Has anyone ever wondered why people had to ‘sit on one side’ when they came to see the Buddha? Was it the culture in India at that time? What does it actually mean?
Rāhula bowed to the Buddha and sat down to one side.
āyasmāpi kho rāhulo bhagavantaṁ abhivādetvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi.
As I understand it, sitting directly in front of someone is putting yourself on an equal level. To be humble you would sit a bit to the side of them; it’s less confrontational too.
I think that I read this in the Wat Nanachat KorWat, but it makes sense. Especially because there wouldn’t have always been a spot to take a higher and lower seat.
Thank you. 
I must be impolite. I usually sit in front of the person, though at an appropriate distance. 
I thought it would strain the respected person’s neck to talk to us when we sit to their side.
Yes, this is pretty universal in human cultures that live close to nature. Living where I do, one quickly learns not to directly face the long-tail macaques! They take it as a challenge / a threat.
Similar with leaving the Buddha by keeping him to the right. If you turn your back on a tiger it could well be the last thing you ever do! Human cultures living close to such animals internalized those behaviors into how they treat each other—especially powerful people.
There’s probably an element of evolution there. Cultures that made such behaviors habitual had fewer members killed by tigers 
I don’t think that this means at 90°.
It’s just a little bit to the side. You could still face the person but if it was two opposite rows of chairs, you’d be sitting one chair over. Or if you are sitting on the floor, angling your body 20° away from the person and turning your head towards them. It’s like the ‘polite duck’ that you’d do in Asian culture when you walk past a senior. Just a subtle adjustment
A bad illustration from my phone of what I mean (though probably too close)
This makes sense, nice picture Venerable Pasanna.
There is psychological research that’s it’s more comfortable to sit a bit on the side. Then you can choose to keep the eye contact by slightly looking to the side, or avoid it by just looking forward. When you sit directly in front of someone, then to avoid eye contact in a certain moment one would need to look sideways or anywhere else than front, which could be awkward. So indeed setting directly in front of someone is usually treated as a bit intimidating or stressful, unless in really close relationship with someone where there’s a lot of trust and being at ease.
I’m glad that you posted this question, Dheerayupa! I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of months and concluded that it must have just been a custom in the culture of that time based on something unique to them. The reasonings of Ven. Pasanna and Ven. Khemarato seem plausible to me.
The position make sense! I wound’t say exactly because of politeness. I would say it is a more practical way to do it. If every person coming to see the Buddha sat right in front of him we would have a big queue of people 
Sitting to the side would make a circle, or would allow people to sit in the circle to hear the Buddha’s teaching.
I think “private conversations” would not follow this, since not always we read that the listenear sat to the side of the Buddha, as far as my memory goes. And, sitting in front of the other would visually, at least for me when I think about it, indicate that that is a private conversation, while sitting on the side would be a conversation that I could participate in.
If memory serves me right, the explanation the Pali commentaries provide does not take the phrase literally as referring to one particular “side” but rather in the sense of an “appropriate distance.” The disadvantages or impoliteness of sitting down (or standing) either too far away or too close are also mentioned. So it could be well understood as a way of showing respect and consideration without making verbal communication impractical.
I never gave this much thought, but these very insightful answers (especially @Pasanna 's lovely illustration) have caused me to visualize a king’s court of sorts (imagery which I think would be consonant with the EBT’s framing of the Buddha’s status and person), where the enthroned king is flanked by ministers standing or seated in waiting before him on either side. The king, at the head of his court, usually sits at the end of a long approach, and he is greeted by an intermittent stream of visitors who approach directly, only to eventually take their place on either side.
I think this general arrangement of royal courts is somewhat consistent across cultures.
I was listening to an Ajahn Brahm talk this morning and he mentioned that keeping a person on their right was a sign of respect.
Yes, they can see your ‘sword’ hand. It’s a sign of friendliness and that you are unarmed. I suspect this is why we bear our right shoulders - even if we are left-handed.
An interesting observation I can add that I heard from my psychological counseling lecturer was that it is an unwritten rule in counseling/psychotherapy settings (at least over here) to sit with the patient at a 45-degree angle instead of head-to-head, because this allows the client to look at the therapist naturally, but it also gives them the freedom to shift their gaze into open space without actively turning their head or looking away in an obvious manner. I think this is mostly done to subconsciously mitigate anxiety when discussing difficult or shame-inducing topics. So both the therapist and the client sitting at 40-45 degrees creates a more comfortable environment. This is also how I have always imagined it when reading the suttas. The Buddha was a wonderful psychologist after all! 
Thank you. That’s far better than my stick figure people
