|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 21, 2005 4:04:29 GMT -5
It seems that the floor sitting position (so called lotus) is used only in India and the Far East, and completely foreign to Europe, Middle East, Africa, Indian Americans, Aboriginals.
According to Wilkpedia (I know, but couldn't find better) the first representation of someone in such position is from the Harappa culture, i.e. about 3500 B.P. .
I wonder why this way of sitting was "invented" and spread in the Far East areas. The fact that is limited to some areas of the world show it is not natural, imo.
Particularly I would ask if you think it can be a better sitting option than using a chair for some purpose, or if its just a "sitting on the floor" better option for the case there is not a chair.
Finally, seems to me there is also an African floor sitting position that is just squatting with knees completely bent (I've seen some immigrants waiting in such position). Does anyone know something about this?
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 21, 2005 16:17:20 GMT -5
I've wondered about the lotus position also (I used to regularly do yoga). Sitting in the lotus position I found quite uncomfortable because it cuts off circulation to the legs, so I question why it is a popular sitting position in the East.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 22, 2005 5:06:51 GMT -5
I've wondered about the lotus position also (I used to regularly do yoga). Sitting in the lotus position I found quite uncomfortable because it cuts off circulation to the legs, so I question why it is a popular sitting position in the East. An advantage over the normal sitting position could be that there's more self contact (parts of the body touch other part of the body) adn self contact is considered to give sort of a security/pleasing feeling.
|
|
|
Post by stella22 on Dec 22, 2005 13:45:49 GMT -5
An advantage over the normal sitting position could be that there's more self contact (parts of the body touch other part of the body) adn self contact is considered to give sort of a security/pleasing feeling. lol, what are you trying to say? Yoga dates back to very ancient times. My guess is that in ancient times, people lived closer to nature and so they didn't have much furniture. Naturally, they sat on the ground. As with most primitive cultures, they applied religious/spiritual/health significance to stylized ways of sitting. Some of their reasoning is very unscientific. Supposedly, sitting in a kneeling postition is great for digestion. The lotus position is supposed to aid in meditation and the stimulation of the root chakra, an energy point. It is well known among yogis that Westerners cannot kneel or sit in the Lotus postion. They haven't been raised to sit that way nor are their legs emaciated enough. Sometimes in yoga books, they will use this to try and sound superior to inflexible westerners,lol. They will then paint the picture of the typical Westerner as a money hungry, physically inflexible, beef eating, and overly aggressive individual. Now we know that yoga does relax the mind and this is beneficial for the body. Stress hormones are very detrimental. But some positions can also cause injury, especially in those not raised with yoga.
|
|
|
Post by wendland on Dec 22, 2005 23:31:09 GMT -5
It just shows that even sitting is not necessarily a matter of nature, but rather of "nurture" (i.e culture). Another interesting thing: Western classical dance (ballet) seems to reach up, to try to turn the dancer into a bird, but Indian classical dance keeps the dancer to the ground, feet must remain flat (most of the time) on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 23, 2005 3:37:45 GMT -5
lol, what are you trying to say? Nothing sexual, or well, at best something very faintly sexual. Is common wisdom in anthropology that self contact is reassuring as it works as a surrogate hug. Think the position of sitting and embracing your own knees, or keeping your heads between the palms. wendland: yes, a nurture thing, but I would argue that the lotus position is cultural, while chair sitting is natural as seems to me that is shared by all populations in the world. So those westerners who pretend to relax more in the lotus position are actually adopting an innatural posture that somewhat affirmed itself only among other sitting on the ground positions and remained in existence as a sort of penitence position, similar to kneeling. Btw I've seen an Indian dancer once and, as you say, the dancing was made mostly of arms and neck movement, more than legs movement.
|
|
|
Post by wendland on Dec 24, 2005 0:39:14 GMT -5
Maybe those Westerners (or non-Indians) who practice sitting in the lotus position are getting used to it. I guess, people can learn-- depending how motivated they are, etc... Personally, I don't find it particularly enticing as a position, even though I can do it (maybe not for hours, but sitting still in a chair for hours is hard, too). I prefer lying on the floor as opposed to sitting.
|
|
|
Post by pacificrim on Dec 24, 2005 14:57:14 GMT -5
It is well known among yogis that Westerners cannot kneel or sit in the Lotus postion. They haven't been raised to sit that way nor are their legs emaciated enough. Really? Isn't the lotus position simply just sitting "cross-legged"? I've always thought that to be the standard way of sitting ever since I was a kid (in Canada, a Western country) As far as I can remember, nearly every kid sat like that in the gymnasium, on the ground in the playground etc. Is it really that difficult to sit like that?! Up till now I've never even heard that it was difficult for anyone to sit cross-legged on the floor, nor have I have ever heard that there is any difference between the way "Easterners" and "Westerners" sit.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 24, 2005 19:55:23 GMT -5
^^ Can you imagine Napoleon, or Caesar, or Kant in the lotus position? Is there any image of a westerner in such position before 1950 b.c.?
|
|
|
Post by pacificrim on Dec 25, 2005 20:58:47 GMT -5
Why is it more difficult for some westerners to sit in lotus positions, is it really that they are less flexible than asians or something?
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 25, 2005 21:04:36 GMT -5
What I found most beneficial from yoga was not the sitting positions, but those which stretched the spine and also where the legs are elevated above the head. I think all people should do this, and it is easier than the yoga handstand. Lie on a bed that is against a wall, then elevate the legs straight up, resting them on the wall until you are tired of it. It is great for the legs and circulation.
|
|