अरक्षितं तिष्ठति दैवरक्षितं सुरक्षितं दैवहतं विनश्यति । जीवत्यनाथोऽपि वने विसर्जितः कृतप्रयत्नोऽपि गृहे न जीवति
arakṣitaṃ tiṣṭhati daivarakṣitaṃ surakṣitaṃ daivahataṃ vinaśyati | jīvatyanātho'pi vane visarjitaḥ kṛtaprayatno'pi gṛhe na jīvati
Was unbewacht ist, kann dennoch bestehen, wenn es vom Geschick behütet wird; was gut bewacht ist, geht zugrunde, wenn es vom Geschick getroffen wird. Selbst ein Waise, im Wald ausgesetzt, kann leben, während einer, der sich redlich müht, nicht einmal im eigenen Haus zu leben vermag.
Unspecified (deduced: Sūta/Lomaharṣaṇa narrating within a Māhātmya discourse)
Scene: Two contrasting vignettes: (1) an unguarded hut spared under a protective aura; (2) a fortified house struck by calamity; alongside, an abandoned child in a forest surviving under divine protection, contrasted with a striving householder failing—rendered as moral paradox, not despair.
Human precautions and effort do not fully control outcomes; destiny shaped by karma can preserve or destroy beyond visible safeguards.
This maxim occurs inside the Śrīhāṭakeśvara-kṣetra Māhātmya (Nāgarakhaṇḍa, Tīrthamāhātmya), supporting the narrative’s moral frame.
None; it is a reflective teaching on daiva (destiny) and prayatna (effort).