text:
Strong desire to serve/ordain
every meditator at a point in his her life goes through a dilemma of whether to ordain or to live a lay life. Although it's a wholesome disposition, I wonder if its a lack of strength to face problems as a veil that shadows the decision. (It's proven so for me)
But sometimes the emotion to give up lay life is so strong(and then again it's just a emotion-state of mind which is also annicca) that the more I look back, the more I get the feeling I should have done it a long time ago because the fruits even as a lay person are so evident and clear (wonder what pool of calm monastic life will bring around)
The question remains, how can one determine ones decision to ordain, whether it's a strong volition or not (because if it's not I would hate to go back to lay life as a failure and discouraged on the path of Dhamma)

This is a wonderful question, let me ask you something: Have you ever thought about living as a lay recluse? Not being a monk, but staying away from most of wordly issues, you can buy a house in a small town, live simply, with nature around, meditate, practice dhamma and contemplate daily... it is not as radical as ordaining, so can be a good choice for some people

See: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3143/homeless-but-not-a-monk/3144#3144

I have. Yes. But the point to the question was cutting short the path to perfecting paramis. I have served on meditation courses and sat quite a few. Every thing I do it's overshadowed by how pointless my existence is because I could be serving and perfecting my paramis. I am a good learner and am steadfast too but I just can't do away with parental responsibility. Although they are being attracted to the Dhamma now.

It is advisable that you be responsible to your parents 1st then think about ordination. The Bodhisattva also followed this line of action in one of his previous births.

Also you can practice as a lay person. There are many famous lay followers and meditation masters. You can re evaluate the situation later on again when times have changed.

Well, if you have a child of course it is harder, but you can wait until he/she grows... they will eventually move from your house and this can be the opportunity for you to dedicate in a more intensive way

Also living a lay life you are always tested for your defilements. You do not have this advantage in a monastic life though sometimes problems and chores do popup. If this happens you will be disappointed if you were looking to peace through change of life style. As a householder your mood and patience is always tested. So you know how you are progressing.

Thanks suminda for your kind advice. And no konrad01 I do not have children.

This is a great question and the answers here (from Bakmoon and Suminda) are wonderful. I'll complement with something from my personal experience.
"how can one determine ones decision to ordain, whether it's a strong volition or not"
It may be that going forth ultimately is the single thing one can do to know the true nature of his disposition. But since disrobing may come with a lot of practical difficulties, taking precautions is very valuable: become used to a life without luxuries, familiarize with the monastery, monks and retreats, etc.
But giving the ear to advices may be troublesome, depending on who one seeks out to get advices. There is a common discourse that people looking to become a monk often hear in the west: "you are running away from [blank]".
It may be more articulate than that, when it focuses on debunking the romance of becoming a monk: the idea that things will be so beautiful, you will have 100% of the time to meditate (or do prostrations, or read suttas, or perform all rituals you fantasize about, and wisdom will come quickly, and your teacher will be so and so, etc).
Or it may focus on the idea that a monk's life is easy and therefore, not very fruitful for evolving one's practice: "the lotus grows in the mud, so you should do your practice in the real life, not in the top of a mountain", they say.
On one hand, these are very unhelpful advices, and very disconnected from what monastic life is, and from what buddhism is -- at the minimum, from this rhetoric, no one is suited for monastic life, or should become a monk ever (it is also a little disrespectful, drawing an image of monks as cowards).
On the other, there is a risk of fantasizing with a romantic idea of being a monk and there is a risk of using the going forth as an excuse. I think the best strategy for the first is what others have said here, try to become familiar with monastic life, in order to dispel any fantasies you may have. The antidote for the second is to try to identify if the intention of going forth is the going forth itself, and not just the relief of not having to deal with "[blank]" anymore (its ok to feel good about not having to deal with "[blank]" anymore, but I think this should not be the reason for going forth).

There is a common discourse that people looking to become a monk often hear in the west: "you are running away from [blank]"... hahah priceless comment! I will tell you, my dear friend, I get this a lot and I'm no monk, just because I meditate and read the Dhamma people say I'm running away from my fears like a coward. I see it as a good way to test patience and kindness, in the past I would debate hard with such people, now I just let it go...

I would say to give it a test run. Start keeping the 8 precepts:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.
Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.
Vikalabhojana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon).
Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani
  sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and
  beautifying the body with cosmetics.
Uccasayana-mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

If you are able to keep them for a while without too much difficulty and you feel you can live a life of renunciation for a long time with contentment, then you will know you will be able to ordain.
In the meantime you should try to pick out the monastery you would like to consider ordaining at. Ideally you want to establish a relationship with the monks there first. If you want to be with monks who practice a particular meditation method then find such a group, and if you want to be strict in upholding the vinaya then make sure to find strict monks.

Some times monastic life may not be calm as you think. Also austerity of vinaya will make it harder than lay life incase your have significant attachments.
So best is:

lean the Vinaya so you do not walk in blindly
tame your senses in lay life so you can make your ordained life more productive and live according to the Vinaya

Also many monks do disrobe. I don't think this should be taken as failure. You are just re prioritising certain things in life as you were perhaps not ready to have been a monk.
If you do enter the order do it in cordial manner so that you do not burn bridges and create any disharmony so you can continue life if your in case your monastic life does not work out.
Also one requirement is that your parents should approve it.

Householder, interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
One who starts to serve worthy things, outwardly and inwardly, starting with outwardly, is sure to increase Upanissaya, sure to arrive there of what he/she had served. Having, doing not serving of what is worthy to, how could one ever arrive, ever ordain/attain? It would simply die out for one, inwardly and outwardly soon.
As soon as such desire, desire for going forth under the tripple Gems for liberation from suffering, wholesome mind, kusala mind arises, go after it, don't wait a moment, no need to worry much on failure or to be perfect before going to train at the highest school.
What ever age, what ever condition, seek for it, as soon as it arises, and for all who desire are ways to arrive there, at the holy live and eventually liberation from suffering, desire leaving home, leaving stands.
Three things are praised by the wise: giving and help for parents (serving) and renouncing, going forth.
Be quick! (the story of Veen. Maha Kasspa and his Ven. former wife in previous life) Seek and take the possibility if such desire arises and avoid what ever hindrance and people telling otherwise.

Be quick in doing
  what's admirable.
  Restrain your mind
  from what's evil.
  When you're slow
  in making merit,
  evil delights the mind. dhp

All you could lose is to return where so long, long returned, again and again. So this path has even a "payback-quarantine" if it does not work for you yet, missing Upanissaya, something that needs to be nourished and gone for, again and again, till met.
Others then many advises (sadly even monks and those who should be informed, appearing as teacher), the Buddha did not allow his monks to teach much in regard of Vinaya (rules for monks) for one who desires for going forth. So such is only good if wishing to prepare yourself meanwhile, till finding the possibility.
Look also at: How to ordain as monk?
The inspiring story of Yassa and many others after him here: Mv I 07: Pabbajjākathā — The Discussion of Going-forth
And don't fear possible disrobing, as you could try anew with more inclination for seven times.
Mudita
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

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


text:
Garu kamma explanation
garu-kamma (weighty karma) - if one has killed one's mother or father, for example. These types of karma outweigh any other possible result; one who has performed these at some time in this life cannot help but go to hell in their next existence.
This is a quote from Ven Yuttadhammos answer.
My question is does garu kamma relate to murder of ones parents or could it also be a reason to shame them which drives them to suicide?

Decision to commit suicide is an individual decision. So it does not cause Garuka kamma for the one who does the shaming unless one had the intention to make them commit suicide.
There are also Garuka Kusala Karmas like Jhanas and Maggapala.

Killing your parents is a Anathariy Karma.
This is worse than Garuka Karma.
Instrumenting this directly or indirectly results in the same Karma.
Bottom line is that you should be always good to your parents.

So people who decide to ordain and their parents who take it personally still qualifies as Anathariy Kamma?

If you are instrumental in doing this you gain a lot of good Karma. It is said that if you keep your parents on your shoulders and serve them you cannot repay your debts to them. If they are weak in morality and you help them get established in morality, if they are moral and you help them get established in mastery over the mind and if they have mastery over the mind and you help them get wisdom them you have repaid the debt you have to them.

Volition is what counts. This combined with so way to instrument the outcome cause the Karma. The thought itself is bad Karma. So you should not think about negative things like this.

It doesn't matter whether you do it or scheme so others would do it or they do it themselves. If you have the slightest motivate or volition you get bad karma for bad intentions. Opposite if your intentions are good.

Also if you have done any of the 5 grave offenses you cannot ordain.

I think i was just wondering about them not being easy on themselves. I am certain it won't go to a drastic extreme.

Good. Try to develop genuine Metta towards them and try to help them out in getting out of the hard times and then establish themselves in the Dhamma.

You need to get your parents permission to ordain also.

I think I miss read the 1st comment. But best is to do it peacefully and tactfully as possible also giving them the opportunity to develop in the Dhamma.

Actually it's both an ānantariya kamma and a garuka kamma.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can a stream enterer commit suicide?
There was an incident in the 50s, a monk named Ñāṇavīra Thera commited suicide, he was believed to be a stream enterer and was suffering from amoebiasis.
So I'm curious to know, if someone knows for sure that he's become a stream enterer (or beyond) and doesn't desire to live anymore, can he decide to commit suicide?

I'm not happy with the 'suicide' topic. It is a defeater offence (murder) to recommend suicide. What if someone (perhaps mentally or physically ill) misunderstands an answer and thinks it says, "yes" to suicide, and that that answer applies to them?

That answer doesn't apply to him unless he's a stream enterer. That's why used the term 'stream enterer' specifically to avoid any confusion.

@ChrisW created this to further discuss this issue on meta: http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/328/responding-to-questions-from-or-may-be-viewed-by-emotioanlly-distressed-people

I am familiar with the story of Ñāṇavīra Thera, and while I deeply appreciate his work, esp. on 12 Nidanas, which for me is a good evidence that he indeed could have been a stream-enterer, I feel that his suicide was a very unfortunate outcome of the bad karma he created in the past. This karma, in its turn, came from a chain of negative mind states that evidently spanned multiple lives.
While, generally speaking, anyone can decide to commit suicide, a decision to do so is more likely to be made by someone who 1) is not afraid to die, 2) sees the pain associated with continuing to live, 3) has aversion to pain, and 4) does not see much value in continuing to live.
Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, s\he is not afraid of death. Because s\he clearly sees conditions that lead to arising of pain, s\he sees the pain associated with life. Because s\he is not yet beyond sukha-and-dukkha, s\he can still have aversion to pain. What remains is #4.
The value in continuing to live falls into two categories: the value for oneself and the value for others. Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, the only reason to carry on this particular life would be the value he or she thinks s\he could bring for others.
In Mahayana tradition, the first idea you learn, right after the basic concepts of Samsara, Nirvana, Enlightenment, and Karma -- is the high ideal of compassion. By this ideal, if I don't have a reason to live for myself, if I can alleviate suffering of even one dog, it is worth to continue living, let alone if I can help one human, let alone if I can help multiple people, let alone if I can teach Sat-Dharma.
So, while stream-entry refers to the same basic milestone that is known as First Bhumi in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva of First Bhumi would only choose to die if doing so would greatly benefit more people than he could benefit by e.g. teaching Dharma. For example, participating in the repair of Fukushima nuclear station could be a great way to die for someone who has no reason to live but does not have an aptitude to teach Dharma. There are many other ways to help humanity and die a hero whose name will be on a monument, instead of becoming a topic of regret that no one wants to mention.

wow...+1 for the second half of your answer

Was this part mentioned somewhere or is it your interpretation on the incident? 'This karma, in its turn, came from a chain of negative mind states that evidently spanned multiple lives.'

My interpretation of his biography.

I'm curious as to why going beyond the self means value could only be brought to others. Others kind of comes from self (by exclusion) so really it must be about the ability to bring value at all, without regard to whether it is other or self? Or is it that a stream-enterer can no longer bring value except to others?

It's not just ignoring the boundary. For str. entr., there is no value for self because there is no absolute point of reference for "value". But for others, there is still value, because they still have their points of reference. Now, Bodhisattva would go like: "alright, this whole thing is pointless, but there are still others who suffer" - while a non-Bodhisattva stream-enterer could go like: "why bother?" Both are beyond illusion of self vs others, but only Bodhisattva apriori cares about the others. "Bring value for others" means help alleviate their suffering, which is real for them.

"By this ideal, if I don't have a reason to live for myself, if I can alleviate suffering of even one dog, it is worth to continue living, let alone if I can help one human, let alone if I can help multiple people, let alone if I can teach Sat-Dharma." And if seing yu can't: kill that would you don't like, either others or oneself? Properble why "heros" have such tendency... why not helping your self? That would not just such a wired ego-trip and desire to have helpneeded around.

The desire to have help needed... I will think about that. You are like one big Mara here on this web site, Samana Johann, you know? One big educated Mara. Thank you for your help.

I do not find any merit in discussing suicide because in my mind it is not on the path. It is a dead end street. It is like jumping off the train - you don't get to your destination.
If someone is a stream enterer, they might still get stuck in the folly of the human mind. Taking one's physical life is a sign that you take the personal self too seriously and that you are under the illusion it is something you must deal with and can deal with, and that it is something you may end.
The only way to end the suffering is to stop kowtowing to the personal self and open to the buddha awakening. In this awakening there is no birth, no life, no death. If this is awakening, should we be talking about suicide at all? I think not, unless someone is disturbed and contemplating that fateful error. It is seeds of karma to do harm to any sentient being including oneself. There is no excuse - one who chooses that destiny must deal with the seeds and outcome they choose by default.

It is unlikely the monk named Ñāṇavīra Thera was a stream-enterer because his notes on Dependent Origination are very confusing despite some of his ideas being valid (such as "my birth" & "my death" for jati-marana); however the valid ideas were based on sutta study. In other words, it appears his ideas about Dependent Origination came from study rather than from realisation because if there was genuine realisation he would have explained Dependent Origination correctly, which he did not.
As for suicide, yes, a stream-enterer can terminate life with a liberated mind if living becomes pointless & they do not crave another life; which appeared did not occur with Ñāṇavīra. It seems Ñāṇavīra craved for another life therefore his suicide was blameworthy (per MN 144). It seems Ñāṇavīra did not pass away with a void mind of sunnata but with the self-view of: "I am a stream-enterer & I have seven more lifetimes until I attain Nibbana".
The realisation of a stream-enterer is explained very clearly in many suttas (SN 56.11; MN 56; etc), namely: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". Ñāṇavīra appeared to not terminate life with this realization but, instead, with the contrary idea that: "I am a stream-enterer subject to re-arising".

This is partly speculation on the part of the editor of the collection of this letters. I have the Sinhala book my self. Hence we do not know what happened. Only we thing we know for sure is that the Ven. Sir was bitten by a poisonous spider. Anything other than this is speculative. So it is best not draw conclusion on speculative incidents.
Also suicide does not seam to be a valid option for a monk as it is a Parajika offence.
In addition this does not set a good example to society hence should not be done.
In case you just believe you are stream entry by mistake then you end in misery. Also your loved ones also end in misery. Hence one should not contemplate, set an example, or in the slightest sense promote this line of thinking

Well, even if it's a Parajika offense, the monk doesn't live further to receive any punishment after suicide, right? I agree that it's not a good example for the society. But in the stream enterers perspective he can end the suffering at least in the current human life if he's suffering from an illness.

As I said who knows if you have really gained stream entry or your have mistaken something else for it. Piti and Passaddhi are very pleasent states. Many mistake this for stream entry.

As I've heard, stream entry is unmistakable http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3656/is-stream-entry-an-unmistakeable-experience
So you are certain once you've attained it :)

There are a lot of cases people believing themselves to be Arahants, let alone stream entry, then they were not.

I'm talking about the genuine case here, not mistakes.

Even so, it does not set a good example. Buddhists are to live a model life so other are inspired to learn and try out the Dhamma. So a Stream Enterer should know better. There may be instances like this. But not recommended.

Only valid reason I can see is the social aspect, setting a good example as a counterpoint to suicide of a stream enterer and beyond.

Also another aspect is when you become a Stream Enterer, the level of Piti and Passaddhi would be very high aiding to undergo pain. Also before this you experience Stream Entry you have to pass through Sankharupekha nana. By this stage you can endure a lot of pain. Also unlikely any incentive or desire to commit suicide.

What's the name of the book you've got by this thero?

Dham Assa (Dhamma Eye) translated and compiled by Bolgoda Premachandra

@dmsp "As I've heard, stream entry is unmistakable" --  this would mean that the person who reached it knows it was reached. It does not mean someone who did not reach it is unable to mistake him/herself as a stream-enterer.

The level of buddhist fundamentalism present in this thread is disgusting. People really think that they have understood the workings of the unknown by reading about the specific experiences of a few people (aka gautama etc) and generalize a structure of awakening. This is laughably sad. Awakening is not a straightforward process nor does it ever happen in two people in the same way. There are exception to almost every map of enlightenment (of which the buddhist map is the absolute weakest and most erronous). Yes a stream enterer can commit suicide, ofcourse. It has happened before in more cases than one. No stream entry does not do what buddhists claim that it does. All that has happened is that the energy in the body has temporarily crossed the threshold of the third eye and touched the crown chakra and the person has temporarily had one of the MANY experiences of trancendance that are possible. And now, the higher energy starts opening up all the unlocked karmic energies in the system and dragging the practicioner through the dark night of the soul. But a small part of the awareness now rests in the higher realm/nibbana and that allows SOME manner of stillness and detachment to remain even as the process of karmic purging begins anew. If a person is a good 'buddhist', indoctrinated to not care about the world, they may feel that they are getting enlightened and not kill themselves and find some solace in the still realm. If on the other hand they really do care about some things in the world or their humanity, the small connection to the formless realm may not be enough to stop them from killing themself. It depends on where the person stands. Trying to use buddhist "if x then y" logic just because it was written in a stupid sutta will only lead you into falsehood. the universe works in far more varied ways than sattopatana or other suttas would have you believe. Look up shamanic death to get a different perspective on the process. Parts of the formless are blissfull and worthwhile while other parts are horrifying and life denying. Just goes to show you how lousy of a track record the fundamentalist buddhist schools have at actually enlightening people that most of them talk so freely and with such confidence about things that they actually have no experience of.

written by a stream enterer

Obviously not written by a stream-enterer.

I applaud your answer. Extrapolating universal rules from tiny examples is always problematic. The true goal is to find the universal truth that encompasses all explanations therefore you should never deny any potential viewpoint as they all have something to offer.

This seems to be applauding "doubt" or "uncertainty" about the fixed law of Dhamma (Dhamma Niyama). This promotes rebelliousness & is the downfall of a monk. The Buddha taught: ""And in this regard, Ananda, the undoing of one who leads the holy life ripens in more pain, more bitterness, than the teacher's undoing or the student's undoing. It leads even to the states of deprivation. Therefore, Ananda, engage with me in friendliness, and not in opposition. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness." MN 122

I dont believe in blind faith dhammadtu. If I did I would still be a southern baptist christian. The wise man is willing to entertain the fact that he may be wrong.

Plus your quote says "and in this regard..." which insinuates it is limited to some circumstance or situation. perhaps providing the entire context would be a little more straighforward?

As i interpret the texts it is possible that an aryan can commit suicide.
There is a case where the Buddha says that one who does not take up another body is blameless if they were to use the knife.

Moreover, friend, for a long time the Teacher has been served by me in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way; for it is proper for a disciple to serve the Teacher in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way. Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
[ I edit out the part where Sariputta interrogates Ven. Channa ]
Then, when the Venerable Sāriputta and the Venerable Mahacunda had given the Venerable Channa this exhortation, they rose from their seats and departed. Then, soon after they had left, the Venerable Channa used the knife.
Then the Venerable Sāriputta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Venerable sir, the Venerable Channa has used the knife. What is his destination, what is his future bourn?”
“ Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”
“Venerable sir, there is a Vajjian village named Pubbavijjhana. There the Venerable Channa had friendly families, intimate families, hospitable families.”
“The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sāriputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it. ” SN35.87: Channa

In a Sarvastivadin text (Milinda Panha) which is considered to be a part of Theravadin canon we can see a similar pattern of speech where an Arahant answers a question but the questioneer not being satisfied with the answer repeats the question. In this case the Arahant answers in the same manner as Buddha does, as "didn't you already get an answer to this question?"
An example of this is where Milinda asks Nagasena repeatedly if he was going to be born again. Ven. Nagasena initially answers saying that he will take up another body if he were to have attachment and that he wouldn't if he were otherwise.  Milinda not being satisfied with the answer asks again to which Nagasena then answers akin to 'didn't i already answer your question?' and proceeds to give a simile of a man having been rewarded for his service saying that he had received nothing.
What we can infer from this Channasuttam, among other things, is that there is a case where one can lay down the body blamelessly, that is if one is an Arahant.
This is most important because of this line i  the suttapitaka

Five impossibles, to wit, for an Arahant intentionally to take life... DN33: Great Recital

If we superimpose this statement with there being a possibility to lay down the body blamelessly then it is clear that suicide is not the same as killing another being.
As to whether a Sotapanna can do it, there is nothing in the Canon to suggest that that they can't as far as i know.
There is a statement in the commentary to Dhammapada saying that "Sotapannas do not kill, they don't want others to get killed" but i already showed that this would not encompass suicide.
Therefore it follows that an arahant can do, ordinary person can do and as to the stream-enterer, the reasonable assumption is that it is possible, that it can happen because it has not been proclaimed to be a disqualification.
To claim otherwise would require evidence and there is none afaik.

As to anybody considering suicide thinking or knowing they are a stream-enterer, even if you are, it is blameworthy because it will increase the suffering to be endured, not decrease it. You can't escape the painful feelings to be endured but you can add insult to injury, therefore it is blameworthy. Don't be shortsighted.

Excellent answer. As I was reading, I was half-hoping that you would address the intriguing case of Godhika - a stream enterer at the anagami stage, but perhaps not.

A stream enterer cannot commit suicide. In other words, will not commit suicide out of "not having the desire to live anymore". They don't have such "desires". Suicide is an act of ego and mentality. Considering that a Sotapanna have eradicated the 3 primary mental hindrances; which are ego belief, doubt on reality, and clinging to delusions, they will not "desire" or get involved in selfish acts that originate out of certain life views. A Sotapanna has very little depression, because they live in reality so they act accordingly. And if they are to commit suicide, they will do it consciously, and for a good reason. Not out of desire nor depression. Remember that a sotapanna is 1/4 awake, and they know where they are going.

Combining the two sentences, "A stream enterer cannot commit suicide" and "if they are to commit suicide they will do it consciously" is a bit confusing. Could you reference some scripture on this subject?

Breaking vows. Not to kill is a vow. Taking ones one life amounts to killing. Unless one has good reasons like sacrificing ones life to save the whole world, otherwise not possible to be enlightened this way.

Yes, a stream enterer can commit suicide.
A stream enterer is a person who experiences Nibbana, Ultimate Reality-(whatever you call it doesnt matter) and after the first experience of limitless blissfull happiness, they will experience it time to time that brings them temporary limitless happiness. A stream enterer is simply "captured" by the ultimate reality and whether he likes it or not, the Ultimate Reality will inform, shape, transform, purify him. A stream enterer's whole life becomes very intense, involuntary meditation without the person's applying of any meditation techniques. And unlike the vast majority of the meditators believe Stream Etry-Sotapanna stage is a very difficult stage. It is true that before the attainment of stream entry, a meditators, has great development in spirituality and greatly purifies their mind that will benefit them in the current and next lifes. But after the realization of Nibbana for the first time, they will start to face and purify their subconscious mind, which is much more intense and complex. Anyone, who practises intensive meditaton, mindfulness and morality can achieve this goal. Even in a short period of time. But the danger is, If a person who has a heavy mind with lots of suffering that comes from current and past lives can have a very difficult time(even considering suicide seriously) during the Ultimate Reality's natural purification process of this person's mind. So it is always better to have a guide, spiritual teacher, guru, patience, and necessary support systems for anyone who is interested to spirituality(sotapanna or not soesn't matter). Because "the dark night of the soul" is different for different people(and generally it is not just one night lol) and I think most people can get through it with patience. But just have the necessery support systems and don't confuse Stream-Entry with sakadagami-who goes beyond of the "dark night of the soul" and only have remnants of greed and anger in their minds that cannot disturb their peace of mind. Don't practise alone, have a guru, sangha who will support and assist you whenever you need. And don't underestimate the suffering of your mind, If you become a sotapanna or not doesn't matter. And even that the Sotapanna(except temporary blissful states) is far from true happiness, he/she will benefit greatly from their achievements afterlife. So it is always great news to achieve this state, even If the majority of people doesn't understand the true dynamics of this state.

My personal opinion is that a stream-enterer will not commit suicide. If I am a stream enterer in this life my next goal is to move to the next level. I consider stream-enterer is almost an Arahant considering that he most have another seven lives.
There is a great discussion on this point in Dhamma Wheel.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27879&p=397389&hilit=

As thought proper by some. The side-effects of reaching the Dhamma-grounds is, that through right view, right understanding, one is no more able to perform (even strong deliberatly and planned in this case) deeds which cause one to fall into lower realms. React of situations as if they would be hell-like, how could that be? How comes that one falls into such states to even consider such seriously? Once the Dhamma is realiced, it's no more possible to be that burdened by the loka-dhammas (incl. happiness and pain, lose and gain...). Simply foolish action, when thinking even on rational consideration for one who should not have a problem at this level.
As for one practicing, stong pain, deathly pain, has to be endured, counts as destruction of defilements by enduring.
Althought it might get agains certain attachments to such deeds, and might be understandable thinking in usual pattern, this case has to be considered as a "loser"-case and far away from holding it as heroic, as the sell does...

There are a few examples of the Buddha saying that an arhat has killed themselves and then attained final nirvana In general, there is an ambivalence in Buddhism toward suicide by arhats, due to the popularity of suicide in ascetic India.
See e.g. Peace in the Buddha's Discourses, p23.
I don't really have an opinion on the topic, but think in some extreme cases of unremitting physical pain it can make sense. And what about martydrom

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


text:
Were all of the historical Buddhas born on today's planet earth?
Were Buddhas always born on planet Earth or they can be born on any habitable planets across the universe?
How does one Buddha gain knowledge of the existence of the the previous Buddha/Buddhas?

These are things we can only speculate. There later works which might have covered these topics though, but cannot vouch for how accurate they are.
Best cause of action by a Buddhist is to practice the Dhamma to gain realisation and wisdom. Who know, perhaps you might get some insight into this also. (Don't make it your goal to find these type of answers, but practice to awaken wisdom.)
Also the Buddha did not encourage to ponder on unproductive question through I am curious my self.
In my opinion. I don't think it is this planet. Last 4 buddhas were in the current world cycle but it is hard to believe it is this planet, but having said this, the social environment would have been similar to Indian during the times of the current Buddha, where there was much activity in search for the truth. (Also a Buddha to be looks if it is conducive time and county before he is born.)

agreed, makes sense that other Buddhas were on other planets. Human history on Earth only goes back so far.

Thanks for the comments. Looking forward to seeing more content from both of you.

In Digha Nikáya Sutta 14 Mahapadana Sutta  & DN 32 The Āṭānāṭiya Discourse, the Supreme Buddha stated that six Supreme Buddhas appeared over 91 world-cycles.  The seven Buddhas, including "our" Supreme Buddha, mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama.
They were all born in this earth, in the land of the Rose Apple (Jambudipa), in north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa). This is been said by the Supreme Buddha as He can remember the past up to infinite time such as many Sanvatta Kalpa, Vivatta Kalpa, and Sanvatta Vivatta Kalpa. Buddha not only stated the aeon in which the past six Buddhas arose, but also their social rank, family, life-span, tree under which they became Enlightened, the names of the two chief disciples, the number of the Arahants present at assemblies, the name of the attendant Bhikkhu and the name of the then Buddha’s mother and father and birth place. In accordance with this Sutta, such natural happenings and laws are very common to all Bodhisattas. The main event of all seven Buddhas are the same. Their mothers die within seven days of birth.  They all go forth after seeing four signs (an aged man, sick man, corpse and recluse) to attain Enlightenment etc.
Though all seven Buddhas were born in this earth, there are other planes of existence. Various planes of existence of beings are present even though we cannot see most of them. The Supreme Buddha taught that there are nine such different planes of existence. These are known as ‘Sattāvāsa’. Some of these worlds belong to the type called ‘Ēkatta Kāyā’ ‘Ēkatta Sagnyā’. The ‘Ēkatta’ denotes a meaning of ‘single’. This means, all the beings in this type of worlds are similar to each other with respect to their bodies and minds. These worlds also belong to one world which is known as ‘Ābhassara Brahma’. Beings in this world feed on a great deal of happiness. The main reason for such happiness is the absence of variety in these worlds that could induce hate.
On the other hand, the human world is completely different. Humans belong to the type known as ‘Nānātta Kāyā’ ‘Nānātta Sagnyā’, which means different bodies and minds. In human world, we have to face feelings mixed with suffering and happiness. This difference leads them to divide into different groups even due to a small incident and fight with each other. Human world is the lowest plane in which one can realize the four noble truths, that is why all of the Buddhas are born here.

Buddhas may be born anywhere on the earth-plane, which essentially means the universe of matter inhabited by human beings. I don't believe geocentricity is taught or implied by Buddhism.


text:
Queen Mallika story and stream entry
I was wondering about the story of queen Mallika, she seems like someone who entered the stream, nevetheless she went to hell after passing away.
Is it possible for someone to be reborn on the awful planes after entering the stream? I thought it was impossible

In AN 3.86 it is taught that a stream enterer will be born in human and deva realms for a maximum of seven life times:

"[Some,] with the wasting away of the three fetters, are
'one-seed-ers' (ekabijin): After taking rebirth only one more time on
the human plane, they will put an end to stress.
"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the
wasting away of the three fetters they are 'family-to-family-ers'
(kolankola): After transmigrating & wandering on through two or three
more families [according to the Commentary, this phrase should be
interpreted as 'through two to six more states of becoming'], they
will put an end to stress.
"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the
wasting away of the three fetters they are 'seven-times-at-most-ers'
(sattakkhattuparama): After transmigrating & wandering on among devas
& human beings, they will put an end to stress."
AN 3.86

In Great Disciples of the Buddha: Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy, by Nyaponika Thera it is mentioned that she wasn't a stream enterer at the time of her death. He gives the reason for her birth in hell as:

When Mallika died her twofold transgression-her sexual contact with the dog and her mendacious attempt to free herself from blame-caught up with her and brought about a rebirth in hell.

and later he says,

Although it was a very short-termed sojourn there, one can see that Mallika had not yet attained stream-entry during her life on earth...

Case closed! :)


text:
What is the meaning of Rahula?
I am speaking of course of Siddhartha Gautama's son. I was told Rahula means obstacle. Is this true?

"Rāhulajāto, bandhanam jātam"   the word rāhula meaning bond

(Source: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/r/raahula.htm)
edit: see comments below

Prince Siddhartha was preparing himself to leave the palace. One account[1] claims that when he received the news of his son's birth he replied Rāhu jāto, bandhanam jātam — "A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen." Accordingly the child was named Rāhula, meaning "fetter", or "impediment", recognizing that the child could be a tie that bound him to his wife Yashodhara, a binding that may impede a search for enlightenment. - Wikipedia. So that would explain a interpreation like "bond", but it seems to be more of an interpretation, has anyone some inside knowledge?

That's right. Fetter, bond, etc.

Well it says impediment or fetter, which means in fact obstacle, right? So "bond" is just the interpretation in context, but not the translation.

bandhanam jātam means a bond was created.

rāhu generally means something which is obstructive or inauspicious in Sinhala usage. I am not sure about Pali.

Also jāto means born.

so in the end we have something like "an impediment was born and created a bond" right? Or would you still suggest that it is correct to translate rahula with "bond". It seems as the translation as "obstacle" is actually correct isnt it?

Yes. That is more like it.

I'm a Buddhist and at the temple I attended, Rāhula mean "a rope tying him back". Our temple has many monks so I find this information reliable.

Hello Hannah and welcome to Buddhism SE. We put together some information for new users that you might find useful.

Rahu is the name of the shadowy god of eclipses. There are enough Indians named after Hindu gods to believe that Rahula was named after this god. Rahul is a common enough Indians named and this explanation seems far more likely than the one normally given in Buddhist texts.

So, "something that obstructs" (the sun) ?

Firstly, I am not a Pali scholar. But in Myanmar, Rahula means eclipse in Pali. And he was named by his grandfather the king, not Siddhartha.He did not name his son as “Shackles or obstacle”. According to Theravada tradition, he was already planning in the garden to leave the palace.But Siddhartha's father, who was the king sent a messenger to tell the news of the birth to his son.
When Siddhartha heard the news, he was happy at first, then felt sad as he already made up his mind to leave. His face brightened like the moon then that moon being eclipsed . So the messenger told this change in his face to the king and the king named the child as “Eclipse”, which was according to the culture of that region (You will see many instances of that naming system in Pali scripture).
Actually, in Buddhist literature, it is much honored scene that the night of his silent departure from the palace, he went to see his sleeping wife and baby at the last minute and felt greatly sorry that he had to leave them for the greater love for the world. And as you suggest, Buddha never encouraged his disciples to leave worldly responsibilities and join him. He always encouraged that the worldly affairs must be taken care, debts must be paid, sentences must be served and leave must be granted before becoming a monk.

ra= sun
hul = grass.
ra+hul
it has a lot of meaning, and have to be lucky to have that name.
a person having that name is always bright and shining like the sun among others.
the sun can make anything weak, but not grass.
only you can put yourself down, nobody can even try.
the name also states that ur best motivator is yourself!
I'm lucky to have that name!


text:
Meditation to control anxiety and hyperactivity?
I have recently taken up meditation to help with becoming more spiritual in general, but I am also interested in using meditation to improve my general well being.
When I am stressed and even after that (which is quite often) I tend to feel uneasy and restless in my feet and back then I get worried about my general health etc. Sympytoms only persist when I am not doing anything
How do I meditate to calm myself down and help in alliviating the spasms and restlessness due to my stress/anxiety/inability to concentrate?
Thank you and peace!

Welcome to Buddhism.SE. Not to be that guy, but I'm not sure we are well equipped to answer this sort of general self-help question. This is a site to get answers to questions about Buddhist philosophy and practice. Now, if you specify in your question which tradition you are looking for answers from, or at least that you are wondering what Buddhism says about your problem, that would probably help get quality answers.

I would say that I am looking to find out if there is a Buddhist philosophy or any kind of meditation routine that could help me channel negative thoughts away and help me take more control over myself

I get that, but this isn't really the place to look for such general help... we are a "best answer" forum, which means there should ideally be one right answer to every question. This question is both overly broad and overly opinion based for our site. As far as help goes, you're anyway likely to get conflicting answers, since meditation and Buddhism are such broad topics. Essentially, you are asking the internet for a meditation technique to help your anxiety, which probably isn't the best idea.

Arkaput, try to make another question as per Ven. Yuttadhammo's recommendation, in the meantime, try some guided metta meditation to see if it helps, usually it is good to reduce fear in the short term, as love is the opposite of fear. Anxiety is a fear of the future. Im not sure it will help because your question was too broad, but give it a try

I think most Buddhist traditions agree that while meditating, you should concentrate on your breathing, and note when/if your mind starts to wander.  So if you have a spasm, you don't have to deny it or feel like a failure, but you recognize that it's happening, but also maintain your focus elsewhere.  You're focusing on your meditation, and whatever happens with your body goes on in spite of that because you're human, but doesn't have to detract from your focus.  You can tell your focus where to direct itself.
I know it's popular to say meditation can help with spasms and restlessness.  I think people say that because they find it teaches them to be at peace doing nothing, and that they can choose not to worry or think negative (or any) thoughts.  Personally, I'm not at that level, and I tend to become more worried when I'm not doing anything.  Perhaps for that reason, I don't schedule very long meditation sessions.  If I say I'll meditate only for 15 minutes, then I can believe that it's okay to meditate and give the meditation my full attention for that time.  If I schedule a longer time, then I have trouble really believing that it's a good use of my time, and I get fidgety.


text:
What is the purpose of not eating after noon?
We all know this precept taken by the monks, but I would like to understand the reasons behind it. Currently the specialists claim that we should eat small portions every 3 hours or so, eating once a day is not a big issue, but is not recommended.

Good question actually. It's the hardest to keep in an uposatha day for me. I wonder how monks cope with it during the first few days after ordination.

Good question and lots of good answers. Thanks.

This is not only a precept undertaken by monks, but that of all seriously following Buddhas advice and undertaken by all those seeking a way upwards or even beyound. It's an anicent Uposatha precept. So maybe you like to change that indicating in you question, Konrad

@Samana Johann Householders, as a general rule, do this at Uposatha in imitation of the monks.  So konrad's  question is valid as it stands.

From my understanding, the Buddha laid down the rule to not eat afternoon in order to reduce the burden on the laity and to help the sangha avoid a negative reputation.
In the Latukikopama Sutta (MN 66) the Buddha said that there were many disadvantages to going for alms at night.

that monks wandering for alms in the pitch dark of the night have
  walked into a waste-water pool, fallen into a cesspool, stumbled over
  a thorn patch, or stumbled over a sleeping cow. They have encountered
  young hooligans on the way to or from a crime.

Great answer. Looking forward to more content from you.

The image of a monk stumbling over a sleeping cow makes me giggle every time!  :-D

Any reason why this rule is in the eight precepts for lay people?

See my answer and http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3758/295

I too am finding that small meals every 3-4 hours helps me meditate easier.
Teachers like Ajahn Chah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Chah
have talked about not eating after 11am or noon. But he later developed diabetes and went into a coma for a year. Diabetes often is started by huge swings of blood sugar in hypoglycemia. That is why regular meals with protein (milk, tofu, yogurt, beans or meat if that is part of your diet) can help stabilize blood sugar and make diabetes a less probable outcome.
In Thai monasteries with novices, they eat an early meal and then 11:30 eat the leftovers from the first.
http://www.thaiworldview.com/bouddha/bouddha3.htm
There were reasons why monks ate only in the morning - to make sure eating does not interfere with meditation is the reason given
http://www.buddhapadipa.org/dhamma-corner/buddhist-tasks/
another practical reason is that the kitchen staff would not be able to participate at all in the afternoon or evening ceremonies if they had to cook many meals a day.
There were definite reasons why that was chosen for centuries before, but what worked for another time and culture might be less effective today.

"but what worked for another time and culture might be less effective today." Very strong argument in my opinion. Don't let precepts get in the way of the value of your own experience. If you experience benefits from a precept, go for it, if you don't, leave them I would say. Of course, the 'you' here is not targeted at the ego.

If I am to chime in and add to the other answers.
If you are a meditator not eating after noon is not a problem.

You will be calming your bodily fabrication which reduces metabolism (let alone food, you will require less oxygen)
When you are looking at the arising and passing away of phenomena, you will see hunger is also such a sensation, constituting of large number of Kalapas. Practicing equanimity to fabrication mean that after some time you can be equanimous towards hunger too.

Also following Q&A may be of relavence: What dietary practices are most helpful for reaching enlightenment?
Eating after noon would also entail:

go for alms round depriving time and effort ideally put for meditation
excessive eating can lead to lethargy
craving for the taste or eating can be a hindrance

 Kitagiri Sutta

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was wandering on a tour of Kasi with a large community of monks. There he addressed the monks: "I abstain from the night-time meal.1 As I am abstaining from the night-time meal, I sense next-to-no illness, next-to-no affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding. Come now. You too abstain from the night-time meal. As you are abstaining from the night-time meal, you, too, will sense next-to-no illness, next-to-no affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding."

I agree that it's hard to eat only one meal a day. Even though there's a benefit of 'lightness' after some time hunger can become trouble.

Good pointer. +1

In addition to the answers already provided which are quite accurate, one minor point that occurs to me is culture.
For a long time in India yogis ate only one meal a day, even among Hindus.
The saying is a yogi eats one meal a day, a commoner eats two meals a day and a sick man eats three meals a day.

Eating once or twice a day has been shown to be very healthy and is called "intermittent fasting".  It is especially useful for mental clarity and promoting the body's use of fat for energy, actually eliminating hypoglycemia rather than promoting it.
This state is called ketosis (not to be confused with diabetic ketoacidosis) and it has a profound impact on the brain, energy and cognition.  It is being employed today in everything for aiding in the treatment of cancer, fueling ultra-long distance atheletes, reversing or greatly improving type 2 diabetes and treating brain injuries and conditions.
It and the teaching to eat temperately undoubtable has great benefit for meditation practices.  Ever tried meditating with a food coma.  Its like the reason for abstaining from alcohol.  Its all about what is useful and helpful to one's practice.
The Buddha also advised avoiding things like onions and garlic due to their supposed effect on one's meditation practice.
ps
If you have been relying on many small meals it is due to getting most of your energy from carbohydrates.  People who prefer a carb based diet may want to look at something like a "slow-carb diet) which eliminates sugar and refined grain in favor of slower absorbed carb sources like beans and oats that give a more even, longer lasting energy.

Hello Jones and welcome to Buddhism SE. Good answer. Could you provide a reference to where the Buddha adviced avoiding things like onions and garlic? That would be helpful. We also have a "Help Center" for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

I think it's likely that there were cultural and situational factors influencing this meal schedule, like others have mentioned.
One thing might have been that, at the time this was begun, there may have been less food overall for that population. Eating less might have been easier because there was not much more food to eat. There wasn't much temptation. They didn't live in a state of perpetual plenty like many people in many countries now.
Just a thought.

Many people think of this is a sort of moderate asceticism. However, reading the suttas and doing additional research I came to realize that the actual purpose of this practice is to maximize health and well-being. According to Indian Ayurvedic medicine, which was in its heyday during the lifetime of the Buddha, the digestive fire or agni is maximal during the waxing of the sun, i.e., from sunrise to noon, and it is during this time that food should be taken to maximize digestion and assimilation of nutrition. It has nothing to do with asceticism, although of course the Buddha did teach that one should eat moderately, i.e., only what is necessary for good health.

I asked about this matter to my teacher before, a lot of thai monks have problems with their health because of eating once a day. Then i realised that a lot of them ate rice cakes and thai foods is not good for stomach if you don't eat rice. A lot of factors.
As for me, I've been taking the meals once a day before noon since 2015 and since then i feel fresh, lighter and i could meditate as long as i want because i don't have to think about having a lot of meals. I did medical checkup a few months ago and my health conditions are very good.
I guess you just need to balance your consumption and you'll stay healthy.
And also few years back, my japanese friend sent me a link about a doctor who'd been doing this once a day meal. His face from 20 years back and the current shows that he's getting younger and he did show up on television.

In my opinion it's best to eat mostly in between the time period of a few hours before sunrise and noon, to be in synch with the sun. As it is rising, it's generating energy and light until it's apex at noon, then gradually tapers down to sunset, as natural human activity should.

although to my knowledge this view isn't attested for anywhere, i think this custom has also an aspect of inculcating a sense of moderation, modesty and knowing one's limits in getting free rides
the monastics obtain their meals for free as donations, just one meal is a great gift and act of generosity, because lay people aren't obliged to feed monastics
expecting to be fed for free trice a day for instance would be impudent of monastics as it would put more strain on the lay community resources

The purpose is ideally for those who meditate were the extra food is more than what is appropriate.
Specialists must claim what they claim for active people who use up substantial energy on defilements and don't meditate much.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that often the majority of specialists, at least those whose religion is material science, are incorrect. They are biased by materialist views IMO.

Please read Bhaddaali-Sutta MN65
describing the laying down of the rule about not eating at improper times.
The sutta also contains the parable of the Ajaniya horse. An excellent tamed mule schooled by an expert trainer and put through the various stages of training, becomes endowed with ten qualities. Such a thoroughbred horse is fit to be regarded as a treasure by a king. Similarly, a man who has developed the Noble Eightfold Path and obtained right knowledge and right deliverance, becomes the richest field in which the seed of merit may be sown.
http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-length-discourses-buddha/selections/middle-length-discourses-65-bhaddali-sutta
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Bhaddali_Sutta

I feel not eating after noon is a very good way to be healthy. The health problems happen when, even though one doesn't eat after noon, one has tea and other things, which by themselves are fine, but when taken with sugar, are bound to cause problems, given the fact that insulin sensitivity decreases as the day progresses.
It also doesn't go with the general advice that eating thus would help us be equanimous when struck with hunger. I prefer only water after noon, and even when I eat a huge meal during the day, it's all slow carb. Eating thus also helps to balance our body processes, as our body is catabolic during the day (hence eating mostly then to balance out, as digestion and assimilation is anabolic).
I also feel that the Budhha, who was so in tune with his feelings, could feel this last point, that eating this way leads to a balanced body at all times.
Of course, no one way is the best, it's all about being on the middle path, right? But these, in my opinion, are some ways in which this diet, when done properly, could be helpful to us, as validated by the science of today.

Avoid too much food is sila.
Less food=Good health.
Good health=sukha.
Sukha is base of samatha.
Samatha is base of vipassana.
There are sila samadhi panna.


text:
Is it possible to reconcile the evolution theory with Buddhism?
Is it possible to reconcile the evolution theory with Buddhism, or they are 2 things that simply cannot go along? In other words you have to choose one.

Did you find information leading to either view, or relating both in any way? If so, please share your findings in the question, it is very valuable for who is reading :)

Isn't there supposed to have been, according to the suttas, on Earth, 20 something other Buddhas in the past behind Gotama Buddha, each appearing thousands of years between each other and each  seeming to be living in the same technological period? That seems to be a conflict with    Darwin's theory of evolution. Maybe it was meant that the other Buddhas were not of Earth?

@user535875 before anything, AFAIK, darwin's theory is about natural selection and fitness; how organisms mutation plays a role in favoring (or not) their survival on a setting. Not about technological progress or economic maturity. If -- and that is not clear -- each Buddha appears in the same technological setting, this can be either to (a) a stable society; or (b) the decay of the first period, followed by the rise of a second period to the point of maturity the first was. None of these talk about environmental/social changes benefiting different mutations -- and no clue to these are given.

Hi all, I see buddhism as the religion with most connections with science, it is known as a "science of the mind" in many places, but this particular topic seems to be a problem (very hard to reconcile) as according to Buddhism beings used to leave 10.000 years in the past and nothing in modern science can support that, so: was that to be taken literally? Maybe not, maybe the Buddha was talking about a previous world cicle, not this one, I dont know...

@konrad01 i think your question seem more inclined towards the known history (drawn from archeology and preserved evidence of ancient societies) and how awkward these seem contrasted with some suttas than with evolution theory. Is this correct?

Not exactly Thiago, I was trying to ask if it is possible to reconcile both views here or should we choose one. There a few possible ways of reconciling, such as: It was just a story, Buddha was talking about a previous world cicle, this sutta may have suffered with oral transmission, it was a metaphor... etc..

I don't think that the concepts of "Kalpa"s and of "evolution" (in the sense of Darwin) can be seen as antagonisms. A simple thought might indicate that: If a biologician works with a sample of bacillas and observes the rules of the evolution of stems, their reproduction and mutations (thus studies the  whereabouts in the sense of Darwin) - if he throws away that sample after a certain time and begins with a new one: then this might be identified with the idea "a new Kalpa" (if the bacillas had an historian...) but it would not invalidate Darwin's concept of evolution...

Another aspect for the question of "reconcilation" of the concept of "Karma" and that of (Darwin's) "evolution". It is a new one, but there is the concept of "epigenetics" - the influence of experiences of "the life&everything" ;-) not only on the psychic structure, but even down into the genetics where it seems that something like this was found with animals (birds?) but I think they assume (or have already found) changes in the genetics caused by strong traumata. If that comes out to be true then I think it is no more out of the perspective ...

...that "organizing the private and social environment" (improving for/by ethical and other rules) has an influence on your descendents - and I think Darwin himself, as a devoted scientist, would have been cool enough to adapt results like this and thus had improved the finer structure of his genetic/evolutionary principles and laws. (I do not know more about this "epigenetics" than some article readings some years ago. On the other hand I've made some surprising experiences with the methods of "Familienstellen"(B.Hellinger) in the light of the above and in the light of the concept of "Karma")

I'm really not sure what one has to do with the other.  The Buddha taught the path leading to the cessation of suffering.  Evolutionary theory explains what happens through the interplay of a given species and its surroundings.  I think the example set by the Dalai Lama is very instructive in demonstrating how a Buddhist should approach science.  He strongly embraces what science has to teach us about reality - which is what Buddhism seeks to do in it's own way.  He even goes so far as to say that if science (and by science, I understand him to mean rigorous testing and reproducible evidence) could prove an aspect of Buddhism teaching false, a Buddhist would have to side with science.  I'm really don't see anything in evolution that would impinge on the dharma.

HI, thanks, I was referring to the suttas where the Buddha taught many things, not only the path to enlightment, I guess he spoke about origins of life here. Regarding Dalai Lama he is the leader of Tiberan Buddhism, let's wait for answers from others tradicitons as well :)

Agganna sutta is accepted in most traditions. Here's some of what it says about the origins of the humans.

‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long
  period this world  contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are
  mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma  world. And there they dwell,
  mind-made, feeding on delight, self luminous, moving  through the air,
  glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or
  later,  after a very long period, this world begins to expand again.
  At a time of expansion, the  beings from the Abhassara Brahma world,
  having passed away from there, are mostly  reborn in this world. Here
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous,  moving
  through the air, glorious—[5] and they stay like that for a very long
  time.

So most Buddhist traditions wouldn't agree that humans evolved from some sea creature.
But the sutta says that humans looked much different compared to how they appear today. It also goes on to explain how they changed over time. So there's a similarity. But this change occurred due to the change in the mental states and due to the different types of food they consumed over time. Humans were intelligent beings at the start. Not single-celled organisms. And they didn't share any common ancestor with other species.

Just to add a quick point: After his enlightment the Buddha was able to contemplate 91 world cycles, that is why we say time has no beginning and will never end, it goes on and on expanding and contracting, this theory can easily fit with modern science (we still dont know for sure if the universe will contract but there is a good chance according to some cosmologists)

Yes, that is a good point for those who feel the need to verify Buddhism with Science. Buddhists(those who put their faith in the Triple gem) wouldn't have a problem, even if Science says something different. :)

Yes! I think buddhism neither affirm nor deny the evolution theory, it is really an open question, also let's not forget that the Buddha intentionaly left some questions unanswered

Well, even with certain similarities, Agganna Sutta is not compatible with the evolution theory. Maybe you should explain in your answer as to why it is not so.

Suggested edits to you explanation of evolution, instead of: "humans were intelligent beings at the start. Not single-celled organisms", to  "Humans have have been formed fully human, not sharing any ancestor with other species."

"Humans have been formed fully human" can be misleading as the beings came from the Abhassara Brahma realm were very different from modern day humans. They didn't even have a gender to start with. But i have added your other point.

Buddhist theory of evolution and cosmology is covered in the Aggañña Sutta. There is a article The Origin of Life in the Universe: Buddhist Perspective which discusses this topic which might be of interest to you.
We have to consider this has been handed down as a oral tradition before it was written down. So there might be variations. Having said this Buddhism can can stand the test of scientific scrutiny. Buddhism is empirical.
Also see: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology_(Theravada)

Origin of Species
Aggañña Sutta is in complete agreement with scientific evolution. The Aggañña Sutta presents water as pre-existent to earthlike planets, with the planet forming with water and the life moving from the water onto the earth. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. . According to Buddhism, world systems always appear and disappear in the universe.

(Sourced: http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2010/01/27/the-origin-of-life-in-the-universe-buddhist-perspective/)
Above is exactly what Drawin also said. Though Buddhism goes beyond by describing who the whole world system formed and how biological life forms came to being from other life forms (non biological). Within the scope of biological life forms it is the same as Darwin.

Let me know if you want more information or elaboration 5

Yes, but can it or can't ir be reconciled with Darwins theory?

Yes if you read the Sutta you will see early life forms were like moss and from that higher life forms evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta#The_Beginning_of_Life_on_Earth

This will not answer your question, but maybe it can help a lot:
"Thia samyutta is organized around questions that the Buddha left unanswered. Most of the discourses here focus on questions in a standard list of ten that were apparently the hot issues for philosophers in the Buddha's day: Is the cosmos eternal? Is it not eternal? Is it finite? Is it infinite? Is the body the same as the soul? Is the body one thing and the soul another? Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Both? Neither?
MN 72 lists the reasons why the Buddha does not take a position on any of these questions. In each case he says that such a position "is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding."
These reasons fall into two categories. The first concerns the present drawbacks of taking such a position: It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, and fever. The second category concerns the effects of such a position over time: It does not lead to awakening or Unbinding. AN 10.93 further explores the first category of reasons. MN 63 further explores the second.
Some of the discourses in this samyutta explore a third category of reasons for why the Buddha does not take a position on any of these questions: Such a position is based on attachment to and misunderstanding of the aggregates and sense media. When one sees these things for what they are, as they're actually present, the idea of forming them into any of these positions simply does not occur to one."
Source:Introduction to the Avyakata Samyutta
(Undeclared-connected)
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

From the standpoint of secular Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism there has been a focus on teachings as practical guidelines.
Quoting the Dalai Lama that:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain
  claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of
  science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
In this way combining both Buddhism and Science, using each for it's strength's;
seeing Buddhism as source on:

the mind, meditation and morality and seeing
meditation
morality
freeing suffering
philosophy

And seeing Science as the expert on:

The natural sciences
Mathematics
History
Engineering
Architecture

Edit, adding interpretation of Aganna Sutta
One the more skeptical interpretations of Aganna Sutta has been of Prof. Gobrich.
That is was never to be taken literally, but as parody to the cosmology in the Veda, and trying to get across that both language and the caste system was of not divine origin.
He came to this conclusion because the Buddha had always been reluctant to posit a cosmology. Source Used:
http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=features/buddhas-universe-vs-western-science.
Original Source:
Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988, page 82-85.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” - 'Conclusive' is the keyword here. Conclusive according to Science or Buddhism? That again brings the argument back to knowing it by direct experience. :)

I think the Dalai Lama means conclusive according to Science, His Holiness has a great affinity with science. But I'm not trying to start an argument, simply to describe a position held by some Buddhist.

Yea, if that is the case, it means taking refuge in Science instead of the Dhamma. So the question arises if one can still be considered as a Buddhist.

That's why I added The Dalai Lama, including with secular Buddhism. As is with other religions, one can argue that Catholicism or Protestantism can be seen as not true Christianity. But the question is whether this is useful.

But questioning if one can be considered a Buddhist is more relevant to this question than questioning if it is useful to take refuge in science instead of the Dhamma. :)

If you are arguing that views from Secular or Tibetan Buddhism should not be considered Buddhist and therefore not be used on this website to provide answers, I suggest you open a post  on  meta that. If that is the case I will limit my answer to the interpretation of Aganna Sutta

Not at all! I have no issue with your answer. I'm simply pointing out if one takes refuge in Science instead of the Dhamma, one can't be considered as a Buddhist according to the standard definition.

Both Buddhism and the evolution theory agree that beings change with time. The conflicts are only in the details. Buddhism says that humans were much more pure and radiant at the beginning. Evolution theory says that humans were ugly and primitive at the start. Buddhism says, beings came to this world from another world. Evolution theory or modern science says that beings evolved from a single celled organism on earth.
Which one to pick is your personal choice. Some prefer to reserve judgement for various reasons. I pick Agganna Sutta since I take refuge in the Buddha instead of Darwin.

Buddhism claims human beings used to live for 10.000 years, right? Should one take that literally?

Much more than 10,000 years. Unlike other beings, human life span changes with time and is said to be in correlation with the purity of the mind. Yes, there's nothing wrong in taking it literally.

Ok, so I would say not reconciliable with the origin of species (by Darwin) unless I'm missing something here :)

Reconcilable only on the similarity. Which is the change itself.

@konrad01 I personally don't take it literally. This story is mentioned in DN 26 which is a highly symbolic Sutta that uses language that isn't strictly literal. For example, it talks about how a Monk's beauty is his keeping virtue and their wealth is the four Brahmaviharas. The thing about 10 000 years and such occurs when the Buddha tells a story in this Sutta about a mythic golden age in the past, and to me the story sounds like a symbolic story about human nature and the stages of development of human society, not about a literal historical account.

@Bakmoon this is the point, this is key for me, I loved your answer and I tend to agree, Buddha said we should not take things for granted no matted who said it, we should check it with reason, I have a hard time accepting this sutta, so I'm trying to understand exactly that: could it be just a way of telling a story?

@konrad01 I'm going to put my full answer in an answer instead of a comment.

Brilliant! Go ahead!

"Evolution theory says that humans were ugly and primitive at the start." This is a misrepresentation of the science of evolution.  The evolutionary model only explains that heritable traits which increase reproductive success become more common over time, and that genetic variations will cause some traits to change.  Evolution does not regard beauty or ugliness.  Evolution, like gravity, is amoral: it can introduce traits promoting jealousy, compassion, greed, and empathy alike.  It also does not explain the origin of life.

Well, the models of human ancestors they have come up with, in accordance with the evolution theory are definitely ugly

I think we should take refuge in the triple gems and believe in Buddha’s words instead of scientists.

The thing about 10 000 years is mentioned as part of a long story in DN 26 about a wheel turning monarch who lived a very long time ago who passed on the throne to his son and things went wrong when he stopped caring for the poor, and as a result people started stealing, and the whole society began to degenerate into worse and worse virtue, humanity's life span began to decrease, and eventually it will be shortened to ten years of life and be plunged into great violence, some people will flee and change their ways, and their descendants begin to become better, regaining what was lost.
I don't take the story literally as even the other material given in this sutta is non-literal. For example the Buddha says that if they practice correctly things like their beauty, wealth, and power will increase, but the Buddha gives non-literal explanations of these things, being virtue, the four brahma-viharas, and liberation of the heart and wisdom.
Also the fact is that the Buddha often used similies and stories to make a point that was non-literal. I think that this particular sutta is mostly an extended parable, with lifespan symbolizing the stage of human development. The story in this sutta is very rich with meanings when understood properly. It is a story about human nature, and about society, good governance, and the effects of widespread immorality. I think trying to demand that it only be understood literally is totally missing the point on why the Buddha would have told this story in the first place.

Thanks Bakmoon, I vote for this answer, but I will let the topic "open" for new ones

There exists, for example, the notion of the "kalpa": which Buddhism may have inherited from Vedism.
If it were true that a kalpa is 4 billion years, and that the age of the earth is about 4 billion years, and that there have been several kalpas of existence, does that imply that ... Buddhism describes life on another (previous) planet?
Other religions, e.g. Judaism and Christianity, permit their members to view their "book of Genesis' as a metaphor; or as being informative on some subjects (e.g. the sequence of creation, light before matter, sea before land, land before animals) while not 'literally' true in other ways (e.g. that the world was created in 6 "days").
If some Buddhist texts and modern cosmology disagree, I don't think that's important: because IMO the reason why Buddhism is important is not because of what it says about cosmology.
If I want to know how to mend my computer, I expect to read a modern book on that subject, not an ancient book. Similarly, if I want to learn more about the modern theory of evolution, I don't expect to find that in an ancient text.
What I can assume is:

The Buddha lived about 7000 years ago
The Buddha's teaching was insightful (into man's relation with the world), helpful (for people relating with the world), and general (useful to anyone who is able to understand and apply it)
Human beings (we, the human species) have not changed/evolved so much in the last 7000 years that the Buddha's teaching is no longer relevant to us.

It would not be sensible to reject all Buddhist doctrine, just because its texts include one or two details that don't jibe with modern science: and especially when those texts are unimportant to the Buddhist doctrine.
The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow makes it very clear what's important:

"Live the holy life with me"
The four noble truths:

And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

Questions answered by evolution (i.e. "On the Origin of Species") seem to me more academic, less personal: i.e. "not connected with the goal, not fundamental to the holy life; they do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding." In other words, it's unrelated to Buddhism.
Wikipedia on the Agganna Sutta says that the main purpose of that Sutta is to stand in contrast to some brahminical claims about the caste system, and in contrast to a specific Vedic hymn. If so then perhaps that Agganna Sutta was skillful then, at the time when it was written, and for that audience, but not intended/important for me.
Evolution theory and Buddhism don't need to be reconciled because they're different subjects:

Evolution theory talks about how species evolve, for example because of competitive pressure (survival of the fittest) combined with inheritance of semi-random genetic mutation.
Buddhist theory talks about personal suffering, attachment, cessation, and a path of practice.

Let me explain it better: Some Buddha's teachings cannot be proved scientificaly (karma and rebirth) but they are KEY for the Buddhist practice, we need to believe them using some kind of faith (in Buddhas enlightment), but if Buddha said things proved wrong by science it does make it harder for us to believe in topics like rebirth, BUT I'm not saying he was wrong, this is just a possibility, I was trying to explore that...

I agreed with this answer of yours.

Yes, good point, but you see... it is impermanence! Lol! My personal conflict of scientist x religious guy is not done yet :)

If it's unsatisfying (dukka) isn't that to be expected? :) I expect descriptions to be illustrative, not literal. E.g. if someone says that a photon is like a wave, or that an atom is like a plum pudding, I don't take it literally. A model is a simplified description of one aspect of something. There can be several models describing different aspects, e.g. a photon is "like a particle' and also "like a wave".

See also the parable of the blind men and an elephant.

I thought Buddha lived about 2500 years ago not 7000 thousands

@TheDBSGuy Yes, I have no idea why I wrote "7000".

theory of evolution by natural selection.

This is two things. Plain idea of 'evolution' supposes progress and positive development of species. Buddhists probably should not hold such position, as species could regress as result of bad karma. And about 'natural selection' part, why not? Idea of selection, natural or not, doesn't coincide or contradict idea of karma. Idea of genetic engineering either.

Evolutionists take the view that consciousness arises from a material cause. Buddhists cannot accept this. You have to divide the cause into two: the main or substantial cause and the cooperative cause. Matter can only be a cooperative cause, never the main or substantial cause for consciousness. According to the Buddhist view of evolution, there is an infinite universe. In Buddhist cosmology, any world system will go through phases. Sometimes it is destroyed, sometimes it arises, sometimes there will be gross matter, sometimes no gross matter, but really there is no beginning or end to it. And there is always subtle consciousness. So what is a sentient being? A sentient being is an entity designated upon the basis of a body and a mind, and fundamentally what is referred to by the mind here is the extremely subtle mind, which is continuous through all the cycles. Note: In the tantric Buddhist tradition of Tibet, it is regarded as possible for an accomplished practitioner to transfer his consciousness into the body of an animal that has just died if the body remains essentrially intact.

Evolution is a position about how different species arise from common ancestors. No textbook on evolution that I know of says that consciousness arises from a material cause. In fact, even the field of psychology doesn't even try to answer questions like "What is the mind and where does it come from?" Individual scientists might be materialists, but even among them I think there is a strong consensus among scientists that those kinds of questions are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

@Bakmoon, your last sentence is not entirely correct. The nature of mind as "intelligence" is studied by cognitive sciences. The nature of mind as "awareness" is studied in a (relatively) new interdisciplinary field called "consciousness studies" that brings together research from neuropathology, neuroscience, quantum physics, artificial intelligence etc. Although I agree that strictly speaking the question of evolution belongs to a different context than the question of the nature of mind, the two overlap in an emerging discipline called "memetics".

@AndreiVolkov Intelligence is studied, yes, but not from an ontological perspective in psychology. And even with consciousness studies, much of it is considered to be a branch of philosophy, not  science. Scientific evidence is relevant to the field but the actual conclusions made are part of philosophy, not science. That is why it is considered to be a Humanities-Science interdisciplinary field and not just an interdisciplinary field between branches of science.

True, but in comparison with what we're used to call "philosophy" for centuries, "consciousness studies" is a philosophy of mind that is surprisingly well grounded in empirical research. Anyway, my point was, to say that the nature of mind is not at all related to evolution, sounds like naive pigeonholing, esp. in context of the question.

Bakmoon is correct in that no proof of how consciousness can arise from a material cause has yet reached textbooks. However it is a persistent theme in science fiction, notably in Isaac Asimov's Robot series, and it is the aim of constructing neural networks for "artificial intelligence".

The evolutionist depicted here specifies a chain of material causes by which self-replicating molecules assemble into living cells which in turn differentiate into competing species whose ultimate descendent is the conscious human. The evolutionary explanation does not require a supernatural cause or control, though only atheists are content with the absence of one. For them, evolution explains consciousness.

@cuddlyable3 For materialists it provides the basis of consciousness, yes. But you don't have to be a materialist to accept evolution.

@cuddlyable3 have you read "Consciousness, an Introduction" by Susan Blackmore (pub. 2003) -- a textbook for undergrads or perhaps "Consciousness, Explained" by Daniel Dennett (pub. 1991) or maybe the last chapter of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (pub. 1976!) ? Wake up, it's 2014 today ;)

@Andrei Volkov No + no + no. The strident Dawkin's mechanistic gene-motivated concept of evolution is at best irrelevant to Buddha's enlightenment and Dawkin unskilfully tries to argue that conscious personal altruism is only an illusion. BTW "The Selfish Gene" 2nd edition (1989) has some added chapters.

@cuddlyable3 my point was, there are plenty of hypotheses (if not proofs) of "how consciousness can arise from a material cause". As for how this is relevant to Buddhas enlightenment, esp. anatta, we'll have to agree to disagree :)

@Andrei Volkov I invite you to vote my answer as you see fit, rather than developing further a disagreement here with Bakmoon about compartmentalising science and philosophy. The answer to the original question "Is it possible to reconcile..." is "No" if evolution theory is wilfully connected with a material hypothesis of consciousness inconsistent with the key teaching of Pratītyasamutpāda.

I am the only person who upvoted your answer, a while ago. Otherwise you would have -1 now. But i dont think you understand Pratityasamutpada...

Isn't the question really asking is science and Buddhism compatible or are they like oil and water, never finding common ground?
Buddhism teaches that all sentient beings can eventually be free. This process called evolution has led to self-conscious beings with the potential to evolve and awaken into what Buddhists call awakened consciousness.
What science also says is that 4% of the universe is visible. And 96% is dark matter or energy that is not visible and is unknowable with the mind. The problem is that science is a theoretical field and Buddhism has many certainties in its teachings. However some branches of Buddhism introduce the concept of uncertainty. This very much corresponds to the 96% unseen part of the universe. So if we use the intellect we are only capable of describing the visible universe.
Buddhism seems to imply that the seen is not the power of the universe, but the unknown is the source of uncertainty and power.
Getting back to evolution, it describes the visual universe. Buddhism does not deny evolution as the Dalai Lama tries to reconcile religion and Buddhism, but Buddhism goes far beyond the theory of evolution because it infers the existence of awareness not subject to the laws of form.
Science and Buddhism look at existence and non-existence with different lens, but one does not exclude the other.

Based on the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the Leaves in the Forest, the Discourse on Unconjecturable Things and DN 24, the Buddha would definitely put the creation or non-creation of the world and living things, and the evolution or non-evolution of living things into the category of "unimportant for the ending of suffering".
In other words, Buddhism would neither support nor oppose Darwin's Theory of Evolution, because Buddhism considers it to be irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering.
That said, you shouldn't be surprised if many Buddhists, in their personal view, choose to accept as true the mainstream consensus of the scientific community, that is based on the scientific method.

On page 81 of the book "How Buddhism Began: The conditioned genesis of the early teachings" Second Edition by Richard F. Gombrich, the indology professor and Founder-President of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, explained the predominant scholarly opinion that the Aggañña Sutta is a satirical sutta. I quote below:

The  long  passage  in  the  Pali  Canon  which  makes  fun  of
brahminical  cosmogony  is  the  Aggañña Sutta (DN sutta xxvii) (see
Gombrich, 1992b for details). The whole story of the origin of
society,  which  forms  the  bulk  of  the  text,  is  a  parody  of
brahminical  texts,  especially  the Rg Vedic  ‘Hymn  of  Creation’
(RV X, 129) and the cosmogony at BAU 1, 2. The formation of the  earth
at the beginning of a world-cycle, its population by beings, their
gradual social differentiation, the origins of sex and property, and
finally the invention of kingship and the creation of the four
brahminical varna (social classes) – all are a parodistic re-working
of brahminical speculations, and at the same time an allegory of the
malign workings of desire.
Gombrich,  Richard,  1992b:
‘The  Buddha’s  Book  of  Genesis?’,
lndo-lranian Journal 35, pp. 159–178.


text:
Taking care of perineum
How can one take care of the perineum
Does anyone have any knowledge about this part of the body being affected by excessive sitting in meditation. I have had medical help, removal of cysts, haemorrhoids and general stiffness over my course of meditative life.
Is this a normal problem with meditators and if yes how can one take care of this?
About me:
I am male, late 20s(fairly young to be having problems in that region?), sit cross legged (no lotus or half lotus), use a simple block, have had a history of stomach ailments since 12 (appendicitis, liver repair, bad digestive system), currently simple wholesome diet with no meat, eggs, do not drink/smoke.

Traditionally, Buddhism concerns itself with the state of the mind, rather than the body. That said, because there is a great affinity between mind and body, there is naturally an affinity between Buddhism and Yoga. While I'm far from being even an intermediate-level student of yoga, from my cursory knowledge of its principles it sounds like you have what they call "circulation problem" in your lower chakras. What my Yoga teacher recommends in such cases are exercises designed to improve energy circulation in the lower half of the body.

Here are some that come to mind (CHECK WITH YOUR DOCTOR FIRST BEFORE DOING ANY OF THIS!): 1) Tapping the lower abdomen with your fists left right left right, for 10 minutes at a time, not as strong as to hurt yourself, but strong enough to relieve any habitual tension barriers you might have. 2) Pushing the muscles of the lower abdomen out, 100-200 times. 3) Tapping your feet against each other, 1000 times.

If this is the case:

you can use a stool / chair or stadium seat
you can use orthopaedic cushions to added comfort
if sitting is a problem you can use another poster like lying down (don't use a cosy or luxurious bed as you will soon fall asleep. A hard surface may be best using a Yoga mat perhaps laying beaded seat cushion on top even if this causes you to fall asleep.)

Also when meditating try to keep your attention a bit longer in this region looking at the arising and passing away of sensation equanimously. Don't think of any healing or removing discomfort. Just keep your attention on the sensations. If this is Karmic, reducing your mental reaction for sensation resulting from karma means you will not be adding fuel to the karma prolonging it's results. If you react with any thing, like disappointment if any issue pops up, being happy when something does not pop up, etc. You are adding fuel to prolonging the ailment.

Option three: one can do the daily sits lying down?

Yes you can. But try using an orthopaedic cushion 1st.

Then a meditation stool, https://www.google.com/search?q=meditation+seat&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=uIwhVObcKc2F8gWaxYHwCw&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=653

Thank you Suminda. +1 for karmic relations. Dint think of it that way. Probably was reacting to the pain too much.

See: http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/266/527/266527/big/Medit_Chair_03.jpg?1355408150

One could do more active energizing exercises that could help recharge the body like yoga or Qi Gong. Walking meditation is an important exercise. Some schools just keep counting the breath while you go through daily life. Maybe the body is not adapted for long sitting. There are many ways ways including the exercise Hakuin suggested for meditator's sickness.

I would very much consider adding walking meditation to your practice, both to potentially help your lower body issues and perhaps strengthen them at the same time. It is also a great tool for building concentration before doing sitting meditation.

Make sure your cushion or wooden block is slightly slope downward. It'll give multiple benefits: increase blood circulation in the lower body, creates a naturally lean-forward posture that straighten the back without tensing the muscles, and relieve some pressure off your buttock and that perineal region. Some images to illustrate here