3. Fate, Human Effort, and the Astrologer

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

Objection: but since fate in the form of [the results of ] previous action must inevitably come to be, why bother with considering the results of the year? As Śaunaka says:

Whatever anyone is to meet with, not even the counsellor of the lord of gods, who has direct knowledge of destiny, is able to alter his fate.

And fate thus being powerful, human effort is meaningless.

To this they reply, firstly: if fate alone were to give results, then one would not have to engage in human effort by pursuits like ploughing and so forth. Moreover, the injunctions and prohibitions laid down by Revelation and

Tradition would be meaningless. Thus says Keśavārka [in Vivāhavṛndāvana 14.4]:

If only previous [action] bears fruit, then why [expend] great effort in ploughing and other pursuits? And why should Revelation and Tradition alike be devoted to [describing] forbidden and enjoined acts?

Moreover, the fate earned in other births will not take effect without human effort. Thus the pre-eminence of human endeavour [is established].

And so [says] Vasantarāja [in Śakunārṇava 1.22]:

Knowers of the past declare fate to be action produced in previous births. The desired [result] that was earned then will bear fruit by effort, not by itself.

Now, if [it is asked] what is to be made of statements such as [Garuḍapurāṇasāroddhāra 11.8 and Nāradapurāṇa 1.31.69]:

If states that will inevitably come to be could be counteracted, then Nala, Rāma and Yudhiṣṭhira would not have been afflicted with misery.

Action [the result of ] which has not been experienced will not vanish even in billions of aeons. [The result of ] action performed, good or evil, must inevitably be experienced.

–if the pre-eminence of human endeavour alone is accepted, [in reply] to this it is said that actions are manifold, some being firmly rooted and others, loosely rooted. When, from the figure of the nativity, omens, annual [revolutions], questions14 and so on, [misfortune] such as the absence of progeny or learning is ascertained due to an obstruction in the form of the effect of a [planetary] period, then it is not possible to avert the evil that is obstructing progeny and so on even by the utmost effort in the form of propitiation of the planets and so on, because it is firmly rooted. But when an obstacle to [the attainment of ] progeny and so on is ascertained by the movements of the planets in transit and so on, that [desired object] may be produced by benedictions and so on, because [the obstacle] is loosely rooted.

For it is said in Tradition:

Weak fate is struck down by intelligent effort.

Thus, a journey undertaken at the time of maturation of a period indicating good [results] will bear fruit without effort, [whereas a journey undertaken] during an evil period will lead to failure. Thus, astrological calculation is necessarily useful. The utterances of Śaunaka and others quoted above refer [only] to [the results of ] firmly rooted actions.

That fate and human effort go hand in hand is stated by Yājñavalkya [in Yājñavalkyasmṛti 1.351]:

For as a cart will not move on one wheel, so without human effort, fate does not take effect.

Māṇḍavya summarizes the results of studying the astral science:

The mere beholding of such a one who has mastered the essence of the science that is the eye of Revelation completely eradicates the impurities of men accrued over six years. [He] becomes the abode of righteousness and happiness.

And in Sūryasiddhānta [14.23 it is said]:

Having understood the sublime knowledge shown [here], a divine eye [to perceive] the planets and stars, one attains an everlasting place among the sun and other [celestials].

The relative reverence due to an astrologer according to his particular knowledge was set forth by the ancients:

A knower of the [complete] system destroys evils committed for ten days on mere sight; a knower of the [basic] theory [destroys] blemishes accrued over three days; a knower of [abridged] manuals and of [the times of revolutions of the planets through] the zodiac destroys the blemishes of a day and night; but a [mere] stargazer generates a mass of sin.

The characteristics of a stargazer [are stated] in Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṃhitā [2.16]:

He who assumes the role of astrologer without knowing the science should be known as a wretched defiler of the row,^[1] a [mere] gazer at the stars.

[And another source states:]

They do no know how to derive a lunar date, nor how to find [the places of ] the planets. They depend on the words of others: those are the gazers at the stars.

The inadmissibility of astrologers at a śrāddha^[2] declared in sacred law should be understood as referring [only] to stargazers. For Vasiṣṭha says [in Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā 1.10]:

One who has mastered the three branches [of astral science] is always to be honoured among Brahmans gathered at a śrāddha; but a stargazer is of evil nature and should be shunned at all pious functions.

If it should be objected that the abundance of books [cited] in this book is a fault, [we say]: not so, for when a book is abridged, the need for other books and doubts on the deliberations [presented in it] result. When a book is expanded, freedom from [such] need and doubt results; therefore one should not consider the extensiveness of a book as a defect.

For Yādava says [in Tājikayogasudhānidhi 1.8]:

In abridging, doubt and need undoubtedly arise in the hearer: therefore, extensiveness, which removes need and doubt, is better.^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

The ‘row’ (paṅkti) is that of Brahmans seated in order for a meal, an assembly into which no ritually defiling person may be admitted.

[2]:

Śrāddha is an annual observance in honour of the ancestors. Like all important rituals, it is incomplete without the feeding of priests and other honoured guests.

[3]:

The fact that Balabhadra considers this defence necessary illustrates the value that Indian learned traditions have placed on conciseness of expression, a value directly related to the prevalence of oral transmission and rote learning–hence the use of ‘hearer’ where we might expect ‘reader’.