Thank you, Walter, for these instances from the Mokṣopāya and for the reference to your paper, which I'll make sure to look up. As you say, the verses seem primarily to criticize the notion of fate or daiva, or at least of fate as more powerful than human effort. (Most astrologers would probably consider these to be straw-man arguments, but that's another matter.) The question they raise in my mind is whether the fate rejected by the author includes karma, as daiva is often equated with prārabdha-karma (pūrvajanmakṛtaṃ karma tad daivam iti kathyate, ityādi). Do we know?

Of course, from a radical non-dualist perspective, saṃsāra in its entirety, including cause and effect, karma and phala, etc, is illusory. Is that the perspective behind the Mokṣopāya's rejection of fate, or is the argument made on the level of 'conventional truth'? I am primarily interested in the latter: authors who argue that, for instance, karma is real, but astrology is false.

Thanks again,
Martin

Den 2017-02-03 kl. 18:17, skrev Walter Slaje:

Dear Martin,

consequential criticism of astrologers can be found in the context of a general criticism directed against the power of fate (daiva) and the believers in fate in the Mokṣopāya, chapters II.4-9.

There, I am aware of two direct references to astrologers (see below), but implicit criticism of daiva and °jñas is also palpable in the Mahābhārata, see my paper “Nāsti daive prabhutvam. Traces of demythologisation in Indian Epic thought.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 26 (1998): 27-50.

[...]