|
|
|
|
|
by pjscott
5630 days ago
|
|
My cynical suspicion is that the lotus position is traditional, and looks cool, and therefore people have come up with rationalizations for it. Someone has already quoted Wikipedia, so I won't repeat it, but most of those sound like benefits that you can get by lying down, or finding a really comfortable chair, or something similar. And the bit about improving digestion sounds especially dubious, since it doesn't really say what that means, and a lot of Yoga folks have a bad habit of making vaguely shiny-sounding medical claims without evidence. (Do I sound negative? I actually do sometimes meditate, because it's a pleasant thing to do. I just want to make sure I'm not fooling myself about why I'm doing it.) |
|
Sitting meditation keeps you more alert, makes it easier to reach a state of samadhi, or focused, non-discriminating awareness. For a while, due to back pain, I switched to lying meditation. I was not a fan, it was much easier to drift off. Zen meditation typically involves leaving the eyes partly open to avoid daydreaming or entering some sort of trance state. I also found this difficult to maintain while in a prone position.
Sitting in full lotus is difficult for me, and I'm relatively flexible. I generally sit half-lotus or in a chair. Sitting without a chair for long periods causes pain in the legs and back/shoulders. That's part of the practice, learning to maintain focus and equanimity through pain and discomfort.
To the best of my knowledge, the common sitting postures - lotus, half-lotus, burmese, seiza - came about because they were maintainable for long periods. Sitting indian style with legs crossed in front, for example, your stomach muscles will quickly tire and you'll be hunched over.