within, let him not drive back the ecstasy of contemplation, let him look through things, let him be much alone!'
....continued on with different desires until...
'If a Bhikkhu should desire, Brethren, by the destruction of the great evils (Âsavas), by himself, and even in this very world, to know and realise and attain to Arahatship, to emancipation of heart, and emancipation of mind, let him then fulfil all righteousness, let him be devoted to that quietude of heart which springs from within, let him not drive back the ecstasy of contemplation, let him look through things, let him be much alone!' - Akankheyya Sutta (MN 6)

The point is not to focus on whether or not you should have desires but to focus on what leads towards the final goal.
Also in many Suttas The Buddha refers to monks doing things "if he wants".
There is also the case where The Buddha was questioned on who has more pleasure the King or The Buddha:

"'But, friend Gotama, it's not the case that pleasure is to be attained through pleasure. Pleasure is to be attained through pain. For if pleasure were to be attained through pleasure, then King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha would attain pleasure, for he lives in greater pleasure than you, friend Gotama.'
"'Surely the venerable Niganthas said that rashly and without reflecting... for instead, I should be asked, "Who lives in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha or venerable Gotama?"'
"'Yes, friend Gotama, we said that rashly and without reflecting... but let that be. We now ask you, venerable Gotama: Who lives in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha or venerable Gotama?'
"'In that case, Niganthas, I will question you in return. Answer as you like. What do you think: Can King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha — without moving his body, without uttering a word — dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for seven days & nights?'
"'No, friend."
"'... for six days & nights... for five days & nights... for a day & a night?'
"'No, friend."
"'Now, I — without moving my body, without uttering a word — can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night... for two days & nights... for three... four... five... six... seven days & nights. So what do you think: That being the case, who dwells in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha or me?'
"'That being the case, venerable Gotama dwells in greater pleasure than King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahanama the Sakyan delighted in the Blessed One's words. - Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta, MN 14

Thus we see that The Buddha claims that he experiences more pleasure than the King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha.
There is also the case where The Buddha explained the fruits (or benefits) or a contemplative life in the Samaññaphala Sutta (DN 2).
Arahants and The Buddha himself had "wishes" or "wants", they live freely and do whatever they desire, though not in the same way as ordinary people.
It is possible to have wishes or desires but no attachment to them.
My suggestion to you would be to keep your desires in accordance to the goal and not to be attached to the end result.
There are certain cases where forcing someone to give up a desire would create mental agony in an individual and throw them away from achieving arahantship, and also other cases where individuals give up wishes or desires but do not achieve arahantship.
So in my opinion it is better for you to keep certain desires while striving towards the final goal (enlightenment, arahantship).
You should think:

It would be easier for me to achieve my goal if I was not attached to the end result
It would be easier for me to achieve my goal if I had a better concentrated mind
It would be easier for me to achieve my goal if I had achieved higher states

Being attached to the end result makes it much harder to achieve your goal. If you really want to achieve your goal you should focus on achieving it without attachment, and in ways in accordance to the goal.
Just imagine how extraordinarily easy achieving a goal like this would be for someone who really was an arahant.
Thus you should train yourself towards achieving the final goal.


text:
Do the scholastic sects say that chan practice is something separate from themselves?
Dogen famously said that there are no Buddhist schools, and the idea there is [this or that Buddhist school] is the creation of demons, etc. [Dogen's Eihei Koroku, discourse 7.491, reads:]

The Buddha Dharma fundamentally has no outer name or form. Later
  people falsely established many random names. Althogh facing the wall
  at Shaolin resembled [dhyana], do not call it Zen School and misguide
  sentient beings.

First, is Dogen saying that Zen [which is misguiding] is nothing separate from scholastic "sects", and if so, is he right?
Second, what do the more scholarly schools - whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana - say about Zen?

The "famous saying" can be found near the beginning of the Butsudō chapter of his Shōbōgenzō.

Answering might be easier if you had only one question.

@TenzinDorje Can you edit the question into a more answerable form?

@ChrisW I just did according to you suggestion. I didn't go so far as to remove the second question, though, but I still think the OP is more likely to have an answer he separates them.

Remember the concentration division of the Eightfold Noble Path consist of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration.
The Noble Eightfold Noble Path did not specify a particular practice for obtaining mindful concentration as long as long as they are consistent with the teachings. You can obtain Right Concentration from Sitting Meditation "Zazen" or you can chant sutras, or you can do walking meditation. In fact for the Chan/ Zen practitioner they aspire to maintain Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in every moment, in every thought. Some  practices are easier than others to obtain concentration however, that's why sitting meditation is generally fundamental since it avoids distractions.
To summarize:
Right Effort

"And what, monks, is right effort?
[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors,
  activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the
  non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
  exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful
  qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds
  & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities
  that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds &
  exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase,
  plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have
  arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vayamo/index.html
Right Mindfulness

"One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sati/index.html
Right Concentration

"Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html
As long as the Noble Eightfold Path is being practiced, mindful concentration is possible and therefor the Jhanas also known as Chan or Zen is possible. Therefore the myriad practices of Buddhism lead to the same thing and there is no separation. You can scrub clean the floor and have mental concentration to experience Joy and Peace in your heart. Or you can chant sacred scriptures while performing complex mudras.
In theory, the Noble Eightfold Path must be practiced by every school of Buddhism and hence 'Chan/Zen' is practiced by every schools of Buddhism whatever their names maybe. However, as it tends to happen there are monks and schools who don't know what they are doing and spend their time debating philosophical concepts in the scriptures or running a temple like a business and not cultivating themselves and not practicing the Dharma. Even within the Chan/Seon/Zen school in China/Korea/Japan there are people who lost sight of what 'Zen' actually means and engaged in pointless philosophizing. As long you know how it work you can see the practices everywhere and not be confused by surface appearances.

It is highly unlikely that Dogen's statement was critical of a scholastic Chan/Zen school, because there was none at the time. It is most likely that Dogen's statement was critical of (1) sectarian and (2) elitist positions of those who made 'following in the footstep of the Buddha' a sectarian matter. This include so-called masters whose awakening he doubted. At least, this is Steven Heine and Dale Wright's position, as I will quote later.
To come back on scholasticism, it never really took within the Chan tradition (contrary to Tendai etc.), probably partly because Chan is a late tradition. As such, Chan rested on established conclusions without having to establish them. These conclusions were established by other Buddhist schools by way of debates, contests, etc. Such conclusions are for instance the notion of 'one final vehicle', 'dharmakaya, all-pervasivenness & omniscience', 'the third turning of the wheel as teaching the final view', 'the Avatamsaka sutra being the first turning and the final view as well', and so forth. It is hard to find any Chan scholastic work outside Zongmi's and Yanshou's, and even these discuss Tenets more than they do the turnings of the Wheel. Moreover, Zongmi and his disciple are not always considered as 'Chan teachers' presumably because of it. In addition, when you study the lists of both 'Chan genres of texts' and 'Types of Chan masters', you find no reference to scholasticism.
Heine, Steven; Wright, Dale (2010), write in Zen Masters:

In Eihei kōroku 3.207, Dōgen criticizes Yunmen and the whole notion of
  the autonomy of a “Zen school,” which should not take priority over
  the universality of the Buddha Dharma:    It is said that after [the
  Ancestor] Upagupta, there were five sects of Buddha Dharma during its
  decline in India. After Qingyuan and Nanyue, people took it upon
  themselves to establish the various styles of the five houses, which
  was an error made in China. Moreover, in the time of the ancient
  buddhas and founding ancestors, it was not possible to see or hear the
  Buddha Dharma designated as the “Zen school,” which has never actually
  existed. What is presently called the Zen school is not truly the
  Buddha Dharma.

And:

At times he is pansectarian in citing masters from all Chan schools,
  as well as nonsectarian in that he also denies the existence of an
  independent “Chan sect” altogether.

Is Dogen saying that zen is nothing separate from scholastic "sects"
If I can summarize the Butsudō from which your quote was taken, I think that what he's saying is that:

The Teaching is personally transmitted from Dharma heir to Dharma heir ... the Buddha Dharma lives by being authentically transmitted.

These were no sects in general (and no "Zen sect" in particular) in Shakyamuni Buddha's time, so it can't be right to say that there are different sects now. The Buddha and the Ancestors didn't talk about "the Zen sect", that kind of naming is wrong.

Any method of training that's different from the methods used by the Buddha and the Ancestors is non-Buddhist.

Not only shouldn't they be talking about "the Zen sect" people shouldn't be talking of different sects within Zen:

My late Master, an Old Buddha, once ascended the Dharma seat and
addressed his assembly, saying, “People nowadays just talk of there being separate
traditions and customs, such as those of Ummon, Hōgen, Igyō, Rinzai, and Sōtō,
but this is not the Buddha’s Teaching, nor is it what Ancestors and Masters say.”

The disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha didn't want to miss any of his teaching, and neither should we.

When Shakyamuni
Buddha was in the world, His disciples were apprehensive lest they should differ
from Him by even a hair, or lest they should miss even one jot within the hundreds
of thousands of myriad points of His Teaching, for they wished to experience the
joy of realizing the Truth which they had chosen as their inheritance, and they
would not go against It. Thus, we should vow to seek and serve the Buddha and
hear His Dharma over the course of many lives. Those who would deliberately go
against the transforming Teaching that the World-honored One gave while He was
in the world and give rise to sectarian names are not disciples of the Tathagata nor
are they offspring of the Ancestral Masters.

Thee are three schools of Japanese Zen, however many Chans in China, stretch that thought through 1300 years, and your picture of Zen becomes less singular. In that it seemingly emphasises anapanasati over vipassana meditation, it is closer to the original texts imo - which itself is  a reformatted memory of the Buddha's words. In any case, I think almost all buddhist monastic orders follow the Nikayas or Agamas, the Patimokkha and Vinaya, so there isn't much really to separate them.


text:
Does buddhism allow for families?
I have studied Buddhism for a few years now, on and off, and this one question has been bugging me for a long time.  Please correct me if I am wrong, however, the way that I understand it is that Buddhism is all about the cessation of suffering. In order to end suffering, we first need to end attachment.  By being attached to objects, we suffer when something happens to those objects.  Instead of connecting and attaching to the objects and perpetuating suffering in our lives, we should instead focus on the here and now and concentrate on existing rather than material things.
My question is: How does buddhism allow for the existence of families?  I cannot think of a more connected and attached system than the familial system.  Significant others, children, siblings are all people that we can't help but love and feel attached to.  I just can't seem to fathom a family that does not end in suffering when a member dies.  Just to be clear, I am searching for an authoritative answer from a legitimate source, not a personal anecdote or opinion.

Buddhists would be extinct by now if Buddhism didn't allow families :D

@SankhaKulathantille exactly my logic! that is why i am so curious if there is an authoritative answer on this or it is something that is just "ignored"

The answer given here applies to this question as well

I don't know of any canonical source explicitly and precisely dealing with this question. To start, here's what Bhikkhu Bodhi writes on the Pali Canon1:

"Within the Pāli Canon, the texts known as the Nikāyas have the special value of being a single cohesive collection of the Buddha’s teachings in his own words. These teachings cover a wide range of topics; they deal not only with renunciation and liberation, but also with the proper relations between husbands and wives, the management of the household, and the way countries should be governed. They explain the path of spiritual development—from generosity and ethics, through mind training and the realization of wisdom, all the way up to the attainment of liberation."

What we know from these discourses and from the general structure of the buddhist communities is that:

laity (people holding jobs, wealth and family) is an important part of the buddhist community since the Buddha's time: they support monks with food, cloth, medicine, etc. (There's much more to be said here, though)
The Buddha taught to lay people how to have a proper lay life (instead of restricting himself to ask them to renounce family and wealth and become monks/nuns). That is, one conductive to good destination or Nirvana. One study2 found 208 suttas addressed to laity in the pali canon.

Now, what we can infer from the discourses is that Buddhism does not present a teleology, an ideal like "every being should be in Nirvana" as if everything else was essentially wrong (e.g. have a family, have kids, indulge in all kinds of worldly activities, etc).
What it does is recognize aspects of our reality, present an explanation for our essential anxiety, and offer a way to resolve it or diminish it, if one is so inclined to accept it and is willing to do something about it -- under various degrees of interest (from abandoning unwholesome actions of body/speech/mind, through meditation, or finally to deciding to abandon wealth and possessions to become a monk/nun). I'd say this is the character of every sutta.
Since any wholesome action is conductive to Nirvana, any wholesome action is a step forward, regardless if one is a monk or a husband. Thus Buddhism is regarded as a "path": it's a process. Furthermore, it classifies many stages of attainment, according to what kind of attachment has been eliminated.
Hence, some teachings are presented culminating in Nirvana. Other teachings are presented culminating in "a better destination after death" (e.g. some heavens where there's less suffering). If one is unwilling to abandon all attachments, Buddha dhamma still teaches how to ease suffering (and perhaps appear in a better place -- and maybe there, attain Nirvana). In any case, all buddha-dhamma teachings, ultimately, converge to Nirvana.

1 Bodhi, In the Buddha's words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon
2 Kumaratne, Manohari Savithri, Buddha's teachings applicable to the laity: Case studies from the Pali Nikayas

what Dhamma does recognize is that being a family person diminishes one's chances to attain nibbana
but Dhamma is not God's Commandments, the Buddha explained what's preferable, the choice is up to us

"There is the case, great king, where a Tathagata appears in the
  world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma
  admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its
  end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its
  essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
"A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains
  conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is
  confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It
  is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect,
  totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my
  hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the
  household life into homelessness?'
"So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small;
  leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair
  and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household
  life into homelessness.
"When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the
  monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in
  his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of
  mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

Samannaphala sutta (DN 2)
then again there have been householders who attained noble levels, so it's all not totally  foregone

As Thiago's answer says there are many suttas which give advice to lay people.
One of these, for example, is the Sigalovada Sutta, which includes advice about how to spend and save money, how to behave towards your parents, spouse, teachers, friends, workers, etc.
There's a book titled The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity which references and summarizes some of these suttas, which give specific advice to laypeople; for example, this answer summarizes its advice on how to choose a spouse.

According to Dhammachakka sutta, the first sermon of Buddha, four noble truths are explained in the following sequence:

... 'Now, this dukkha ariyasacca is to be completely known'

  ...'Now, this dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca is to be abandoned'

  ....'Now, this dukkha·nirodha ariyasacca is to be personally experienced'

  .. 'Now, this dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā ariyasacca is to be
  developed'

So you can not "end attachment" as the first step. That should be the second step. First you  should see or know(pariññeyya) the dukkha ariyasacca as it is. When you do so, attachment to dukkha can be abandoned.

How does buddhism allow for the existence of families?

Based on Kaccayanagotta sutta, the Buddha says,

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't
  exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the
  Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle

Then he describes the origination and cessation of dukkha based on paticcasamuppada.


text:
What would be some Japanese Buddhist/Shinto routines or rituals that households will do?
I believe in all the religions holding stake in the world but I am more attuned with Japanese Buddhism and Shintoism. I've read through a lot of info on the two and love the harmony between them. I also enjoy the Shinto legends and in a way believe in the life force or kami of the world around me. I understand that a majority of these religions are trying to find the happiness and the peace within yourself and in your life. Respecting nature too.
My question comes from wanting to know if there is anything that I could insert into my daily life that would help me... feel more at peace I guess. I watch and read a lot about Japanese culture, but I can't really seem to find any info for little routines or actions that I've seen portrayed in media.
For instance, Charms hanging from the windows/doorways. Little shrines to meditate in front of in the house.
Are there more of these that aren't explained due to them being so minor? Are there special statues or paintings that hold any meanings? Maybe sayings? Plants? Smells?
Recently, I've started caring for plants more...in-particular, a bonsai that I am hoping will be beautiful and something I can pass on to my children.
I use incense which helps me think about my life and introspect.

There is an attachment to rituals and paraphernalia in your approach. I'd like to state that while it is okay to ask around about such things, this kind of attachment may slowly fade and tend to make you lose interest.

A lot of the things that I do in my life I try to do in a way to be.. peaceful. I try to keep thought and effort into my actions knowing that it effects the future. I mostly am just curious about how others do similarly to what I do. I don't go out of my way to do my habits but it's apart of me. I don't know if that makes sense..lol but That is what I try to do @BlackFlam3

This article about Buddhism in Japan mentions visiting temples, having an altar, saying grace, and greetings.
Some traditional Japanese arts have Buddhist influences or applications: including flower arranging and gardens -- and calligraphy.
A zafu.

I love the article! That is a lot of info and I forgot about the Daruma dolls as one of the off hand things I've seen in media. It's things like that that I really want to know.
The zafu is interesting too! And the way that zabuton and futon are realated. :)


text:
What are the main differences between Buddhism and Ellen Langer's 'scientific mindfulness'?
Ellen Langer has an interesting passage in her book on mindfulness claiming that her work is significantly different than 'spiritual buddhism' because it comes from the Western Scientific tradition.

“Mindfulness East and West

The definitions of mindfulness in this chapter, especially the process orientation just discussed, will remind many readers of various concepts of mindfulness found in Eastern religion. Students in my classes who are knowledgeable about such fields are continually drawing parallels. While there are many similarities, the differences in the historical and cultural background from which they are derived, and the more elaborate methods, including meditation, through which a mindful state is said to be achieved in the Eastern traditions should make us cautious about drawing comparisons that are too tidy.
My work on mindfulness has been conducted almost entirely within the Western scientific perspective. Initially, my focus was on mindlessness and its prevalence in daily life. As can be seen in the order of chapters so far in this book, the notion of mindfulness develops gradually by looking at aspects of mindlessness and then at the other side of the coin. Only after a series of experiments demonstrating the costs of rigid mindsets and single-minded perspectives do I begin to explore the enormous potential benefits of a mindful attitude in aging, health, creativity, and the workplace.
Behind Eastern teachings of mindfulness lies an elaborate an elaborate system of cosmology developed and refined over time. The moral aspect of mindfulness (the idea that the mindful state achieved through meditation will lead to spontaneous right action12) is an essential part of these philosophies. It reaches into matters too complex for the scope of this book. Since many qualities of the Eastern concepts of mindfulness and of the one being described in this book are strikingly similar, however, we might hope that some of the moral consequences striven for by the Eastern disciplines might also result from mindfulness as understood in this Western form and context.
As an example of the semantic and philosophical tangles that arise if we try to compare Eastern and Western views of the mindful state, consider the activity of creating new categories. While this is a form of mindfulness in our definition, it appears to be in direct opposition to what one does during meditation.13 In meditation, the mind becomes quieter and active thought is discouraged. In some forms of meditation, thoughts and images that come to mind are considered unimportant and are relinquished as soon as one discerns their presence. At the same time, in many Eastern views, the[…]”

Excerpt From: Ellen J. Langer. “Mindfulness.” iBooks.

What are these big differences?

related question: What are the differences between vipassana and mindfulness meditation?

The core difference, according to the paragraphs you quoted, seems to be, "the moral aspect of mindfulness" and "spontaneous right action". Perhaps that's "Eastern" but not exactly or not necessarily "Buddhist" -- e.g. the associated note 12 in the book references something titled "Unified Field Based Ethics: Vedic Psychology's Description of the Highest Stage of Moral Reasoning" ... I think that "Vedic Psychology" is more likely Hindu and not Buddhist.

A Wikipedia article like this suggests that maybe to Western clinical psychology, "Eastern Philosophy" is all one in some vague or hand-wavy kind of way, but generalizations from "Vedic Psychology" may not be applicable to Buddhism as we might know it; e.g. "Vedic Psychology" might talk about "science of the soul" or "God consciousness" whereas Buddhism in contrast might deny the existence of a "soul" etc.

For the "big differences", we need to see how Ellen Langer and the Buddha defines "mindfulness" (and "mindlessness" when that helps).
Ellen Langer writes the following:

"Mindfulness involves two key strategies for improving health: attention to context and attention to variability"

"The more mindful we are, the more we can create the contexts we are in"

"The creation of new categories, as we will see throughout this book, is a mindful activity. Mindlessness sets in when we rely too rigidly on categories and distinctions created in the past (masculine/feminine, old/young, success/failure)

"In the character o Kutuzov, we can find portrayed the key qualities of a mindful state of being: (1) creation of new categories; (2) openness to new information; and (3) awareness of more than one perspective"

"The more we realize that most of our views of ourselves, of others, and of presumed limits regarding our talents, our health, and our happiness were mindlessly accepted by is at an earlier time in our lives, the more we open up to the realization that these too can change. And all we need to do to begin the process is to be mindful"

"A very basic and mindless error that we often make is to take the names we give to products/things as the things themselves"

Though she puts a lot of emphasis on categories and being able to work with different perspectives, on the attention to variability she writes:

"When people are depressed they tend to believe they are depressed all the time. Mindful attention to variability shows this is not the case

Finally, I haven't seem her speaking of meditation other than suggesting that it "is a tool to achieve postmeditative mindfulness" -- and it's not clear what meditation technique she is referring to.

Now, what about buddhist "mindfulness" -- sati in pali?
First, it goes without saying that the dhamma is in the context of a soteriology: become permanently free from dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) whereas Langer's is concerned with health.
But I see intersections. Though sati has many different uses, it does have an aspect of awareness and an aspect of memory. Generally, in a gist, it means "to have [something] in mind"; moreover, many of the exercises of sati in the Buddha's teaching are in the form of:

"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long' [...] "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.'
-- Kayagatasati Sutta, MN 19

In other vein, one function of sati is observed both in the Buddha dhamma and in Langer's writings: the recognition of change. However, where Langer advocate the local usefulness of such recognition (e.g. that a depressing state is not permanent) and stops there, in the Buddha dhamma such recognition encompasses these benefits and goes way beyond, aiming to establish by direct experience the impermanence (anicca) of all phenomena we come to contact.
Moreover, Langer's elaboration of categories and perspectives does not have a direct correspondence in the dhamma. It's purpose seem to be, generally, on improving critical thinking -- and there's evidence for that, which is good.
In Langer's mindfulness, the play on categories seems useful to take one out of an illusory context. However, a Buddhist would continue that sentence saying: "...by putting one in another illusory context/category". That is, buddhists are taught to have "direct experience", insight -- without intermediary categories interfering -- by learning to observe the entire mind process, from bare experience to understanding how mental formations come into play -- assisted by buddhist psychology (five aggregates, six senses) and buddhist soteriological context (eg. three marks of existence: unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, not-self). This emphasis on detailed observation of the mind and the minutia of mind processes fully encompasses Langer's notion by going much deeper in the problem of illusory concepts -- making Langer's mindfulness seem gross in comparison to my eyes.
Finally, for an in depth treatment of minfulness in early buddhism, I suggest the book Mindfulness in Early Buddhism by Tse-Fu Kuan.

Do you have the passage? If you posted an excerpt it would be easier to answer the question.
But "scientific Buddhism", or Buddhist philosophy and practices adapted to fit a Western, secular audience, is not new. The Dhamma talks I've heard from teachers on retreat at places like the Insight Meditation Center in Massachusetts, focus much less on formal scripture and avoid metaphysics or the supernatural. Since the Buddha himself spent a lot of time de-emphasizing metaphysical questions, this is an easy step to take. Sam Harris has an entire book (Waking Up) that tries to convince skeptical, secular Westerners to practice Buddhist meditation.
On the plus side, this kind of approach cuts away the cultural baggage that grows up around any religious institution. Buddhism works perfectly well without spirits, devas, or reincarnation, and in this form it is easier for modern people to work with. Using the scientific method as a check on the woo-woo and wishful thinking that can corrupt spirituality is also a big benefit. (Does practice increase happiness? is a testable question, and it's reassuring that science seems to say "yes".)
On the minus side, emphasizing medical research showing that meditation and mindfulness are correlated with lower blood pressure, reduced stress, blah blah blah, risks taking a very thorough and rich spiritual tradition and turning it into a relaxation technique. Even people like Sam Harris, who take things like no-self seriously, throw out a lot of serious introspection in their attempt to strip things down.


text:
Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree?
There's a famous story that, eventually, the Buddha vowed not to move until he gained enlightenment.
The story can be found for example here:

Still seeking a way to understand the meaning of life, Siddhartha set out for Buddhagaya. Near a grove, he sat down under a huge Bodhi tree. Silently he vowed, "Even if my flesh and blood were to dry up, leaving only skin and bones, I will not leave this place until I find a way to end all sorrow." He sat there for forty nine days. He was determined to discover the source of all pain and suffering in the world. Mara, the evil one, tried to scare him into giving up his quest. For instance, he hoped to lure Siddhartha into having selfish thoughts by sending visions of his very beautiful daughters. But the Buddha's goodness protected him from such attacks.

And for example here:

One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.

What is/are the original or canonical source[s] of this story?
Some suttas like the Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36) are an account of that period of this life, but without mentioning the vow.

This seems to appear in the Jhataka (in the Khuddaka-Nikâya) literature: THE ATTAINMENT OF BUDDHASHIP in J.i.7110 marked as p. 76.

Then the Future Buddha turned his back to the trunk of the Bo-tree and faced the east. And making the mighty resolution, "Let my skin, and sinews, and bones become dry, and welcome! and let all the flesh and blood in my body dry up! but never from this seat will I stir, until I have attained the supreme and absolute wisdom!" he sat himself down cross-legged in an unconquerable position, from which not even the descent of a hundred thunder-bolts at once could have dislodged him.
At this point the god Mâra, exclaiming, "Prince Siddhattha is desirous of passing beyond my control, but I will never allow it!" went and announced the news to his army, ...

The above page is linked/referenced on this index page as "i.685-772 (§ 8.), Intro".