text:
Wallace's samatha practice, based on Padmasambhava: Am I doing it right?
I have been practicing a path that may be too advanced for me, in that I'm not even sure if I'm doing it properly. It is a path outlined by Alan Wallace in one of his retreats.
The following is the relevant portion from the podcast transcript (it's a transcript of Session 1 - Settling the Body, Speech and Mind in its Natural State, from Fall 2014 Shamatha, Vipashyana, Dream Yoga, and the Experience of Pristine Awareness in the Great Perfection Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism):

"[15:40] Then we turn to settling the mind in its natural state....Just for the duration of this session let your awareness come to rest in stillness and in its own natural clarity in the present moment.
  [17:23] Now cultivate this ability of letting your awareness rest in its own place, holding its own ground, which means not directing your attention to anything, neither to any sensory impression nor to thoughts, images, other mental activities or even to the space of the mind, no directionality, no target. Just let your awareness rest in its own nature without meditating on anything, without doing anything. Simply being present.
  [18:42] Sustain this flow of present centered mindfulness, a mindful presence without distraction, without being carried away, without letting your awareness be set into motion obsessively. Sustain the flow of mindful presence without distraction and without grasping, without latching onto any object, either subjective or objective. Simply be present. Whatever thoughts come up just let them be without perpetuating them or grasping onto them, without following them. Simply let them dissolve of their own accord back into the space of the mind.
  [21:06] And now within this context explicitly be aware of something you are probably already implicitly aware of and that is namely the rhythm of the breath. Without explicitly directing your attention to the sensations of the breath throughout the body simply continue to rest your awareness in its own state. Within that simple presence, awareness resting in its own place, take note of the duration of each in breath, each out breath, whether it is long or short. And let’s continue practicing in silence."

So this is how I am viewing it. I am combining awareness (mindfulness of my thoughts with introspection) with mindfulness of the duration of in/out breaths. When thoughts arise, they are mindfully observed, but not viewed as an interruption of mindfulness of breathing. When no thoughts are in mind, focus shifts to the mindfulness of breathing.
So it seems to me a like a very flexible model. No preference is given to mindfulness of thoughts or of breathing. Rather, the instruction seems to be just be mindful of either one, depending on the random rise and fall of thoughts. Mindfulness of breathing seems like a place-holder for attention when no thoughts are in mind.
Is this right?

I am combining awareness (mindfulness of my thoughts with introspection) with mindfulness of the duration of in/out breaths.

This is right. Anapanasati Sutta mentions about discerning long or short breaths as the 2nd step in the 1st triad.

When thoughts arise, they are mindfully observed, but not viewed as an interruption of mindfulness of breathing.

Realising that thoughts arisen itself sometimes bring you mind back. If not 1st be aware of the through and breath. Then look for any sensation that the thoughts might have brought, e.g. discomfort if they were angry thoughts. Finally actively redirect you mind to the chosen object.

When no thoughts are in mind, focus shifts to the mindfulness of breathing.

Initially you have to keep brining back you mind to the breath even if it does not wander away.

Mindfulness of breathing seems like a place-holder for attention when no thoughts are in mind.

This is how some meditation master teach this, but thinking and pondering is verbal fabrication which need also be calmed. [Samma,ditthi Sutta]
Also the following might be of interest: Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

I find the instruction confusing & contradicted because, to practise this advanced level of practise, there should be no (problematic/hindering) thoughts. The contradictions possibly arise because Wallace, as a professional Western teacher, does not want to alienate his audience.
In my opinion, 'thoughts' should not be mentioned since the instruction begins with: "let your awareness come to rest in stillness and in its own natural clarity".
In addition, 'explicitly be aware of something' & 'take note of the duration of each in breath, each out breath" should not be mentioned, since the instruction states: " without explicitly directing your attention to the sensations of the breath".
There is no need for Wallace to make the dichotomy of 'explicitly' & 'implicitly' because this confuses the meditation.
The meditation is to rest the mind in a silent natural state. In other words, in accordance with the instructions of the Buddha, the meditation is to establish the mind in a state free from craving.
When this is done, awareness of the breath will come to dominate the awareness of the mind because, in a state of silence, the breath is automatically the grossest sense object.
Even the slightest effort to 'bend' the mind towards the breath will defeat the purpose of the meditation & defeat the progress to jhana.
The Buddha taught:

There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion (non-craving), dependent
on cessation, that manifests as relinquishment (letting go).
Anapanasati Sutta

~~

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a noble disciple, making it his object to let go, attains
concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from
sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters &
remains in the first jhana...
Indriya-vibhanga Sutta

This PDF may be helpful.

Note: The word 'mindfulness' ('sati') does not mean 'awareness'. There is no such thing as being 'mindful of thoughts' or 'mindful of breathing'. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember'. Remembering to keep the mind in a state of silent awareness, free from craving, is the practise of 'mindfulness'. Remembering to let go of attachment to objects (such as attachment to thoughts or attachment to breathing or attachment to progress) is the practise of mindfulness. The term 'anapanasati' means 'mindfulness with breathing' or 'mindfulness when breathing' rather than 'mindfulness of breathing'. These distinctions are crucial for understanding practise as this advanced level.


text:
Ajahn Brahm versus others
I am practicing samadhi meditation using the breath as an object.  Most teachers say to watch the breath at the tip of the nose.  However, Ajahn Brahm says not to locate the breath anywhere.  I find that these two approaches are very different.  Which one is right?

Whatever works for you is right. In essence this is the doctrine of the 84,000 techniques.

Nose tips or everywhere else is ok.
But when you found an obvoius point to observe.
Use that single point your entire life, focus on that, And don't try to move to everywhere.
We do sammadi to make Janas.
Janas means become firmillar.
When you become firmillar with that point, Your mind will automatically observe that point without thinking of it or taking any effort.

This stems from the different interpretation of Parimukham in Anapanasati Sutta and relate other Suttas. Here in Ajahn Brahm's tradition what is said is to simply establish mindfulness. (See Ven. Sujato's interpretation in What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?)
One way to judge what is the right interpretation if the instruction can be put to practice easily, after all these are meditation instructions. In this context both interpretations seem valid.
Also Suttas like Sammaditthi Sutta mentions the calming of verbal fabrication, i.e., calming of thinking and pondering. The beast is way to start this process is the develops concentration by anchoring your mind on a small fixed object like the centre of the upper lip.

Everybody is right. You need to decide what is right for you and which teacher you follow.
I practice Suizen (meditating by playing the Shakuhachi, a Japanese bamboo flute). My way to breath and my thinking about it - is it right or wrong? Who decides? Is it the right thing for you? Is your way of meditation the right thing for me? Is my teacher more right than Ajahn? Is Ajahn enlightened?
This all does not matter.
As a Shakuhachi player I am aware that I should not become attached to the Shakuhachi and to the specific practice. The practice itself is only the tool. You should not be attached to Samadhi meditation as well. It is only a tool.
Don't start making an "correctness order" in the different practices. Just chose yours. Otherwise it will not lead to anything.
Ajahn Brahm is a fantastic writer and certainly a wise person. There is so much more to learn from what he says than "just" the "location of the breath".
Finally I want to share this story/quote which I can only translate roughly, but impressed for me for years. I hope it inspires you as well.

The King invited Hannyatara (Bodhidharmas teacher) to practice Sutra. All practiced Sutra, but Hannyatara remained silent. "Why don't
  you practice?", the King asked. Hannyatara replied: "I practice the
  real Sutra at any time, with every breath I take"

In all honesty and with all due respect to the western philosophy and way of living, I'd say don't worry about it. It really doesn't matter. It's the wrong thing to bother about. I know with all the reading of techniques and people saying 1001 things about meditation, (what's that fad? Mindfulness?), we start scratching our heads. Also you'll see as you go on, you'll get a lot of contrasting opinions.
Just be. Don't think. (About this I mean).
To illustrate this, a very famous Zen story is available. 2 monks are standing next to a flag. They are arguing with each other about whether the flag is moving or wind. The sixth patriarch could not bear to see this and went to them and said, "the wind is not moving, the flag is not moving. The mind is."

Buddhist practise is about testing. You have to test the different methods for yourself.
Ultimately, Ajahn Brahm is right since Buddhist practise is about giving up craving. If you wish to meditate in a specific conditioned way with a specific conditioned goal, that is craving. But giving up craving is focusing in the unconditioned, which is Buddhist practise.
However, you don't have to believe me or Ajahn Brahm. Instead, try to watch your breathing at the nose-tip & see for yourself the results. In the short term, the mind will certainly become calm & tranquil but in the longer term the mind will become foggy, sleepy & confused.
Beginners can certainly watch the breath at the nose-tip. This is a good method for beginners to have a taste of peace. But, after time, it will cease to bring results because it is too conditioned & too coarse. The very effort to intentionally keep the mind at one point suppresses the mind. In true one-pointedness (ekkaggatta), the mind's energy gathers at one-point after the physical body has been calmed & purified of mental formations. To purify the body, there must be openness of mind rather than suppression.

With Reference to 'Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118)' there are 16 steps (of meditation). Please focus on the Seventh step: that is 'Experiencing the Breath as a mind object'.
Once the sixth step: Arousing Happiness, is established the breath appears to be disappear, and only stable peacefulness prevails.
Hence at the Seventh Step (Experiencing the Breath as a mind object): even though you are still breathing; breath is no longer being experienced as a touching feeling.
Here actually what happen is: we shift from feeling to knowing. That is 'feeling turns off' to 'mind turns on'. Technically called 'experiencing the chitta sankara' or knowing the 'breath' as an 'object'(of mind). Here we still aware of the breath, but in a different perspective.
Now you understand the argument of whether establishing a point to feel breath becomes immaterial when you proceed to the advance steps of the Anapanasati meditation.

I have thought about this a fair amount and have come to the following conclusion: Both methods are possible.
My reasoning is simple: there are teachers who appear to have advanced very far in meditation who advocate both methods. If one believes that Ajahn Brahm is telling the truth and speaking from experience, this means that it is possible to achieve all 8 levels of samadhi with his method--without being aware at the tip of the nose.
If one believes, e.g., Pa Auk Sayadaw is teaching from experience and telling the truth, then it seems that it is possible to achieve all 8 levels of samadhi with by focusing on the breath around the upper lip area/outside of the nostrils.
I think that it is highly likely that both of the assumptions are easy to make and therefore we should think either method is suitable for developing samadhi to its culmination. There may be certain advantages or disadvantages to either of these methods, perhaps in certain situations or for certain people. Such matters are interesting and should be investigated.
Update: The following is from Ajahn Brahm and was added in response to Dhammadhatu's concerns that I had misrepresented Ajahn Brahm's teaching. I think it is clear from the text that I have not. I have also watched many youtube videos of Brahm and to the best of my knowledge his view on this has not changed. The first of the two following quotations is repeated verbatim in the 2016 book Kindfulness by Ajahn Brahm.

Some teachers say to watch the breath at the tip of the nose, some say
  to watch it at the abdomen, and some say to move it here and then move
  it there. I have found through experience that it does not matter
  where you watch the breath. In fact it is best not to locate the
  breath anywhere. If you locate the breath at the tip of your nose then
  it becomes “nose awareness,” not breath awareness, and if you locate
  it at your abdomen then it becomes “abdomen awareness.” Just ask
  yourself right now: “Am I breathing in or breathing out? How do I
  know?” There! The experience that tells you what the breath is doing,
  that is what you focus on. Let go of the concern about where Some
  teachers say to watch the breath at the tip of the nose, some say to
  watch it at the abdomen, and some say to move it here and then move it
  there. I have found through experience that it does not matter where
  you watch the breath. In fact it is best not to locate the breath
  anywhere. If you locate the breath at the tip of your nose then it
  becomes “nose awareness,” not breath awareness, and if you locate it
  at your abdomen then it becomes “abdomen awareness.” Just ask yourself
  right now: “Am I breathing in or breathing out? How do I know?” There!
  The experience that tells you what the breath is doing, that is what
  you focus on. Let go of the concern about where this experience is
  located. Just focus on the experience itself.

Brahm (2006-08-10). Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook (p. 15). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

You are now asked to set up mindfulness “in front of you.” [parimukhaṃ...see Suminda's post in this thread] When the
  Buddha said “in front of you” he didn’t mean putting attention on the
  tip of your nose, or on your upper lip, or some place in front of your
  eyes. To put something in front means to make it important. So this
  preliminary instruction is to establish mindfulness by giving it
  priority.

Ibid., 82
In chapter 7 he explains that after sometime, one ceases to feel any sensation of the breath at all and relates to the breath purely as a mental object, then a nimitta arises and one takes that as the object at the appopriate moment.

Thanks adamokkha.  That is very helpful.  Which do you choose?

@Wolfie, I do both but I will probably focus more on the upper lip method as it is advocated by two teachers that I have worked with a fair amount.

Adamokkha. Respectfully, your post about Ajahn Brahm is not correct. Ajahn Brahm is not saying it is possible to achieve all 8 levels of samadhi without being aware at the tip of the nose. Instead, there is a phase of the meditation when the mind naturally is aware at the tip of the nose. On the path to the 1st jhana, the mind will focus at only the tip of the nose at a certain time. What Ajahn Brahm is saying is the method to to achieve all 8 levels of samadhi is not a deliberate effort to watch the nose. To start meditation by watching the tip of the nose is like trying to climb Mt Everest from its peak. Kind regards.

I have added content to my post below in response to this comment. The view I attributed to Ajahn Brahm is, I think, very clearly supported by the text I quoted. If you have any source material that suggests that his view has changed on this matter, or if he contradicts this somewhere else, then that would be worth reading. I have never seen or heard him say anything that supports the view you attribute to him.

Thanks to both of you.  I think both of you may be correct....I have found that when I do not try to localize the breath, and then reach access concentration, my mind is drawn to trying to find a "spot"... Perhaps tip of the nose?

I was not referring to anything I know Ajahn Brahm said about the nose-tip. I am simply explaining the reality of meditation. When the mind eventually reaches 'ekaggatta', it must lock onto a localised point & established a centredness there. However, it is impossible to start from the nose-tip & reach jhana from there. Regards

Ajahn Brahm states in MIndfulness Bliss & Beyond: "The breath appears to fade away as the mind focuses instead on what is at the center of the experience of breath.." Here, Ajahn Brahm is explaining approaching ekkaggata & the nimitta. However, this is jhana level. On the level of neighbourhood concentration, the nimitta will not arise. Instead, the mind will gather on the breath at the nose-tip. But as  I originally posted, you will only learn which method is proper by the results achieved. Best wishes.

Dhammadhatu When you say: "...the Nimitta will not arise"...do you mean the Nimitta will not arise in neighbourhood concentration? Or that the Nimitta will not arise if in neighborhood concentration if you do not focus on the tip of the nose??

Yes. The real deal Nimitta will not arise in neighbourhood concentration (although there can be fuzzy lights). The real deal Nimitta will only arise in attainment concentration (jhana). However, the mind will naturally converge onto the nostril breath in neighbourhood concentration. I have heard Ajahn Brahm (in a Youtube) cast doubt upon neighbourhood concentration. This is possibly because he had such a high degree of natural spirituality that his mind entered jhana straight away when he became a monk. Real neighbourhood concentration is profound (& liberating) just as jhana is more profound.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What can I do to help avoid laxity while meditating lying down?
My upper back muscles are not strong enough yet to support seated meditation, so I use supine/savanana posture sometimes. My mind falls into short dream states, like hypnagogia, very easily in this posture, however.
Any tips for overcoming this laxity while doing supine meditation? I am only doing samatha meditation these days.

The Meditation on Falling to Sleep:
We can be on mindful guard for the arising of the moment we  start to fall asleep. This mindfulness should stop the falling asleep and can give an  initial boost in the meditation faculties like effort and concentration so we  won't fall asleep as much and we can then better practice whatever we want with those improved faculties and wakefulness.
We can know when we are starting to fall asleep by finding and tuning into were  the bodily or mental experiences are that we know always happen right before we start to fall asleep. We then  can easily catch when we will  start to fall asleep.

When you are falling asleep or getting drowsy there is a feeling associated with it (mild uncomfortable heaviness or tightness around your head). Concentrate on this sensation analysing is in terms of Mahābhūta or type of sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), in this case it is mildly unpleasant. Also you level of awareness is diminishing, so focus on any sensation and actively keeps directing your awareness to any sensation you can feel, continuously evaluating to see if there any lapse of awareness and redirecting your attention to sensations that can be felt.
Also see:

Pacalā Sutta
How to remove dullness of mind, without sitting meditation, in regular activity?
How is the faculty of persistence developed?
problems with meditation in the morning
Which Hindrances are counteracted or enhance by the 37 and Jhana Factors?

When using a supine position the trick is to be comfortable without being so comfortable that one falls asleep or enters that subconscious state. I would recommend trying two positions and one form of breathing. First, the way people usually breath without thinking about it is through the chest. Try breathing with the diaphragm, allowing the belly to rise and fall. This type of breathing takes more concentration making one more mindful of the breath regardless of the meditative position assumed. Second, let's consider the two most likely to succeed positions. Lie down on the floor (beds ARE for sleeping) with your legs bent and your toes turned inward toward the center so that your legs do not flop open as you relax. Arms slightly away from the body with palms up. No pillow for the head. Jaw relaxed with tongue resting on the roof of the mouth. Eyes open to discourage sleepiness. Unless this is your normal sleeping position, you should be able to remain mindful during your meditation. The other position is to turn on your side with your arm crooked to rest your head. Your other arm should be resting on your side. Place a small tubular pillow under your shoulder for support. It is alright to move your arm occasionally for comfort, and then resume your meditative position. Again breath from your diaphragm, and jaw/tongue as described above, eyes open. A blanket may be used to lie on if you do not have carpeting.

Samatha meditation is based on mindfulness and the path from calm (samatha) to insight (vipassanā) so it is very important so you must make sure you are relaxed and feeling comfortable when meditating.
There are two important points in meditation -- the body and the mind, so you will need to make sure you body feels good when you meditate.
It is important to keep the body straight so that the subtle channels of the body will be straight, too. If these subtle channels are straight, then the subtle energies within these channels will circulate freely. It is said that the mind is like a horse riding the circulation of the subtle energies of the body. When it is riding this energy freely, it is relaxed and peaceful.
The fivepoint description is usually used to help with this:

The first point is that the body should be straight and upright. It
should be "as straight as an arrow" which means one's back should be
straight and one shouldn't lean forwards, backwards, or to either
side.
The second point is that the throat should be slightly bent downwards
like a hook. There are two subtle channels inside the throat, and if
they are bent slightly forward, the energy will circulate in them
reducing mental agitation in one's meditation.
The third point is that the legs should be crossed in "patterns of
latticework" which means that the legs should be kept in a crossed
position. If one can put them in the full lotus posture, good. If
not, simply cross them in the half lotus posture.
The fourth point is the body should be "gathered together like
chains." After straightening the body, lock it in that position as
with iron shackles. The way to do this is to join the hands, placing
them the width of four fingers below the navel.
The fifth point is to keep one's mind and body reasonably tight
exerting a certain amount of effort so the body and mind are composed
and focused. This is compared to one's tongue when one, for example,
pronounces the Tibetan letters "li" and "ri" which requires a certain
amount of tension in the tongue. In the same way, one should always
maintain a certain amount of effort and alertness in the body and
mind.

The great teacher, Marpa, said that there are many different instructions on meditation posture, but he preferred this fivepoint posture saying that if one could keep the body in this posture, the subtle energy circulating in the body would be ideal and would actually circulate though the central channel of the body.

Your answer in very concise and informative, but does not answer the question. Would you care to add to your answer in order to address the question that was asked?

Only essential is the body should be straight and upright.

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


text:
What are some of the best practices for generating loving kindness?
I came across many lectures from Ram Dass/Richard Alpert in the beginning of my meditation practice about a month ago, and I found the attitudes toward life and other people he espoused very liberating and were a good complement to the attention-focusing practice of samatha. I haven't found any good resources in the Buddhist school for something similar to Bhakti yoga a la Ram Dass. Moreover, even in Bhakti yoga, I haven't found and specific meditative practices to help bring about that very open, loving state of mind that listening to the lectures inspired.
Any recommendations for Buddhist resources similar to what Ram Dass put out? I just feel more comfortable in the Buddhist framework. Also, any specific meditations for generating that feeling?

Ven. Nanamoli's "Practice of Loving-Kindness" is strongly recommended: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html

There's also a wonderful book by His Holiness' the Dalai Lama, How to Expand Love. Very clear step-by-step reflections.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Expand-Love-Widening-Relationships/dp/0743269691

Any recommendations for Buddhist resources similar to what Ram Dass put out?

I do not know about Ram Dass hence might not be similar but try:

"A Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation" by Bhante Vimalaramsi
Knowing and Seeing by Ven Pa Auk Sayadaw
The Practice of Loving-Kindness


text:
What is useless/meaningless speech?
An elaborated answer on meaningless speech as in ten unwholesome acts is expected

In addition found in Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta there are 32 types of chatter which is called animal chatter which falls under the category of idle / frivolous chatter:

Rajakatha – Talk about kings
Corakatha – Talk about robbers
Mahamatta katha – Talk about ministers of state
Senakatha – Talk about armies
Bhayakatha – Talk about dangers
Yuddhakatha – Talk about battles
Annakatha – Talk about food
Panakatha – Talk about drinks
Vatthakatha – Talk about clothing
Sayanakatha – Talk about dwellings
Malakatha – Talk about garlands
Gandhakatha – Talk about perfumes
Natikatha – Talk about relations
Yanakatha – Talk about vehicles
Gamakatha – Talk about villages
Nigamakatha -Talk about market towns
Nagarakatha – Talk about towns
Janapadakatha – Talk about districts
Itthikatha – Talk about women/men
Surakatha – Talk about heroes
Visakhakatha – Talk about streets
Kumbhatthanakatha – Talk about watering places
Pubbapeta-katha – Talk about relatives who have passed away
Nanattakatha – Tittle-tattle
Lokakkhayika katha – talk about the origin of the world
Samuddakkhayikakatha – Talk about the origin of the ocean
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about Eternity belief
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about annihilation belief
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about worldly gain
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about worldly loss
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about self-indulgence
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about self-mortification

Sourced from: Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk which is an adaptation from Venerable Ledi Sayadaw’s Magganga-Dipani: The Manual of The Constituents of the Noble Path.
Instead of memorizing specific type of talk you can discern what it idle chatter through the fundamentals, i.e.,:

is not beneficial,
not relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life,
does not leads to revulsion,
does not leads to dispassion,
does not leads to cessation,
does not leads to peace,
does not leads to direct knowledge,
does not leads to enlightenment,
does not leads to Nibbana

Adopted from: Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk
... or in general context ...

he speaks at the wrong time,
what is false,
what is not connected with the goal [unbeneficial],
what is not the teaching [Dharma]1,
what is not the discipline [Vinaya];
he speaks words not worth treasuring,
baseless,
undefined [rambling],
not connected with the goal

... or more succinctly, chatter in which, unwholesome states increase and
wholesome states decrease.
See: Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta and answer by @ChrisW
Also talk you should engage in:

Talk about wanting little,
about contentment,
seclusion,
solitude,
energetic striving,
virtue,
concentration,
insight,
release,
release by knowing and seeing

In addition the Buddha mentions you should talk about the 4 Noble Truths as this lead to:

is beneficial,
relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life,
leads to revulsion,
leads to dispassion,
leads to cessation,
leads to peace,
leads to direct knowledge,
leads to enlightenment,
leads to Nibbana

Adopted from: Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk
... or in general context ...

he speaks at the right time,
what is true,
what is connected with the goal [beneficial],
what is the teaching1,
what is the discipline;
he speaks words worth treasuring,
well-founded,
well-defined [not rambling],
connected with the goal

... or more succinctly, chatter in which, unwholesome states decrease and wholesome states increase.
See: Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta and answer by @ChrisW

Several suttas contain this list but all of them list only 27. However, as usual, the Commentators obsessed with splitting hairs have stretched it to 32 by splitting the last one into 6.
The name "Detis Katha" is also theirs. The Suttas called the original ones "Tirracchana katha" which literally means ‘animal talk’.
Incidentally this list is not for us to learn and remember. These topics are for avoiding. Several suttas say that we should instead be discussing only the Noble Truth.

Source: Dethis Katha (32 types of unskillful talks) by user Gayan
Furthermore the blog Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk has comprehensive treatment of this topic.

1
Regarding skillful and unskillful chattering regarding the Dhamma there is 8:

This Dhamma is for reducing desire, not for increasing desire.
This Dhamma is for increasing contentment, not for increasing
discontentment.
This Dhamma is for cultivating seclusion, not for becoming sociable.
This Dhamma is for becoming energetic, not for becoming lazy.
This Dhamma is for developing mindfulness, not developing
unmindfulness.
This Dhamma is for developing composure, not for making
restlessness.
This Dhamma is for increasing wisdom, not for decreasing wisdom.
This Dhamma is for delighting in freedom from impediments, not
for delighting in impediment.

Sourced from: Eight Great Noble Thoughts and Papanca [proliferation] and Nippapanca [non-proliferation]

To not talk about the origin of the world is not to talk about the agganna sutta. Or is it about the origin of the universe?

Discussing about  Agganna Sutta does not help in realising the 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination or Conditional Relations, so this is in many contexs not very useful to dwell on it too much. The Buddha preached it seeing some value perhaps to the original and perhaps others also.

It's detailed in M. 114 which is translated as follows (see page 147, i.e. page 11/31 of the PDF):

(10) SPEAKING FRIVOLOUSLY. Furthermore, he chatters frivolously [utters useless talk]—
  he speaks at the wrong time, what is false, what is not connected with the goal [unbeneficial],
  what is not the teaching [Dharma], what is not the discipline [Vinaya];
  at the wrong time, he speaks words not worth treasuring, baseless, undefined [rambling],
  not connected with the goal.

... and page 148 (i.e. page 12/31 of the PDF):

(14) NOT SPEAKING FRIVOLOUSLY. Having given up frivolous chatter, he refrains from frivolous chatter—
  he speaks at the right time, what is true, what is connected with the goal [beneficial],
  what is the teaching, what is the discipline;
  he speaks words worth treasuring, at the right time, well-founded, well-defined [not rambling],
  connected with the goal

Various copies of the definition of the Kamma Patha (for example here) say,

Both lists occur repeatedly, e.g. in A.X.28, 176; M.9; they are explained in detail in M.114, and in Com. to M.9 (R. Und., p. 14), Atthasālini Tr. I, 126ff.

I copied the "explanation in detail from M 114" above, you might find further commentary in the others of these references.


text:
Hard not to control my breathing
For the record I'm new to meditation.
I'm trying to observe my breathing without controlling it. That was the guidance from someone I met at a buddhist meeting.
Though sometimes I just ralize that I do change the frequency and deepness of it. I don't want to do it, just happens.
Is it just me or it will be better with practice?

Don't try to force or control anything, observe and just note it and continue.
It's not that much important how your body reacts to your meditation, but how you deal with these bodily reactions. Yes, there will always be some bodily reactions that will distract you from meditation, but the point is to not get distracted and just remain in the "present moment".
With practice you will be less distracted, until you won't be distracted any more. Practice diligently and you shell rip the rewards soon.

That sounds like bad advise if you are practicing insight meditation. This answer assumes the practice in question is insight meditation.
"You" don't control the breath.
I had this same question when I was starting out and the teacher basically said "You don't control the breath so there is no problem, just keep seeing things as they are moment by moment".
For me, it was just a matter of losing my wrong view that I had to be concerned that I'm controlling the breath. If I'm thinking that I'm controlling the breath then I would focus my mindful awareness on this thinking(instead of worrying that I was controlling the breathing).

Could you say some more about the 'bad advice if you're practicing insight meditation"?

For the record I'm new to meditation. I'm trying to observe my breathing without controlling it. That was the guidance from someone I met at a buddhist meeting.

On objective of meditation is to calm the fabrication. By controlling you are, in some instances, you will be creating fabrications.

Though sometimes I just realize that I do change the frequency and deepness of it.

This you should be careful not to do. There is a stage in Anapanasati you have to calm the breath, but in this instance also you just have to intention to calm but not the action to calm, hence you are not doing any action to calm it.

I don't want to do it, just happens. Is it just me or it will be better with practice?

If it happens naturally then it is OK. The depth of the breath change generally becoming shorter but some cases if there through disturbances this might become deeper.
Also see:

Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Ānâpāna,sati Sutta

A simple and practical solution for occurance of own control of breathing is intentionally stop fabricated breathing for few moments and observe. Then you will be able to sense that the body (spontaneous neural discharge from the brain to nerves that innervate respiratory muscles) automatically start breathing process after few seconds of tolarance period. Now you can start observing the natural breathing. Most teachers dictate to make several deep breaths before start the meditation in order to make an exact understanding of the touching point in the breathing channel. This practice leads for some novice practioners to unknowingly continue the same practice of fabricated breathing. But we should always endeavour to 'let it go' and become just an observer without interventions or conclusions. This may be called 'Choiceless Awareness'. May the Noble Triple Gem Bless You

While you control your breathing or focus to your whole body, you losing to focus the breath at nose's tip point. So the right practice is not control your breath or focus to your whole body, but just discerns your breath at the nose's tip point. And do not focus the nose's tip or nose's tip touching, just focus on the entire breath that touching at only nose's tip, not whole respiratory:
The ānāpānassati-pabba is sequences of practice:

Monitoring the breath:

"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'

Then the breath going to be fainter and shorter:

Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.'

Then the breath maybe disappear because of the practitioner's weak mindfulness, breath still going on but he can't see it. So he has to train his mindfulness to be stronger mindful on fainter and shorter breath by making more focus on breath's touching point, the tip of nose:

He trains himself, 'I must sensitively discerns the entire breathing when I will breathe' He trains himself, 'I must sensitively discerns the entire breathing when I will breathe.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming breath.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming breath.'

For more the tricks of 1st step, when the practitioner forget to focus on breath, the 2nd step, when the breath disappear, you can see in the path of purification, ānāpānassatikathā, CH. VIII (9) Mindfulness of Breathing 259.
There is a trick in mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta ānāpānapabba's commentary, too.
Note 1: Touching is not breath. Breath appear because of breath touching at nose's tip. So, the practitioner focusing on only breath at only nose's tip, not on touching or nose's tip.
Note 2: Also, breath appear at the whole respiratory, such as throat or lung, but don't focus on it, because the practitioner practicing concentration meditation, so too much breath touching point will make the practitioner distraction.

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


text:
Is it possible to use meditation to gain Self control?
I have planed my life and want to stick to it . But the problem is
My self control .
For example I tend to waste a lot of my time in youtube watching documentaries .
You know it starts like I 'am going to do this for only 30 minuets and then loose the rest of the day watching videos or etc.
I was wondering if meditating on my future goals could help .
And I mean doing something like imagining how it would feel if achieved my goals and then imagining the consequences of wasting my time or uncontrolled life .
Is this a good method to gain self control and achive my goals ?
Is there anything else I can do ?

Self control of gained through mastery over the mind, i.e., developing Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in the Noble Eightfold Path.
The lack of mastery over the mind would lead to you losing the sense of time when doing this activity. One thing you can do is be aware you are are doing this and the sensation that watching videos bring. It is the feeling and sensation of excitement and the intellectual stimulation documentaries bring which keeps you doing what you are doing. If you get less attached to this you find it easy to switch to another task. So be mindful if what you are watching is perceived as or evaluate as positive (intellectually stimulating, interesting, keeping you in suspense to know more, etc.), negative or neutral and the sensations that follow which are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, maintaining utmost equanimity, and being aware of the arising and passing of what is felt (the particular sensation / feeling that is felt). [Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Pahāna Sutta]
In addition to the above, at a more mundane level, it would be helpful the be mindful of the time as well by having a clock placed near the screen which can help you keep track of time.

Sila also helps to control the mind right? Sila helps to denourish remorse, doubt which are hindrances etc and get more control

No. Don't expect anything from meditation. The moment you start expecting some results like self control or universe control, you're lost. You will keep thinking of result that you desire (that is control) because the mind is such a thing. You will end up not meditating and you will end up not being peaceful. Mind should only used to help you carry out an activity in the world.
Self and Control are paradoxical terms. Don't control yourself like that. If you want to be free and watch YouTube videos, and the same you wants to also control the watching of YouTube videos, do you see how it's a paradox? You are contradicting yourself.

Can you explain more about "Mind should only used to help you carry out an activity in the world"

I think you can both want to watch and not watch videos since the different choices have different merets . But at the end you should choose which one is the best choice . And you can make a mistake since probabily at that moment you are not completely mindful of ALL the cosequances of your action for example you are only mindful about 10 percent of what will happen . So the person makes a mistake. But when you think about it at the end and again you revaluate the choices and get the right answer .and then you know you have made a mistake so maybe being mindful and meditating CAN actualy help.

If you say so. You just said it. The actions have different merits. If you really understand that, you'll do it anyway. You'll do the action with whatever merit you desire. With or without meditation. By all means, do it. Nobody is stopping you. But just don't be under the impression that it is some great supernatural power that you will manifest and you will get so called control. That's all I am saying.

You're just adding layers by taking meditation as a separate entity. You can meditate by simply doing your necessary tasks. There is truly nothing to try in meditation.  It just is.

It sounds like mindfulness would be more useful to you than meditation. Mindfulness is the art of being in the present moment, and it is often assisted with things like a "mindfulness bell" at certain intervals, to help remind you to come back to the present.
I have known insight meditation in combination with mindfulness to yield some good results in staying grounded in the present, as it will give you insight into the working of your mind and help resolve some of the root causes of your distraction.
You should also investigate the 'perfection' of viriya. This is one of the ten perfections of Mahayana Buddhism, it is the art of acting with vigour and using strenuous effort to overcome unskillful ways, such as overindulgence in sensual things, ill will and other problems. There are sutra's on how to stay focussed and how to spark energy in you if you are overcome with lethargy and mindlessness.

Meditation will help you better focus on important/meaningful goals that will do good in your life. Meditation helps an individual in many ways, they can reduce their stress, anger, hatred, even helps you to study well. In your case, according to your problem you can do Vipassana Meditation, it will really help you. You have to really think and meditate concentrating on your goal and should be done in a quiet environment.

Yes. It is possible to gain self-control through meditation & it is a good method. Even I started just like you had trouble in the start but it pays off at the end.
The best way to get an answer to any question is to ask yourself questions. In this case ask yourself what do like to do in below cases?
1) You have a port in which only 1 ship can dock and two ships want to dock at your port out of which one is good ship which is friendly & will bring peace & if other docks then it will spoil or damage your port. So which ship you will allow?
2) There are two hungry wolves. One wolf is friendly & always assists you in daily life and other wolf is dangerous & unpredictable. Which wolf will you feed?
3) Would you like to be on a boat which has no map route, no controller to guide it and no destination in mind.
Mind is just like the port where we have good & bad thoughts, ego, envy, jealousy,etc. Its upon us to decide what should be allowed to anchored at our port(i.e. mind), same goes for the wolf case. So there's no question if its a good method or not. Its totally personal preference & how good you practice it. Self-control is really beneficial for growth & goal achievements.
Doing meditation can help you in many ways:
1) Help you living in the present & stopped worrying about past & future(which is a great feeling if you experience it).
2) Knowing what's happening around.
3) Having sense of time while doing things.
4) You begin to see, hear, feel, realize those things which you haven't experienced before.
5) Being able to focus on a task undistracted for hours with productivity being greater than those times when being distracted.

I think it's helpful to know that Buddhism is described as a "threefold training" -- virtue, mind, and wisdom.

If meditation is mostly "mind", perhaps self-control is more to do with "virtue".
They are related but it is worth knowing that there is more to Buddhism than only meditation.
One of the things that will eventually help self-control is "wisdom" (right view): when you (more or less correctly) "view" the worth or worthlessness, the benefit or non-benefit, of a behaviour (e.g. of "waste a lot of my time in youtube watching documentaries") then you might modify that behaviour ... because you'll want to do more of what's beneficial and less of what it isn't.
Self-control is related to "virtue". The five precepts are (just) a beginning in terms of what's virtuous ... all necessary but maybe not sufficient. For laypeople there are suttas which describe what a virtuous lay life can look like (e.g. the Sigalovada Sutta and others) -- activity that's contrary to these suggestions (for example, "compulsive gambling") is probably un-virtuous (and regrettable) even though it doesn't break one of the five precepts.
Virtue might be related to meditation. I've read that when you start to meditate, you'll be disturbed if you're not virtuous: that it's important to get the "virtue" part of the practice happening in your life, perhaps even before you meditate. So maybe it's not that virtue (including self-control) results from meditation, it's that virtue enables meditation. Maybe the causal chain is more (approximately) like this:

Virtue (having done right, and developing self-control) enables Mind (meditation)
Mind (meditation) helps to change your views and reactions e.g. Wisdom
Wisdom (right view) helps to cause beneficial behaviour and self-control i.e. Virtue

I have found this sutta helpful, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose?

"What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
Etc.

If something causes you remorse ("I wish I didn't waste a lot of my time in youtube watching documentaries, I regret having wasted it") then you might think something like, "This is remorse ... and instead of feeling this remorse again in future, to gain freedom from remorse, t would be better to develop the 'skillful virtue' of practicing more beneficial activities instead." When the occasion arises again, you might remember, "If I start watching youtube again as I did before then I will eventually feel remorse again, so make a different decision (do something different instead of falling into a repeat of that regrettable behaviour) this time."

Furthermore, apart from meditation there are mundane tools you could choose to use to affect your worldly behaviour. If you want to wake early, for example, you can use an alarm clock. If you don't want to watch youtube you can configure your computer to block connections to youtube. You might find it easier or helpful to avoid entering a situation where bad/addictive behaviour is an option/temptation.

Also (and I know this wasn't the question you were asking) but "I have planned my life and want to stick to it" could possibly be a mistake ... it might imply ego, and attachment, and self-view (see the answers to this question).
Another reason it might be a mistake: imagine a child who says, "I have planned my life and want to stick to it"! Being a child, they don't know. Similarly if/while we're unenlightened then we don't know.
Another reason it might be a mistake: the situation that we're in changes, and is to some extent outside our control. So a plan that's made for today might not be so appropriate/applicable tomorrow.

Is it possible to use meditation to gain Self control?
I would like to define the words meditation and 'Self control' before answering the question.
Definition of meditate is: Focus one’s mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious or spiritual purposes or as a method of relaxation [Oxford Dictionaries]
Self-control: The ability to control oneself, in particular one’s emotions and desires, especially in difficult situations [Oxford Dictionaries]
According to the above definition meditation and self-control are not related.
So my answer to the question is no.


text:
What is the proper Vajra Guru mantra?
I see "Om ah hung vajra guru pema siddhi hung" but also "Om ah hum vajra guru padma siddhi hum".
I know the first is Sanskrit mixed with Tibetan and the latter is pure Sanskrit. I also am aware that it is about how the Tibetans pronounce Sanskrit.
Is one preferred or more authentic? Is it up to the individual?
Any elucidation on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

The Tibetan version is OM AH HUM BENZA GURU PEMA SIDDHI HUM I believe.

First, the spelling of the mantra in Devanagari ("Sanskrit") and Tibetan scripts:

Transliteration: oṃ āḥ hūṃ vajra-guru padma-siddhi hūṃ

Transliteration: oṃ āḥ hūṃ badzra-guru padma-siddhi hūṃ
The following two characters differ (Tibetan script followed by IPA): བ = /ba/, ཛ = /dza/. Why is that? There's no व "va" in the native Tibetan alphabet, so the options are ཝ "wa" or བ "ba". In this case, "ba" has been chosen. Letter ཛ /dza/, instead of the native "ja" ཇ /dʒa/, is commonly used to transliterate the Devanagari ज "ja", being phonetically closer (although not identical). The spelling of "padma" is identical, however in Tibetan the pronunciation becomes "pema". Likewise "badzra" becomes "benza", non-native Sanskrit conjuncts like "dzr" often morph like that. The literal spelling "pema" has also entered some Tibetan texts, though I haven't seen it used for this particular transliteration.
There are also variations (regional/lineage/historical) of the actual pronunciation in Tibetan, so the answer to your question, "which version is more authentic", depends largely on "according to whom". Undoubtedly each Tibetan lineage will hold that their version is the preferred one. If you should find an Indian Vajrayana practitioner from a native lineage, they would probably prefer the Sanskritic version. If you happened to find a heir to the Mahasiddhas of early medieval Bengal, chances are they'd prefer you muttering "bojro-guru podmo-siddhi" instead. To each their own, I say, and all success.
"Is it up to the individual?" Again, it depends. If you follow a traditional Lama who has inherited a certain version, then that's probably what you are expected to emulate. (Be aware that Roman transliterations in Tibetan writings available in English are often approximate, if not crude, and non-standardized. Find a recording and follow that if you want to have it 100% per the source.) If you follow your own lead, then yes, surely it is up to you, and your experience, which variant you may prefer.
If you're a lonely rider on the path to nowhere, you will want to burrow into the effects of each version and try to pin down the mind-space and energy impact conjured by each variant, along with the syllables when individually uttered. (This is worthy practice with any mantra and in any case.)
The greatest benefit follows from no particular pronunciation, but from the skill of entering the mantra and deploying it as a medium for entering the "lotus-born diamond-master" space of awareness, flanked by the energies of the seed-syllables — and in due course embodying all that yourself.

For anyone needing it, the unicode devanagiri is ॐ आः हूं वज्र गुरु पद्म सिद्धि हूं

The pure Sanskrit is the best from my subjective experience. Remember Padmasambhava was Indian and although he was an Indian Buddhist,  he came from the Brahmin caste, was a sadhu , and he carries Rudra / Shiva's  Trishula ( Trident ) and an Aghori skull cap. Both very powerful symbols  of Himalayan Shaivism.  There is something very unique about Padmasambhava , for my intuition tells me his Ishta Dev was Rudra.

The Sanskirt version is best one to practice. The other ones sound too nasally and the feeling in my body when I practice different.
"Ohm a hum vajra guru padma siddhi hum" x3
That being said, it is a mantra referring to a Tibetan saint/reincarnation of Gautama... so maybe the Tibetan pronunciation would be more powerful.. I haven't practiced that one long enough to know.

Alexander is correct on the Tibetan and you are close on the other Sanskrit version, but the words are out of order.  OM AH HUNG VAJRA GURU PEMA SIDDHI HUNG is the order of the one you refer to in your question. However, both are actually Sanskrit. It is just a different arrangement of essentially the same words. Both are equally correct, just from different cultural aspects.


text:
Translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"
Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of Pointing Out the Great Way, says this (emphasis added)...

The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which
  could also be rendered as “reactivity.” For, as we experience events
  unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the
  ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is
  experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the
  event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In
  Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as
  clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are
  called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark
  every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure
  the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the
  fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism
  defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the
  way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified
  and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated.

My question: Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"?
Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha.

'Dukkha' means 'suffering', that is, mental torment, i.e., a lack of peace. So "reactivity" is certain a type of dukkha since reactivity is disturbing, tormenting & not peaceful. However, other mental experiences are also "dukkha", such as sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. Reactivity or mental concocting is one kind of dukkha (called sankhara-dukkha; see SN 38.14; "stressfulness of fabricating") but it is not a translation of the word "dukkha". "Dukkha" means "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".

Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"?
No I don't think so. Philologically I think of dukkha as being originally an antonym of sukha --

Sukha is a Sanskrit and Pali word that is often translated happiness, ease, pleasure or bliss.

Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains
Yes I think so.
It might make more sense the other way around: to say "reactivity is dukkha" rather than "dukkha is reactivity". Saying "reactivity is dukkha" might not be too surprising, given that everything is dukkha i.e. dukkha is one of the Three marks of existence:

sabbe saṅkhāra dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"

I think that "reactivity" is one example of a saṅkhāra (e.g. "reactivity" a combination of a "reactor" with a "thing-which-it-reacts-to").

As I understand reactivity is incessant and chaotic mind response to external stimuli (through senses ofcourse). But reactivity cannot be called suffering because it is the root cause of suffering. Mind impacts body in a negative way. Mind also impacts emotional health badly.  When mind (desire) causes action it is past (I am) or future oriented (I want to be). Certain actions are caused by body e.g. intake of food. Many actions originates in Heart for example a song or a painting. These actions will not be the cause of suffering because you will not loose awareness while performing these actions.
Mind's natural condition is to be silent and work only when needed. Right now a civilized man's mind work all the time for no reason. This 24/7 schedule is the main reason why modern man is an unhappy lot.
I think Brown has gone a bit overboard by defining reactivity as suffering (Dukkha).

When you have contact your consciousness react with some sensation or the other. If the sensation is unpleasant it is unsatisfactory, it is pleasant and changes or ends it is still unsatisfactory and if is neutral it is still unsatisfactory as wholesome and unwholesome roots which create future sensation are still present and the process of rebirth continues. If you crave to any of the sensations then you create suffering for the future, but if you are equanimous the seed of past karma which gave fruit will not find fertile ground to give results in the future. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta]
So your ingrained habitual reaction to contact creates sensation which in turn creates sensation which lead to unsatisfactoriness with the contact and potential to create unsatisfactoriness is the future. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta] If you develop equanimity in the face of pleasant and unpleasant sensations than craving and aversion and wisdom in the face of neutral sensation, than the habitual reaction then you can overcome in contact with sense objects, will prevent future occurrence of unsatisfactoriness. [Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2]
I feel the authors is relating his understanding that the habitual reaction is what keep you rolling in misery in the future and this tendency to react creates misery now, but I feel the rendering is inaccurate as it is explaining causality by equating a result to the case, i.e., if A causes B then A is B, which is not the most right way to understand it. In my point of view "reactivity underlies dukkha" would be a better rendering.
Some of the description above are based on:

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it

Pahāna Sutta

the latent tendency of lust should be abandoned in regard to pleasant feeling;
the latent tendency of aversion should be abandoned in regard to painful feeling;
the latent tendency of ignorance should be abandoned in regard to neutral feeling.

Avijja Pahana Sutta 2


text:
Are the Sins in dreams, sins?
Background: Recently when I was in the deep sleep I saw some dreams, which showed that I am going against the five precepts.
For Instance, I lied somebody. I felt that as I lie in real life; I remember that I planned about revealing disinformation and creatively managed the flow of false information.
If it was a real situation I may not act in such way.
Is this scenario really cause to break the fourth precept?
As we know, dreams are born based on the feelings of our subconscious mind. Therefore, Isn't it my own fault to see such a dream?

Other than in situation you are in deep sleep (bhavanga) you create Kamma. Since when you are dreaming you are still creating karma as you cannot dream in deep sleep. These are not very strong or deep kamma and in most cases may not give any results and if they do they will be very mild (maybe like an itch which we might experience then the result comes). They do not have potent to create a new rebirth. For this to happen it should be backed by action or word giving desired result. More particularly:

The statement must be untrue.
There must be an intention to deceive.
An effort must be made to deceive.
The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Kamma creation to a dream is based on reaction you can react:

pleasant dream you react with craving
unpleasant dream you can react with aversion
neutral dream you are still deluded

These reaction can lead to mental kamma.
In many cases as these kamma has very little potent, it can be ignored held there is no kamma created due to dreaming like in this answer.
Additional references that might be of interest:

The Unconscious an essay by Piya Tan
Unconscious Views an essay by Piya Tan
Anusaya an essay by Piya Tan
Vinnana an essay by Piya Tan
Vedana an essay by Piya Tan

According to Buddhism, to do a sin, you have to consciously do something using your body, speech or using sitha.
In a dream you are not doing anything consciously. Therefore simply you can not sin in dreams.


text:
Did Buddha ever deny the existence of God?
I heard that when Buddha was asked about God, he kept silent.
Although perhaps in Buddhism nothing really exists, did Buddha ever deny the existence of God?
Hasn't he really never spoken about God?

God as in a creator of the universe including humans animals and 'souls', as believed by Christians (Jehova), Muslims (Allah) and Hindus (Maha Brahma)?

"Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.' - Brahmajāla Sutta DN 1 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

@KaveengaWijayasekara Please post answers as an answer instead of as a comment. Comments are for when you don't understand the question.

Here: Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?
"There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all without cause & without condition.

Also here: A Discourse to Knowers of Veda -- Tevijja Sutta

“And just even so, VāseMMha, though you say that the Brahmans are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen, and you further say that neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmā. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmā is. Yet
  these Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen! Now, what think you, VāseMMha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?”
VāseMMha, is there a single one of the Brahmans versed in the three Vedas who
  has ever seen Brahmā face to face?”

The Pali Canon refers to "God" (as distinct from gods) in several places. When the Buddha became enlightened, at first he hesitated to teach others, because he thought that his realization was too subtle and profound for others to understand. Recognizing what a great loss this would be to the world, God (in the form of Sahampati, chief of the Brahma world) appeared to the Buddha and entreated him to teach, much as Ananda entreated the Buddha to admit women to the sangha. Sahampati was very happy when the Buddha relented, something very difficult for devas to do, because he earned a lot of merit by inducing the Buddha to teach.
God is also mentioned in connection with a monastic's search for the place where the elements cease as I recall. The monastic concentrated his mind and travelled in his mental body to the Brahma world, where Brahma appears as a broken record, mindlessly affirming his own divinity much like the Wizard of Oz. Privately taking the monastic aside, the chief of the Brahma realm explained that he did not know the answer to the question and recommended that the monastic ask the Buddha.
Finally, the suttas explain that the notion of God arose as a result of the formation of a new universe, which appears out of a state of potentiality after the collapse of the previous universe. The first being to be reborn in such a universe sees that he is the first such being and the delusion arises in him that he is the creator of the universe. Subsequent beings are reborn as well, and they see that there was a first being, and the delusion arises in them that he is God. This is how religion (= theisim) arises.
One need not take these stories literally or historically to realize that they communicate real underlying theological ideas.

Buddha never denied nor confirmed because he never wanted his followers to believe in anything. His approach was very scientific. Until and unless one experiences Brahma, God etc how can one claim its existence. But unfortunately Buddhists around the world started believing in theories and interpretation. How does it matter whether there is a God or not? What matters is that life is one big suffering and one needs to get out. This intellectual discussion is what Buddha wanted to stay away. Nothingness is a metaphor which describes arising of coarse from finer thing. If one studies physics one will come to know that matter is not a thing. Matter is a shape which your senses perceive but in reality matter is just a condensed field. That is why when you split sub-atomic particles you get smaller particles and there is no end to it. Physicists are trying to fundamental particles but I doubt they will ever find one.

The Actual incident is when Buddha was asked whether there is God or not?
He said "there is no GOD".
But next day someone came and asked the same question now Buddha replied
"YES, there is GOD".
Actually the name "Shiva" means that which is NOT.
GOD Exist and he does not exist, as he is omnipresent.

What is your reference for the first two paragraphs of your answer (are you quoting something, what are you quoting, when you make that claim about the Buddha's two answers to that question)?


text:
Going to first session
I'm pretty new to buddhism, I come from a christian family and as such I attended church for the earlier part of my life.
I'm wondering what to expect from my first session in comparison to that of church.
I'm also asking if there's any general advice/tips you can give me for my first time.

Can you share your location? Do you have any particular Buddhist centre that you plan to visit? Back in the time of the Buddha people used to visit the Buddha and inquire, what are you doing? what do you teach?

@KaveengaWijayasekara - I live in the UK. I've been to the session already and I've learnt a few differences. The group is part of the triratna Buddhist order. Based on what I understood, it's a western version of Buddhism which isn't as strict in different areas. The place I went to wasn't a temple or anything like that, it was a regular community building with the Buddhist statue and lots of pillows.

Ah that sounds wonderful. Last thing you want is to be edgy and on pins when visiting a Buddhist institution. UK has some wonderful Buddhist communities. When time permits and if you like visit Amaravati and Chithurst.

I had a look at the places you mentioned and it looks brilliant! Like I stated in my post above I'm still new to thr whole thing so I'd like to attend a few more sessions and learn more about Buddhism in general before going. But thank you for the reccomendations, I didn't realise there was anything like that close to me.

Generally, a Buddhist centre will be very relaxed, easy going & accepting. Buddhists generally do not interrogate newcomers as Christians might, apart from asking "are you new; have you studied before?". If it is otherwise, that is, "fundamentalist", this should be of concern. While many Buddhist centres may sound like they give dogmatic teachings, generally the social atmosphere is very easy going, as I explained. You should be at ease when visiting the centre but you will learn that when you visit. Also, as advised above, dress in a relaxed (loose clothing) but modest manner, ensuring legs & shoulders are well covered. As for addressing any monks, this depends on the centre. "Bhante" is only for Theravada centres and particularly for Sri Lankan centres. For example, Thai people rarely use the word "Bhante". I personally generally address a monk or teacher by their name (eg. Lama X; Ajahn Y) unless I notice the regulars at the centre using another title (such as Geshe-La, Bhante, Tan Ajahn or Loong Po, which are Asian titles). Some centres, particularly  Tibetan, may charge a fee for attending teachings. Apart from that, giving a donation is generally your choice. All the best. All will be fine. Enjoy yourself.

I was torn between your answer and @Sankha Kulathantille 's answer. I gave it to you because you cover what differences there are in Christianity, information on the general attitude and advice on clothing.

At a Theravada monastery:

You have to be familiar with taking refuge in the Triple Gem and taking of the five precepts:
http://refuge.sirimangalo.org/
Remove shoes and hats when you enter the monastery.
Wear conservative clothing. White color clothes are more appropreate.
Avoid shouting, idle chatter and laughter(can smile when appropriate) while you are there
Avoid running. Walk quietly.
While listening to Dhamma talks or meditating with others, turn off your phone or keep it in silent mode. If you need to answer an urgent call or text, quietly go outside the room.
If you make an offering to the Buddha or the Sangha, do it using both hands and bow afterwards.
If you offer food, do it well before noon as monks cannot accept food after noon. Make sure the food is prepared for consumption as monks are not allowed to cook food.
Do not offer food that is already consumed by another.
When offering food to monks, don't place it on the table expecting them to take, like in restaurants. You must personally serve every curry into the bowl or plate. If they don't prefer a certain dish, they will indicate by covering the bowl with hand as you try to serve.
Don't consume food while attending meditation sessions or listening to Dhamma talks.
Don't smoke inside the monastery.
If a monk is standing and addressing you, don't be seated. If a monk is seated on a couch/bench, do not sit on the same at the same time. Sit on the floor or sit on a chair which is lower and less luxurious. Do not sit directly facing a monk or a Buddha statue. Sit to the side. When sitting(chair), do not put one leg over the other or sit with your legs wide open or stretched  infront.
Do not address the monks by name. Use respectful terms like 'Bhante', "venerable sir" etc.
Do not try to shake hands with the monks, pat on the back etc. Avoid all unnecessary physical contact within the monastery.
Do not take selfies with Buddha statues or monks. Do not take pictures with your back turned to the Buddha statues.
Do not try to practice your own method in the monastery. Follow the instructions by the teacher.
If you wish to make a donation, don't hand money to the monks as they are not allowed to handle money. Instead, look for the donation box or ask them how to make a donation.

The above very much for Buddhist monasteries in Sri Lanka, and are not necessarily universal. Best is to ask a person frequents the particular Buddhist institution.

@KaveengaWijayasekara I disagree! This behavior is expected in most Theravada monasteries even outside Sri Lanka.

Yes some are universal for they are good manners and etiquette.  However not all. You don't have to call a monk Bante or Venerable Sir, just Sir would do sometimes. Also offering food varies on different cultures. Thai and Burmese monks often sit at tables and serve themselves after all the food on the table has been offered. Removing shoes and head gear also depends on the circumstances. If the floor is dirty or muddy and the temperature is too cold.

Certain monks and monasteries may choose not to enforce this behavior. Especially if there are many non Buddhists coming just for meditation. But it is the behavior expected from people who know better. You use the term 'sir' for lay people. When addressing a monk, it's better to make a distinction like "respected sir" or "venerable sir". Letting the monks serve their own food is a lazy and below par behavior that has crept into certain groups. I have seen it even in Sri Lanka. But that is not the norm and certainly not the ideal behavior.

Removing hats and shoes is the general practice regardless of if someone might choose not to do it for some reason

In Sri Lanka yes for it is customary. Other monasteries too have adopted this practice. The intention is to not bring in dirt from outside. Sometimes when we enter homes we take our shoes off. However, it is a practical custom not a compulsory commandment.

"Letting the monks serve themselves is below par and lazy" Why do you say this? Monks may just want to eat mindfully without constantly interrupted asking if they want more. :) I appreciate and laud our Sri Lankan customs but we have to be mindful that there are other customs as well. I am not disagreeing with you just saying that there are other local customs.

I know several monks who do not mind being called Sir, by newcomers or non Buddhists. The word Hamuduruwo in Sinhalese was a term used to call local land owners which then got transferred to Bhikkhus. However as you say Bante, ie spiritual teacher, is a preferred term. Then again it takes some getting used to by new comers.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

This can depend greatly on where you go. Buddhism is in some important ways more diverse than Christianity. For example Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, while they both grow from the same central Buddhist tenants (e.g., the Four Noble Truths), have very different approaches and trappings.
Additionally some places are going to be more formal and rigid in their approach than others. Some monasteries may be a bit more formal, whereas there are sangha groups that have almost a book club feel.
The best advice I think is to do as much research as you can about the place you're going in advance, and when you go there just do your best to be respectful. There may be written or verbal instructions for some things, and for others you may just have to try to be observant.
One little thing I've noticed is unless it's a less formal sangha meeting at a public space shoes will almost always be off. Many sanghas, centers, and monasteries are pitch-in efforts by members. If you notice other people helping clean up after a class or meditation you don't necessarily have to do it the first time, but make a mental note to give yourself more time in the future to stay afterward and help the next.
Finally, Buddhism doesn't permit teachers to charge for their teachings. However, maintaining a monastery or center does cost money. There will be a donation box/plate/something somewhere and you should really consider chipping in a bit when you can.
Hope this helps.


text:
Are buddhists also called brothers and sisters?
Usually when speaking about someone who is following the buddha teach is called a monk. But are monks or other buddhists sometimes also called brothers and sisters? Is it common or very rare? And what is the reason behind it?

In Tibetan Buddhism yes, also called Vajra Brothers.

No, when speaking about a monk, you should use respectful words like 'Venerable', 'Bhante', 'Reverend' etc. If you are speaking of a layman, it's ok to call 'brother' or 'sister' or any other decent way of addressing.

What about if a monk calls a lay Buddhist Dhamma brother and doesn't mind the lay Buddhist calling him, the monk, Dhamma brother in return?

You can call a fellow lay person as 'brother'. But it is inappropriate to call that to a monk even if he doesn't mind

Yeah, but what if he calls you a Dhamma brother? Could you answer that bit of the question as well? (Side note: hope you're alright!)

It's still inappropriate, but less offensive compared to the reverse. I'm alright(So far. They keep discovering new bombs every day)

I know you ask about contemporary Buddhists, but for what it's worth, Buddha often called young women "young sister/little sister" when he gave them Dhamma talk.  I think it's cultural and linguistic (just like what Chris said).
Examples: when Cincamanavika accused Buddha to be a father of a child in her womb.  Buddha said to her ""Little sister, only you and I know whether you are speaking the truth or not"    or when Buddha told Lady Patachara that he could help her with her griefs.  "Little sister, you have come to someone who can help you..."
Its a sign of familiarity and compassion.

I guess it's a cultural phenomenon i.e. it varies from one culture to another.
Other answers here (from a Theravada background) say it's "never" used; but you can see it being used on the Plum Village web site, for example,

This Spring a joyful delegation of Dutch-speaking monastics from Plum Village and the EIAB (including Brother Phap Ung, Brother Phap Xa, Sister Jina, Sister Lan Nghiem, Sister Sang Nghiem and Brother Pham Hanh) will be leading a series of mindfulness days and retreats in the Netherlands.

I don't know whether that example is a peculiar adaptation to the conventions of English and French language and culture, or, whether the "brother" and "sister" might also be used in Vietnamese (I think Plum Village is Vietnamese Zen in origin).

Depending on the culture, "familiar" terms of address might be widely used in non-religious social contexts too -- e.g. apparently it's common or conventional in India to address women as "auntie" and "sister" (see e.g. Auntie mean when Indians say it?).

And what is the reason behind it?
I went looking for the origin of the use of "brother" in the Christian tradition, and found this answer:

The word 'brother' in Hebrew does not mean 'the brother' in common understanding. It could also refer to cousins and other relatives. The similar understanding of "brother" and "sister" is in antient Greek and Aramaic.

So I guess the reason for calling people brother and sister in Christianity are:

Cultural and linguistic, social
Traditional
Originating in the words of the founders of the church (for example Matthew 12:49)

They (using "brother and sister" in Christianity and other religions, and not using "brother and sister" in Buddhism) might be two sides of the same coin? Christianity might encourage you to address non-relatives as if they were your family -- perhaps to encourage generosity and a universal (non-exclusive) love.
Conversely it seems to me that the origins of Buddhism encourage people to not treat your own family as special (my saying this is an exaggeration but perhaps you understand what I'm saying).
Buddhism also encourages universal relationships (e.g. "sympathy towards all living beings"), although that may be slightly more of a Mahayana concept than Theravada.
It may be that there isn't a "reason" i.e. the reason is simply an accident of history and language; but if I had to create a reason I might guess/suggest it's because Buddhism arrives at a universality by denying or de-emphasizing (keeping detached from) special relationships.

As a footnote, I just found on Wikipedia that, in Chinese, a Buddhist teacher might be addressed using a term that's used for "master" and "father" (i.e. using a word that might be translated as "father"):
Sifu - Common usage:

Likewise, since religious instruction involves a teacher-student relationship akin to apprenticeship, Buddhist monks and Taoist priests are also addressed as sifu or shifu.

I don't know but perhaps that implies that (in Chinese) you might address your fellow-students as brother and sister.

Male and female students who began training before you and are thus senior, are Shixing "teacher older brothers" and 師姑 shi gu "teacher's sisters". ... Students junior to you are your Shidi and Shimei.

Usually when speaking about someone who is following the buddha teach is called a monk.

This is not true. There are lay followers and ordinated followers and the latter are the monks through both follow Buddhism.

But are monks or other buddhists sometimes also called brothers and sisters?

Brothers is a Christian concept which is not found in Buddhism.

Is it common or very rare?

This is non existent.

And what is the reason behind it?

This is like asking why an apple does not have a peelable skin. There are 2 different institutions which developed independent of each other. So there is no sharing of such concepts.


text:
What is the difference between kilesas and asavas?
What is the difference between kilesas and asavas? Or are they synonyms?

I think that might answered in the answers to this question: What is effluent?

Good question.
My view is 'kilesa' is the general or broad term referring the mental impurities or toxins.
Therefore, anusaya (underlying tendencies) are kilesa; asava (outflows) are kilesa; hindrances (nirvarana) are kilesa; and the various forms of tanha (craving), attachment & becoming (bhava) are kilesa.
The most subtle level of kilesa is anusaya (underlying tendencies). When the anusaya flow-out of the substratum of the mind, this flowing-out, leakage or fermentation ('bubbling-up') is called 'asava'. The anusaya flow-out as the five hindrances (nirvarana). If the five hindrances take control of the mind and push the mind to engage in external sense objects - craving, attachment & becoming will arise in relation to those sense objects.
In MN 9, the asava are included within the condition of ignorance in the dependent origination.

There are these three fermentations (asava): the fermentation of
  sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of
  ignorance. This is called fermentation. From the origination of
  ignorance comes the origination of fermentation. From the origination
  of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html

Now that you have got your answer in the earlier post by Dhammadhatu, let me give you this little story from Supreme Buddha's life. How He recognized and overcame these to attain nibbana.
Supreme Buddha admits His past wanderings in existence which entailed suffering, a fact that evidently proves the belief in rebirth. He was compelled to wander and consequently to suffer, as He could not discover the Master Builder that built this house, the body. In His final birth, while engaged in solitary meditation which He had highly developed in the course of His wanderings, after a relentless search He discovered by His own intuitive wisdom the elusive Master Builder, residing not outside but within the recesses of His own heart. It was craving or attachment, a self-creation, a mental element latent in all. How and when this craving originated is incomprehensible. What is created by oneself can be destroyed by oneself. The discovery of the builder/architect is the eradication of craving by attaining Arhantship (perfect one), which in these verses is alluded to as “end of craving.”
The rafters of this self-created house are the passions (kilesa) such as attachment (lobha) aversion (dosa), illusion (moha), conceit (māna), false views (ditthi), doubt (vicikicchā), sloth (thīna), restlessness (uddhacca), moral shamelessness (ahirika), moral fearlessness (anottappa). The ridgepole that supports the rafters represents ignorance, the root cause of all passions. The shattering of the ridge-pole of ignorance by wisdom results in the complete demolition of the house. The ridge-pole and rafters are the material with which the builder/architect builds this undesired house. With their destruction the builder/architect is deprived of the material to rebuild the house which is not wanted. With the demolition of the house the mind, for which there is no place in the analogy, attains the unconditioned state, which is Nibbāna. Whatever that is mundane is left behind, and only the Supramundane State, Nibbāna, remains.

It only proves the scriptures say he was previously subject to myriad 'births' ('jati'). This does not necessarily conclude 'jati' refers to physical birth. For example, at least today in India, the word 'jati' does not mean physical birth.


text:
Rebirth, transfer of memories, what is it?
I have a person in my own family who's aware of his past-birth. He knew it by age 7 only. When family started investigation 'they found it all true. How he has died in his last birth, how much of children he had, what work he was doing when he died and etc. I want to know what the buddha said about rebirth and transfer of memories to a new born? Moreover I wish to get more examples.

As for conciseness it arises and passes. At death it passes in one body and arise in another. This process don't end at death or with brain damage or death. As this instance passes away the next state arises with persistent sense impressions.
Sense impressions are tied to the mental body while conceptual impressions are tied to the physical body. So if you get brain damaged you cannot think and perhaps learn new concepts but past impressions stay, [Mahā,nidāna Sutta] these sense impressions do persist beyond death as part of the Bhavanga Citta. Recallability depends on the level of hindrances. [(Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta] The mental impressions that remain are part of the mind (Nama) which does not die at death but passes away in one body and arise in another. For further understanding perhaps you can study the Buddhist rebirth process.
Jhana meditators can recall past lives since sense impressions have persisted. 5 Hindrances is one case of we cannot remember and as meditation overcomes this you can remember better. [(Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta]
Also see: How can the idea of reincarnation be true if all the information of who we are is already destroyed

Spontaneous past lives recollection per Buddha can be found at Khajjanita Sutta
For modern day research, look up late Dr. Ian Stevenson  University of Virginia School of Medicine

The Khajjaniya Sutta explains whatever experiences from the past are recollected, they were never "I", "me" or "mine". The Khajjaniya Sutta explains the mind was mistaken in the past, i.e., ignorant, to regard experiences as "I", "me" or "mine". You would probably need to look elsewhere for an explanation of reincarnation since the Khajjaniya Sutta refutes the idea of "I existed in the past".
Note: The Pali term "pubbe nivāsaṃ" at the start of the Khajjaniya Sutta does not mean "past lives". It means "previous dwellings". In his new translations, Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the term "past abodes".
The term similar term 'nivesā' ('fixations') is also found in the Haliddakani Sutta, which provides a good explanation of the idea of "dwellings".


text:
Does the level of awareness of an awakened buddhist also stay the same event when he sleeps?
But when an enlightened person lives he could be in the present all the time. But when you sleep your conscious/awareness may be different or just disappear.
So does the level of awareness of an enlightened person also change or stay the same even when sleeping.

This question is very similar to: Do Arhats sleep? but not the same as this asks about the level of awareness than whether you sleep or not.

Also there is following Meta discussion in which this question is also being dicussed as example.

Although I still think this is a duplicate of Do Arhats sleep?, there were three votes to reopen this question after I closed it as a duplicate, so I reopened it.

sleep is a state of body, not a state of mind. If you are asleep your body has shut down the 5 senses, but your mind can still be active (dreaming).

"As for those delusion-born fevers — burned with which the householder or householder's son would sleep miserably — that delusion has been abandoned by the Tathagata, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore he sleeps in ease. - AN 3.34

If you are practicing mindfulness and meditation regularly you can actually stop nightmares from happening by this habit.

An Arahat does not sleep like a normal person. He may give rest to the body but in doing so is fully aware hence not asleep. This is a natural consequence of reducing impurities of the mind.

Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.
...
Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. If sleep comes, very good; sleep. If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N. Goenka
Also see: Suppati Sutta


text:
Is Schopenhauer's "the Will" equivalent to "the Mystic Law"?
I recently was watching a video in which Schopenhauer's views on aesthetics were expressed. Part of his views relied on saying that there is one aspect of the nominal world which can be experienced -despite that basically being a contradiction to what the nominal and phenomenal world are-. He went on to say that the exception is called, "The Will". The will as basically, to my best understanding, the driving force for all things which pervades all things, both abstract and not, and that, once aware of this "Will" one loses what I guess could be loosely identified as the self, and becomes more as one with, "The Will".
This, to me, sounds a lot like what I have heard called, "The Mystic Law". Here is a definition of the mystic law as referred to as, "the true aspect", by the philosopher, Miao-Lo:

“The true aspect invariably manifests in all phenomena, and all phenomena invariably manifest in the ten factors. The ten factors invariably manifest in the Ten Worlds, and the Ten Worlds invariably manifest in life and its environment.”

My question then is, how closely are these two "aspects" related, and are they really referring to the same thing?

This might be a question better answered on the Philosophy.SE site (because it seems to me likely that few people on this site will have read Schopenhauer). I don't myself know how to ask questions on Philosophy.SE (I don't know about philosophy nor about what's on-topic on that site), but perhaps you could ask something like, "Does Schopenhauer's 'will' correspond to any Buddhist concept, which word in the Buddhist vocabulary (if any) most closely matches Schopenhauer's? Or are they for some reason completely different and not comparable?"

I know next to nothing about Schopenhauer but the Nichiren sect of Japanese Buddhism focus on the sutra popularly known as Lotus Sutra - the 妙法蓮華経 Myōhō Renge Kyō which is in turn from Chinese 妙法蓮華經; pinyin: Miàofǎ Liánhuá jīng, which is ultimately from Sanskrit Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra literally Sutra on the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma. So "Mystic Law" is just a re-translation of "Sublime Dharma". Now I am no expert on the text but I believe the 'Sublime Dharma' refers to All of Existence and Phenomena. So this concept is only tangentially related to the Will or Collective Consciousness described by Schopenhauer.

Do you know of any books or other such recources I could look for in order to better understand what the "Sublime Dharma" is? I have never heard of that term before.

I think that the Sanskrit "Saddharmapuṇḍarīka" combines several words i.e. "Sad-" (meaning "sublime" or "true") plus "dharma" (meaning "law") plus "puṇḍarīka" (which presumable means "white lotus"). The Sanskrit "Sad-" is I guess equivalent to the Pali word "Sat" ... and there's a topic What is Sat-Dharma? which I hope answers your question about "sublime dharma".

@MorellaAlmann Based on my limited readings I believe there is no substantial difference from the Dharma in Buddhism and the 'Sublime' Dharma of the Lotus Sutra. Essentially it appear to be a word in praise of the majesty of the Dharma?