फल कुतः
By पं. जुगलकिशोर मुख्तार 'युगवीर'
Summary
The text presents a philosophical discourse from the Āptamīmāṃsā, examining the nature of reality, causation, and the implications of absolutist views. It argues that if an effect (kārya) is considered entirely real (sat), it cannot originate, much like a conscious being (puruṣa) is not produced. The concept of transformation (pariṇāma) in an object contradicts the doctrine of eternalism (nityatva), which is a one-sided perspective. The text addresses an eternalist viewpoint, stating that if everything is absolutely eternal, then actions (kriyā) leading to merit (puṇya) and demerit (pāpa) become impossible. Consequently, there would be no afterlife (pretyabhāva), no attainment of results (phala), and no bondage (bandha) or liberation (mokṣa). Conversely, if an effect is considered entirely unreal (asat), like a sky-flower (ākāśa-puṣpa), it cannot be produced. If the unreal were to originate, there would be no regulation of the material cause (upādāna), and no confidence in the production of effects. The text thus critiques both extreme positions—absolute reality and absolute unreality of effects—highlighting the logical inconsistencies in each. It emphasizes that actions, their results, and spiritual concepts like bondage and liberation depend on a nuanced understanding of causation, rejecting rigid eternalism or nihilism. The commentary is by Pandit Jugalkishore Mukhtar 'Yugaveer'.
Conclusion
The text critically examines the implications of extreme philosophical positions on causality and moral responsibility. It argues that if an effect is considered entirely real (sat), it cannot originate like a conscious being, and the notion of transformation contradicts absolute permanence. Conversely, if an effect is wholly unreal (asat), like a sky-flower, it cannot arise at all. The outcome of either one-sided view is the negation of moral and spiritual life: actions of merit and demerit become impossible, along with afterlife, karmic results, bondage, and liberation. The document thus establishes that a middle path, acknowledging both the real and unreal aspects of effects, is necessary to preserve the validity of causation, moral accountability, and the possibility of spiritual progress. This analysis underscores the practical necessity of a nuanced ontology for coherent ethical and soteriological frameworks.