Dear Martin,

> The question that I am really after is this: would he then accept the celestial mechanics studied and interpreted by astrologers as accurately reflecting such karma-phala? But perhaps that is not a topic that comes up in the MU.

This, I think, is absolutely correct. At least to my knowledge, there are no such discussions.

> I suppose our author would agree that the person's actions from previous lives will largely determine his present one.

I however hesitate to subscribe to that. From Vasiṣṭha’s many statements made on pauruṣa scattered all over his work, and also from the thematic focus dedicated to it in Book II, his viewpoint appears to be a different one. One passage is particularly telling in this regard. From it, it becomes clear that the two opposing forces (previous efforts (= “karma”) vs. present efforts) are equal in their essence (as “efforts”), but naturally different in their strength. Ideas of a predetermination in the sense of “effort 1” (past) controlling “effort 2” (present) are lacking.

In consequence of that the result depends solely on the superior fighting power in the hour of clashing interests. When it comes to that, the stronger (atibala) of the two will succeed (√ji).

The example is that of two fighting rams, equal in their essence of their being rams, but each of different individual strength:

dvau huḍāv iva yudhyete puruṣārthau samāsamau

ātmīyaś cānyadīyaś ca jayaty atibalas tayoḥ || (MU II.5.5)

tayoḥ [=] dvayoḥ puruṣārthayoḥ madhye | atibalo jayati | huḍaḥ [=] śṛṅgasahito mṛgaviśeṣaḥ (MṬ); huḍau [=] meṣau (VTP).

 

Translation Steiner:

„Wie zwei Böcke bekämpfen sich zwei [Arten von] Tatkraft, [die ihrer Art nach] gleich, [an Stärke aber jeweils] ungleich sind: die zu einem selbst und die zu einem anderen gehörige [Tatkraft]. Von diesen beiden siegt die [jeweils] stärkere [Tatkraft].” (MU II, p. 179).

That human effort is seen as the supreme precondition in the soteriology of the Vāsiṣṭhadarśana (as Bhāskarakaṇṭha called it) emerges also from Vasiṣṭha’s judgment pronounced on bhakti and bhāktas. As the latter, too, would rather prefer to rely on salvific powers of gods instead of making own efforts, he lashes the vaiṣṇavī bhakti politically incorrectly as a concept developed for blockheads (mūrkha):

śāstrayatnavicārebhyo mūrkhāṇāṃ prapalāyatām |

kalpitā vaiṣṇavī bhaktiḫ pravṛttyarthaṃ śubhasthitau || MU V.43.20 ||

 

„Für die Toren, [die] vor dem [gedanklichen] Reflektieren unter den Mühen des Lehrwerk[studiums] davonlaufen, [wurde] die Hingabe (bhakti) an Viṣṇu ersonnen, damit [diese] sich in einen heilvollen Zustand begeben [können].“ (Der Weg zur Befreiung. Das Fünfte Buch. Das Buch über das Zurruhekommen. Übersetzung von Roland Steiner. Wiesbaden 2015.)

 

Thus, Vasiṣṭha seems to be quite consistent in his thought.

 

Best wishes, Walter