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
Yang tak terjaga pun dapat bertahan bila dilindungi takdir; yang terjaga rapat pun binasa bila dipukul takdir. Seorang yatim yang ditinggalkan di rimba bisa hidup, sedangkan yang berupaya keras pun bisa tak hidup meski di rumah.
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).