History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas: A Vanished Indian Religion c22.s1.27

c22.s1.27

The text of the *Sūtrakṛtāṅga* then states the thesis of the niyativādin. “Here are two men. One maintains (the efficiency of) action, the other does not. . . . Both equally and alike are affected by (a single) cause.³ To this Śīlāṅka adds: “. . . One of them maintains (the efficiency of) action, saying that action, such as going from one country to another, is (characteristic) of a man, not of something compelled by time, or by God, etc. But (actually it pertains to) one driven by Fate. And likewise with inaction. If they, not being free, follow the doctrines of action and inaction (respectively), both (may be) equal (in fortune), owing to their subservience to Fate. But if they were free, then, owing to the difference between action and inaction, they would not be equal (in fortune). Hence, being alike dependent on a single cause, by the force of Fate they have taken to the doctrines of determinism and free-will respectively.”⁴ This argument is a repetition of the previous one. The man who exerts himself and the passive believer in Destiny may both enjoy equal fortune. But if their efforts were really effective the energetic man would be more fortunate than the other. Both are, in fact, dependent on Destiny, and their very belief or disbelief in the Ājīvika doctrine of *Niyati* is also dependent on that principle.