|
|
Veteran
Posts: 258
 
| Here comes a very… basic question, please:
In aaaaall the pictures I see in the various Iyengar books, tadasana is done with feet touching each other. But my Iyengar teacher is showing us tadasana with one-foot-distance between them and that is how I have been doing tadasana all the 4 years that I am practicing. Was this an advice just for beginners, or is there a theory that tadasana is better this way??
My own personal feeling/opinion/self-observtion is that indeed with the one foot distance between the feet (or an approximate wideness same as that of the pelvis), tadasana is more stable and more natural. But which is the current “official” theory about it?
In aaaaall the pictures I see in the various Iyengar books, tadasana is done with feet touching each other. But my Iyengar teacher is showing us tadasana with one-foot-distance between them and that is how I have been doing tadasana all the 4 years that I am practicing. Was this an advice just for beginners, or is there a theory that tadasana is better this way??
My own personal feeling/opinion/selfobservtion is that indeed with the one foot distance between the feet (or an approximate wideness same as that of the pelvis), tadasana is more stable and more natural. But which is the current “official” theory about it?
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 258
| 
Soryy... I posted it twice in case you... didn't understand the question well  |
|
| |
|
| kristi - 2007-06-05 3:40 AM
Here comes a very… basic question, please:
In aaaaall the pictures I see in the various Iyengar books, tadasana is done with feet touching each other. But my Iyengar teacher is showing us tadasana with one-foot-distance between them and that is how I have been doing tadasana all the 4 years that I am practicing. Was this an advice just for beginners, or is there a theory that tadasana is better this way??
My own personal feeling/opinion/self-observtion is that indeed with the one foot distance between the feet (or an approximate wideness same as that of the pelvis ), tadasana is more stable and more natural. But which is the current “official” theory about it?
===> Of course dear Kristi. Your observation is correct.
===> But, doing it with feet together and trying to get the same balance is challenging, effortfull and unnatural as per your wording. And, the same with Headstand, and shoulderstand, which are not natural!!!
In aaaaall the pictures I see in the various Iyengar books, tadasana is done with feet touching each other. But my Iyengar teacher is showing us tadasana with one-foot-distance between them and that is how I have been doing tadasana all the 4 years that I am practicing. Was this an advice just for beginners, or is there a theory that tadasana is better this way??
My own personal feeling/opinion/selfobservtion is that indeed with the one foot distance between the feet (or an approximate wideness same as that of the pelvis ), tadasana is more stable and more natural. But which is the current “official” theory about it?
|
|
| |
|
| Feet together unless one is pregnant, has balance issue, or a low back injury preventing "together".
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
  
| How you do the pose depends on why you are doing the pose. As purna says, there are reasons to have feet apart. It is very stable and sometimes a teacher uses that stance for that reason. Your teacher probably has a reason to use that stance, but you are more than welcome to try feet together in your own practice  |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 258
| Thanks for the answers!
And you are right Neel, "natural" was not the right world to use. "Grounded" describes it better.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 574
| Well......its good to notice how you stand naturally and not to go against your nature,allowing your awareness to bring your feet into the best place for you. Tadasana is translated as mountain posture. Mountains are normally stable. One is more likely to fall when pushed,blown (by very very strong winds) when feet are together. From a functional perspective their isnt much point in having feet together (unless you are desperate to go to the toilet).However it has its benefits to have feet together merely to become aware that its not ideal-also its good to have feet wider than the hips to feel this isnt ideal so we can discover the best place for our feet. In observing nature,animals have their feet in a position where they are ready to move freely and dont have their feet together-imagine a tiger hunting a deer with its feet together-if it did it would probably suffer posture problems,as would monkeys if they stood around with feet together. Donkeys dont do it,monkeys dont do it and they dont suffer from posture problems. I dont know why some iyengar teachers teach it, but perhaps its not taught these days? They iyengar teacher i spoke to a few weeks back said that she was taught not to teach it. |
|
| |
|
| I'm actually going to take a position opposite the one you are taking.
The practice of yoga is very often going against this nature or that nature.
Of course it depends on how we define nature. It could be your nature to have muscles pulling your spine to one side (commonly called scoliosis). But that is not a nature one would want to maintain. So the practice there would go against the nature.
Likewise we've cultivated a "nature" in our society of rushing, running, hurrying, being overstimulated by external stimuli or by things we consume in our diet. Some yoga practices add to only one side of the scales while others would balance them.
Speaking more specifically to Tadasana, the pelvic force is contained when the standing is done with the feet together. This facilitates aspiration (again in a certain way). But I would use extreme caution in telling students, especially beginning students who have very little body awareness, to stand naturally. Their life patterns often are out of balance and such an instruction would further root that imbalance in their body, mind, and consciousness.
As it relates to animals, the practice of yoga, by its very design, is one of raising the human consciousness away from a nature of animal. The animal nature resides in the lower spine, it's voice when untransformed embodies craving and lust. These serve a purpose of course and none of us would be here without that. But while there are many, many things to learn from animals (and we are one of them) they do not seem to have the ability to choose to aspire.
Edited by purnayoga 2009-10-09 12:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 574
| Thanks Purna Yoga. Thats what these forums are for-opening up interesting discussions and questioning what some yoga peeps do. Lets agree to disagree for now.
For a start everyone has scoliosis-some more severe than others and scoliosis can actually be functional - you can ask a good osteopath for more info on that.
Animals in nature (not in a zoo or scientists lab) do not suffer from poor postural problems nor do they go to the gym to strengthen their core muscles,because they have a good level of awareness which is key to good posture.
Savasana can tell you a lot about your nature in standing.Do savasana,with palms resting on lower abdomen,to feel the quality of your movement here with your breath, with legs and big toes together paying attention to the qualities of breathing movement.Then seperate legs and notice which is better? Yoga is science.
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 258
| Given the chance… It is very interesting when an old thread comes back into discussion and you happen to read again something that you had written/asked few years ago. I was in my 3rd year of practice when I had posted that question about tandasana, I am in my 7th year of practice now. I think that the one-foot-distance-between-the-feet- tandasana is just safer for a beginner and somehow “easier”, because you feel better grounded (like a mountain). Whereas tandasana with feet together makes me feel more centered and somehow more “meditative”. I now do tandasana both ways, depending on the day and on the asana that will follow. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| As I said a couple of years ago, there are reasons and times to do feet together and other times and reasons for feet apart. It is only right or wrong if we do the wrong one for the wrong reason or if it has the possibility of injuring someone.
I will challenge the notion that animals in nature don't have posture problems. They are susceptible to the same injuries and forces as the rest of us and do indeed at times have wonky posture as compared to their typical species members. |
|
| |
|
| Soldiers worldwide stand at "attention" with their feet together. "At ease" is with their feet apart. Tadasana is yoga's "attention", where you are alert, focused and ready for action. Feet together Tadasana is an easy balancing pose (i.e. the balancing part). Since Tadasana is a foundational pose, the balancing, the alertness, the "good" posture (especially correct spinal and pelvic alignment), the focus and the breathing are extremely important as they all carry forward into the poses that follow.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 574
| If you are ready for action, you would have the feet apart. You are more likely to be off balance with feet together. Just look at any good martial arts expert or join a class for more of an insight on that.
Try the experiment on the back i suggested a few threads above and see how feet together will also put strain on pelvis. People unfortunate enough to suffer from cerebal palsy tend to walk with the legs coming together and it can cause many problems.
jimg, Yogis are not soldiers who follow orders.they tend to be people who discover themselves through awareness,sensitivity,sensory motor learning and concentration. if they are discovering themselves, they certainly do not follow in the footsteps of others.
Thanks for the info tourist.But please show me a you tube link with an animal clutching its back in pain due to poor posture.Id be interested to see.
I am not saying it is wrong to put feet together. I am not saying it is right to have feet apart. I am saying it is good to question and discover for ourselves to bring philosophy and science together and not just do what someone says because he claims to be an expert. We know ourselves better than any expert. If we just follow in someone elses advice or footsteps without learning for ourselves we will never learn or discover ourselves. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Jimg, you make a good analogy. Tadasana is not a passive posture. You could spend an hour (in an Iyengar class, at least) thinking about all of the various actions in that asana. Tadasana is obviously not a posture one would adopt in martial arts...
I sense an effort to identify and attack the 'hypothetical ' dogmatic yoga teacher who sees things one way and one way only. Actually, I've run into one or two beginning teachers or beginning students who held onto views such as 'the right and only way to do this is yada-yada'. But these were inexperienced people clutching at authority.
One of the things that I have valued most in my Iyengar teacher's classes is that s/he teaches the same pose in different ways to different purposes and for different people. ...and with an awareness of what may or may not jam the sacrum into the pelvis...
... bg
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Yogis are neither soldiers nor martial artists. If we are looking to be in perfect alignment of the "natural" body every moment, what's up with all the Maricyasanas? Karnipidasana? We do each asana and each variation of an asana for a reason. Learning the correct actions of tadasana with feet apart will teach students how to safely do tadasana with feet together. Today I will teach it with a wood brick between the feet. Another time I will teach it lying down in "supta" form. I have indeed been to Iyengar workshops where we have studied tadasana for a good deal more than an hour. But that doesn't mean we were standing with feet together injuring ourselves for the whole hour. Nevertheless, the final result was a strong tadasana with feet together that was "better" (firmer, more centered, muscles working more efficiently etc.) than was the first one when we started the workshop. And ALL of that work feeds into the subsequent poses, as someone else has pointed out.
I'm not going to search YouTube for videos of poorly aligned animals for you. Not sure why you think that is a good source of research? We have plenty of animal lovers here who will undoubtedly be able to tell you about the postural quirks of various animals they have been acquainted with. |
|
| |
|
| Yogis, martial artists and soldiers (as well as all manner of performers and athletes, even including ballroom dancers) are all humans who are trying to use their body optimally for some purpose. Although the purpose may be totally different in each case, the body is not. The same bones, muscles (and minds) as well as the same physical laws apply. Tadasana is a foundational "pose" for many physical activities. Feet together or feet apart are not universal truths. They are two different ways to do a pose for different reasons. Feet together is a balancing pose and feet hip width apart is not.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 574
| Thanks guys for your good information. Much appreciated!! It has made me think a lot about yoga and tadasana. Id like to ask you all, after one has gained a high level of awareness (the purpose of yoga) from tadasana,what is the point of standing in this posture with feet together?
jimg, id like to ask you what is 'correct spinal alignment' in tadasana or in any posture? |
|
| |
|
| vibes - 2009-10-10 12:54 PM
jimg, id like to ask you what is 'correct spinal alignment' in tadasana or in any posture?
Excellent question! My answer (there are others) is: a spine (including the neck!) that is extended, without any compression spots, where the natural curvature of the spine is neither exaggerated nor minimized. In more technical terms, a spine without scoliosis, kyphosis or lordosis and without undue compression of individual intervertebral discs, whether the entire disc or one side of a disc. "Correct spinal alignment" is similiar for everyone but also unique to each individual.
Since the spine is like a large spring that absorbs energy/stress, it's "correct alignment" is very important for it to function properly. Poor spinal alignment can lead to many very painful back problems as well as make many yoga poses dangereous.
This is why I start my yoga classes with Tadasana. It is a great place to focus on that alignment (from feet to head) so that it can be continued throughout the poses that follow. I feel that Tadasana is a great place to work on pelvic and spinal alignment, lower abdomen lifted in and up, knees lifted/quads engaged, shoulders rolled back and down and spine and neck extended before going on to breathing and bringing all of these into the rest of the class, especially the standing poses. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| OK - I will be picky anatomy/grammar person here - kyphosis and lordosis are both required, as the terms (I have been told) refer both to the natural spinal curves as well as excessive spinal curves. So you do want appropriate kyphosis and lordosis. |
|
| |
|
| tourist,
You are absolutely correct that the terms can be used to describe either the normal or the abnormal curvature of the spine. I was using the terms in the abnormal sense but, I apologize, I was not clear about my usage. Thanks for clarifying.
jimg
Related anatomical trivia: "Anatomical Position" (from which all other positions are related to in their descriptions) is defined as: "standing upright, eyes forward, feet parallel and close together, arms at side and palms facing forward." Sounds a bit like a foundational yoga pose!
Edited by jimg 2009-10-10 8:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 258
| All of the above is very important and useful input !
I am thinking/wondering further:
Let’s say I stand in tadasana in a TOTALLY relaxed way (like doing a kind of a… standing savasana), engaging NO muscle at all, NOT trying at all to align, expand, or whatever, just simply stand with parallel feet. Then the spine takes this, common to most people, “lazy” position, in which it’s curves are exaggerated because of gravity. Trying to transform this natural/common position into a yogic asana, I have to engage some muscles and expand and align the spine. By doing this, all of the above well mentioned spine curves are changing shape. And from there on starts the exploration and the questions… How much muscle engagement? Into what amount? Which exact muscles should be “working” and which should be relaxing? How do the curves of my spine look now?
It’s so simple and at the same time so complicated…
But of course also so interesting and “meditative”.
|
|
| |
|
| kristi,
Thank you for your wonderful description of the difference between standing in Tadasana and doing yoga!
jimg |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 574
| All very interesting. Thanks!
It really is fascinating to hear your insights!
Nobody can stand engaging no muscles.According to patanjali, one must master each posture so its effortless before moving to the next posture. To stand is more complex than some people may think. It involves sensory motor learning-communication between muscles,nerves and brain. That is how a baby learns to stand,when standing they do not develop back problems unless an interfering adult corrects him. So why do we try to correct ourselves according to some adult expert?
Nor do healthy wild animals (not circus animals) who do not try to correct themselves but effortlessly know their optimum posture (thanks for the insight from my vet friend). Many people who try to 'correct' themselves suffer from problems as they do not allow for sensory motor learning to help one find their personal optimum standing posture,effortlessly preventing unneccesary exagerated curves in the spine.
However maybe you are saying will power is necessary in some yoga postures? |
|
| |
|
| vibes - 2009-10-11 11:45 AM
According to patanjali, one must master each posture so its effortless before moving to the next posture.
However maybe you are saying will power is necessary in some yoga postures?
Out of curiosity, where exactly did Patanjali say that?
I can't imagine any yoga pose, including Savasana, that doesn't require will power. Actually, I can't imagine any action that does not require will power. Do you mean force? Yoga poses require will power, but if done correctly, should not be forced. It takes a lot of will power to do yoga without force!
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 258
| …and to this I would add that, yoga (among other things) reinforces will power, and that this is one more benefit that we get from yoga (among aaall the others)
|
|
| |
tadasana
