Padmasana

← Encyclopedia

Padmasana is the cross-legged seated posture of Indian meditation, in which each foot is drawn up onto the opposite thigh so that the soles turn upward and the crossed legs form a closed, symmetrical base. The name is Sanskrit for the lotus seat — padma, the lotus, and asana, the seat — and the arrangement of the upturned feet, read as petals, gives the posture both its name and its place in religious art. It is the seat in which the meditating Buddha and a host of Hindu and Jain figures are most often shown, the body folded into the shape of the flower it is named for.

A Gandharan Buddha seated in the lotus posture on a lotus throne, Swat Valley — photographed by Alexander E. Caddy, 1896, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

A seat among seats

The posture belongs to a wider Indian science of bodily seats. The Sanskrit word asana means simply a seat or a sitting, and in the disciplines that grew up around yoga it came to name the deliberate postures held for contemplation and, much later, for the cultivation of the body itself. The earliest layers of the tradition are concerned almost entirely with seated forms: a posture in this older sense is a way of disposing the body for stillness, not a movement or a stretch. The recovery of that older meaning is one of the firmer results of recent scholarship — James Mallinson and Mark Singleton, in their anthology of the primary sources, set out plainly that the postures named in the classical texts are overwhelmingly seats for meditation, and that the large repertoire of standing and inverted shapes familiar from the modern studio is a comparatively recent growth. Padmasana stands near the head of the older, seated list, and its history is best read against that catalog rather than as an isolated technique.

Patanjali’s bare seat

Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, the terse codification of the contemplative path usually placed in the early centuries of the common era, names no posture at all. The whole of its teaching on the body is compressed into a single aphorism — sthira sukham asanam, the seat should be steady and easeful. Steadiness and ease, sthira and sukha, are the only requirements; nothing is said of crossed legs or upturned soles. Charles Johnston’s 1912 rendering of the Yoga Sutras glosses the aphorism as the demand that right poise be firm and without strain — the position of the body, he writes, must be steady and without strain so that the finer currents of life may run their course. The aphorism that follows directs that such poise is gained by steady, temperate effort and by setting the heart on the everlasting. The text gives a criterion, not a shape: any seat that holds the body upright and unstrained for the long sittings of meditation satisfies it.

The named catalog enters with the commentators. The fifth-century commentary on the Sutras attributed to Vyasa, expanding on that single aphorism, lists a series of seats — and the first it names is padmasana, the lotus, described as a well-known sitting posture. Beside it stand the hero’s seat, the auspicious seat, the swastika, the staff, the couch, and several others modeled on the resting postures of animals. So the lotus seat already carries a name and a recognized form in the oldest surviving gloss on Patanjali, centuries before the manuals that would make it famous. What the later texts add is not the posture but the elaborated catalog — and the physiological theory that grew up to explain it.

The hatha manuals

That theory belongs to hatha yoga, the discipline that took the body itself as the instrument of liberation. The fifteenth-century Hathayogapradipika, compiled by Svatmarama from earlier sources, treats posture as the first of its accessories and opens its account of the seats with the principle that asana is to be practiced first of all, for the sake of a steady seat, health, and lightness of the body. From the traditional figure of eighty-four seats it singles out four as principal — in the text’s own ordering the Siddha, the Padma, the Sinha, and the Bhadra — and, against the modern assumption that the lotus is the supreme posture, it names not padmasana but siddhasana, the adept’s seat, as the chief of them all, the one the practitioner should hold above the rest. Padmasana is described directly after it, in two forms: the bound version, in which the hands reach behind the back to grasp the toes while the chin presses toward the chest and the gaze settles on the tip of the nose; and the open version, in which the feet rest on the thighs with the soles turned up and the hands lie in the lap, palms upward. In Sinh’s translation the second description is exact: “Place the feet on the thighs, with the soles upwards, and place the hands on the thighs, with the palms upwards.” The detail of the upturned soles is the text’s own — the petals are not a later metaphor laid over the posture but the form the manual prescribes. The seventeenth-century Gheranda Samhita, listing thirty-two seats, keeps padmasana among them, and the figure of eighty-four recurs across the corpus as a conventional total rather than a fixed inventory — a round number for the fullness of the catalog more than a literal count, the same eighty-four the Hathayogapradipika invokes when it says the adept’s seat alone, out of all of them, is the one to keep.

In the hatha account the value of the seat is functional and then metaphysical. Locked and erect, it steadies the breath; steadied breath steadies the mind; and the posture is treated less as an exercise than as the ground of everything that follows. The Hathayogapradipika calls padmasana a destroyer of diseases and declares that the one who sits in it and masters the breath is freed from bondage. Such claims belong to the tradition’s own account of the body — its map of inner channels and the vital winds that move through them — and stand as that account gives them, not as physiological findings. The further claims attached to the seat, that it conducts or seals the subtle energies of the body and that it alone makes the deepest absorption possible, are tradition-internal in the same way: framed within the yogic understanding of an inner anatomy, held with varying literalism by those who practice, and distinct from anything established outside that frame.

The architecture of that account is worth setting out, since the posture is built to fit it. The hatha texts describe a subtle body laid over the gross one — a network of channels through which a vital force is said to run, gathered at centers along the axis of the spine. The crossed and closed base of padmasana is understood within this scheme to seal the lower openings and turn the force inward and upward along that central axis rather than letting it disperse; the upright spine gives the force a straight road; the settled, symmetrical posture removes the asymmetries that would, on this account, pull it off course. This is why the manuals treat the seat as the precondition of the breath-work and not merely its convenient support: in their telling the posture is the first operation on the subtle body, and the breath-work the second. The shape of the architecture explains the shape of the seat. None of it stands as a description of the physical body; it is the tradition’s own map, the frame inside which the posture’s value is stated, and it is reported as that map gives it.

The base for breath and absorption

Across the traditions the seat carries the same office under different doctrine. In the yogic systems it is the base for pranayama, the regulation of the breath, and for the prolonged sittings the practice aims at — a stable foundation from which the breath can be lengthened and the attention gathered. The folded legs lower the body’s center and lock the base; the upright spine carries the head without effort; and the whole arrangement is meant to let the practitioner sit for very long periods without the small disturbances of an unsteady posture pulling the mind away. Johnston’s commentary makes the same point from the meditative side: an uncomfortable position draws the mind off its aim, and no peace is possible until the seat has ceased to cost the body anything.

In Buddhist practice the same cross-legged seat is the posture of dhyana, the absorbed concentration from which the Buddha is said, within Buddhism’s own telling, to have reached awakening beneath the tree — and the iconography fixes him in it for all time. The image of the seated, awakened figure, legs crossed and soles upturned, hands settled in the lap or one touching the earth, became the standard form across the Buddhist world; the posture is so bound to the awakening that to depict the Buddha is, almost by default, to depict padmasana. The Jain tradition is more explicit still: Jainism prescribes that a Tirthankara be shown in only two attitudes — seated in padmasana, the lotus seat of meditation, or standing in kayotsarga, the upright abandonment-of-the-body that is distinctively its own. The seated Jina and the seated Buddha can be hard to tell apart at a glance, divided less by the legs than by what the hands and the bare or robed body declare.

The Tirthankara Chandranatha seated in padmasana, Vindhyagiri hill, Shravanabelagola, Karnataka — photograph via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Across Hinduism the posture serves the same way: gods, sages, and human practitioners alike are set in the lotus seat as the visible sign that the figure is gathered, still, and turned inward.

The lotus

The lotus imagery runs deeper than the legs. The flower that roots in mud and opens clean above the water is, across Indian religion, a standing figure for a purity unstained by its surroundings — the thing that grows out of the dark and the wet and is touched by neither. The image recurs in scripture as the emblem of one who acts in the world without being soiled by it, as a lotus leaf is untouched by the water it rests on. The same flower serves as the throne on which deities and awakened figures are seated — the lotus pedestal — so that the meditator folded into the shape of the lotus and the divine figure enthroned upon one rhyme with each other: the posture and the seat beneath it carry a single sense. To sit as a lotus is to take the form of the thing that rises unspoiled, and the symbolism is not an ornament added to the posture but part of what the posture is taken to mean.

The sacred lotus, Nelumbo nucifera, the flower the posture is named for — oil study by Marianne North, c. 1878, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Scholarship and the textual record

What the sources will support is narrower, and more interesting, than the manuals alone suggest. The seat is plainly ancient: it is described with precision in the medieval hatha texts and named already in the fifth-century commentary on Patanjali, and seated cross-legged figures appear in Indian art across two millennia. The much-cited Indus Valley seal from Mohenjo-daro — the horned figure seated with crossed legs that Sir John Marshall, excavating in the 1920s, read as a proto-Shiva and proto-yogi — is often invoked as evidence that the posture reaches back to the third millennium BCE; but that identification is contested, the figure’s pose and meaning disputed by later scholars including Doris Srinivasan, and it is better treated as a much-debated possibility than as a fixed origin.

The much-debated Mohenjo-daro seal (Seal 222), the cross-legged horned figure read by some as a proto-yogi — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The firmer record is textual. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, in Johnston’s 1912 version, preserve the bare requirement of a steady, easeful seat with no posture named — the baseline against which every later catalog is measured, and the standard scholarly accounts place the compiled Sutras in the early centuries of the common era and credit the named postures to the later commentarial layer that grew up around them. The Hathayogapradipika, in Pancham Sinh’s 1914 edition with the Sanskrit alongside, gives the principal seats and the two descriptions of padmasana, including the prescription of the upturned soles and upturned palms. For the modern study of the posture-corpus, James Mallinson and Mark Singleton’s Roots of Yoga (Penguin, 2017) assembles the primary sources in translation and establishes the predominantly seated character of the early catalog, and Gudrun Bühnemann’s Eighty-Four Asanas in Yoga: A Survey of Traditions (D.K. Printworld, 2007) traces the conventional figure of eighty-four seats through the texts and illustration sets in which padmasana recurs. The critical work of the last decades has, in effect, restored the posture to its older setting: a seat for sitting still, one of several, with a name far older than the elaborate physiology later attached to it.

In the twentieth century the lotus seat traveled outward under the English name the lotus position, lifted clear of most of that framework and absorbed into modern postural yoga, where it stands among many shapes as the emblem of meditation rather than its sole vehicle. It is no longer the gate to absorption that the manuals made it, and it asks nothing of the inner anatomy they assumed. What it keeps is the office it had before any of that: a way of arranging the body so completely that the body can be set aside. Before the catalog that listed it and the doctrine that explained it, padmasana was already only this — the legs folded each onto the other thigh, the base closed and symmetrical, the spine carried without effort, the weight settled so low and so evenly that there is nothing left in the posture to attend to. In contemporary practice the same seat serves the meditator of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain traditions and the modern student of postural yoga alike, named in each as the lotus and taught as the steady base on which the longer disciplines are built.

→ In the library: The Hathayogapradīpikā (Sinh, 1914) · The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Johnston, 1912)

→ Related: Yoga · Hatha Yoga · Pranayama · Meditation · Patanjali · Buddha · Hinduism · Buddhism · Jainism · Namaste · Yoga Sutras Of Patanjali · Modern Yoga · Nath Hatha Yogic Substrate