 |
| http://johnscottyoga.com/john-scott-yoga-app/ |
Now, unless I'm missing something.
Ashtanga fundamentals
As a rule.....
Inhaling we go up, exhaling we go down.
For Krishnamacharya when the head is raised, puraka kumbhaka, when the head is lowered, rechaka kumbhaka.
As far as the count goes, the principle seems to be...
We inhale on the odd, exhale on the even
We go up on the odd count go down on the even
Pattabhi Jois even links it to drishti,
"... for the odd-numbered vinyasa, the gaze should be focussed between the eyebrows and, for the even-numbered ones the gaze should be on the tip of the nose. In addition for the even-numbered vinyasas, rechaka should be performed and, for the odd, one should do puraka. On the whole, the method for doing rechaka and puraka is the same for all the vinyasa ahead".
That's clear then, except it isn't, all goes along swimmingly until we hit asana with two sides.
Ardhabaddhapadmapaschimottanasana for instance, 22 vinyasa, states of the asana are 8 and 15
also
Ardha Baddha Padmottanasana 9* 2,7
Tiriangmukhaikapada Paschimattanasana 22* 8,15
Janu Shirshasana A B C 22* 8,15
Marichyasana A B 22* 8,15
Hang on 8 is even, the head down, rechaka, exhaling (rechaka kumbhaka for Krishnamacharya) drishti to the tip of the nose.
BUT
...for exactly the same state of the asana but on the other leg we have 15, an ODD number which should mean head up, puraka exhaling, drishti middle of the eyebrow but of course we want it to be exactly the same as with the other side.
The whole ODD/EVEN principle is thrown out the window on asana with two sides.
 |
| The new edition of Sharath's book |
You might say this doesn't matter, that it's just a count and yet for me, it takes away somewhat from the 'timeless beauty' of the count.
In Breath of the Gods, the documentary on Krishnamacharya, T. K. Shribashyam, Krishnamachrya's third son mentioned that the boys of the Mysore Palace knew where they were by whether the count was odd or even, if odd then they went up, even they went down. they must have been very confused when they hit seated.
![]()
But it's just a count!
John Scott says it's a mantra, that he says is why Pattabhi Jois called Yoga Mala just that, a mala. A mala is how we count a mantra, the vinyasa count is a mantra and a mantra is serious stuff, god help you if you pronounce a vedic mantra incorrectly.
The count should work, in every posture, all of the time.
Here's something interesting though.....
I noticed a little while back that Manju counts differently, he doesn't seem to count the full vinyasa but starts again for each side. What's interesting for me in this is that it seems to make the count work because we do it exactly the same for both sides, sapta (seven) becomes ekam (one)
Manju digs us out of a hole but the thing is I kind of like the full vinyasa count, I actually prefer it.
Of course we could make the full vinyasa work, we could perhaps take out nava, do an extra uncounted breath there instead then lift up on nava and jump back dasha, up dog ekadesha, down dog dvadesha, jump through trayodesha and fold caturdasana thus keeping our odd and even system correct.
Of course this would leave us one count short, we'd need to add in another count somewhere to make up the 22 which is again problematic......
How to keep the 22 count while maintaining an even number for both states of the asana?
Here's Pattabhi Jois' quote again from Yoga mala
"... for the odd-numbered vinyasa, the gaze should be focussed between the eyebrows and, for the even-numbered ones the gaze should be on the tip of the nose. In addition for the even-numbered vinyasas, rechaka should be performed and, for the odd, one should do puraka. On the whole, the method for doing rechaka and puraka is the same for all the vinyasa ahead".
22
8, 15
It doesn't add up.
If you invented a system you'd make sure it worked right? Going by the above though it doesn't seem to quite work....... not all of the time. But what if you inherited a count, from your teacher perhaps or from an old text (Yoga Korunta anyone?)..... What if there was just a painting of an asana with a vinyasa count underneath as well a count for state(s) of the asana leaving you to work out the rest.
Every time you (re)discover an asana you try to fit it into the system by giving it a count. Many of the asana in the old texts seem to have been regular seated postures, padmasana and siddhasana, not a problem for the count. Maha mudra is a mudra so perhaps wouldn't be counted anyway. It's only when you bring in asymmetric postures that you hit problems. But then why hold yourself to the 22 count, why not make it 23 and keep the integrity of breath to count relationship which seems more important.... unless you inherited the 22 as well as the 8 and 15 for asymmetric asana.
Perhaps then we see two systems being brought together here as well as an attempt to make them fit.
1. The inherited (perhaps) vinyasa count 22 vinyasa (22 movements/postures), 8 and 15 being the states of the particular asana
2. A linking of stages of breath to each of the above movements/postures
Each of the vinyasa are actually postures in and off themselves. This becomes quite clear in Krishnamacharya's Yoga Makaranda where the familiar stages of the suryanamaskara are treated as asana in their own right. Also before folding into an asana Krishnamacharya will often treat the preceding step as an asana in and of itself. There will be a breathing principle noted. So before folding down into the named state of an asana janu sirsasana say, with it's recheck kumbhaka there will be a preceding state where the head is up and the breathing principle puraka kumbhaka.
It's all these mini states of asana that get a distinct count. The extra uncounted breaths tend to fall between them.
Each mini asana is actually a major asana with it's own breathing principle, a puraka or rechecka principle
"In addition for the even-numbered vinyasas, rechaka should be performed and, for the odd, one should do puraka." Jois
It's only when we link these together into the fixed count that we hit problems and seem to be required to sacrifice the breathing principle for the state or count that goes with it. Now clearly we don't want to sacrifice that intrinsic breathing patten identified with the state so we have to sacrifice our counting system somewhat instead.
Or perhaps the count wasn't inherited and was just a way to regiment the boys of the Mysore palace after all.
In our above quote from Pattabhi Jois he does add this
"...on the whole"
"On the whole, the method for doing rechaka and puraka is the same for all the vinyasa ahead".
So perhaps he saw a problem there himself.
UPDATE
Just did a mini practice with Manju's approach, going back to ekam for each side. It works and as a mala also, good common sense Ashtanga from Manju as always but does lack a little of the elegance of the longer count.