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
Ce qui n’est pas gardé peut pourtant durer si le destin le protège; ce qui est bien gardé périt si le destin le frappe. Même un orphelin abandonné dans la forêt peut vivre, tandis que celui qui s’efforce de toutes ses forces peut ne pas vivre, fût-ce dans sa propre maison.
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).