Dear Ernst,
I listened to your Sadbala class and noticedyour explanation regarding Ayanabala. I looked in Sripati Paddhati, the translation by Sastri and its a bit cunfusing there. Chapter 3, Text 14 apparently ends the Kala Bala section. After this Ayana Bala is explained and after Ayana Bala Yudha Bala, Chesta Bala and Naisargika Bala. In text 20 he gives 5 Balas, Sthana, Dig, Kala, Chesta and Naisargika but he does not mention Ayana here as an seperate Bala. The comentary explaines Ayana as part of Chesta.
If the translation is correct thats a contradiction because either Kala Bala ends after Hora and then we have Ayana Bala either as an extra Bala or part of Chesta.
Here is the order the Balas are given, hope I have it right:
| Sthana Bala |
| Ucca Bala |
| Saptavargaja Bala |
| Yugma Ayugma Bala |
| Kendradi Bala |
| Drekkana Bala |
| Dig Bala |
| Kala Bala |
| Natonnata Bala |
| Paksa Bala |
| Tribhaga Bala |
| Varsa Bala |
| Masa Bala |
| Dina Bala |
| Hora Bala |
| Ayana Bala ??? |
| + / - for Yudha ??? |
| Chestha Bala ??? |
| Naisargika Bala |
| Drik Bala |
Why do you have Drik, Naisargika and Yudha in an different order?
Can it be that the Yudha calculations refer only to Ayana Bala? the order given would seem so but the text says that one should calculate the total strenght and the apply Yudha. Is it therefore that you give Yudha in the end? But why then is it not listed at the end but after Ayana?
OK. In the class you explained that the usual way was to calculate Ayana Bala as part of Kala Bala because BV Raman did so but when you read Sripati you discovered that Ayana Bala was not given by Sripati as part of Kala Bala and therefore you did not consider it anymore as part of Kala Bala. In Kala Ayana Bala is a seperate Bala. But yes, thats the only thing you explained mentioning Sripati, just the Ayana Bala. Therefore I was looking into the text to see whats given there.
Why has Phala Dipika and Brihat Jataka a different version of Sadbala? Phala Dipika has some components but its not complete and a little different. Brihat Jataka has also just some parts. Whats your understanding of this?
Interesting though is that Phala Dipika has under Chesta Bala Paksa Bala for the Moon, Ayana Bala for the Sun, Retrograde for other planets and Yudha and then an seperate Ayana Bala.
Confusing...
OK. So it is an incomplete way to look at things? I have seen some Astrologers who look for example at Digbala and say therefore the planet is strong. I do think this comes from Hart de Fouw who, if I am not mistaken, learned from an Astrologer called Ghandi? I guess they have this from Phala Dipika. But if I recall it properly Phala Dipika says so only for the Sun or something connected to the Sun. I always doubted if it is right to look at things like Digbala in an isolated form, meaning its just one aspect of the whole Sadbala scheme and to take it out of context would be faulty then, right? Of course, as you said, it has some interpretive meaning in it of itself but to just look at Digbala and declare the planet is strong would be wrong. The same with exaltation as you explained in the course.