Q5
Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each: (a) Does the seed contain the tree ? Discuss with reference to Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Philosophy. (10 marks) (b) Explain with reference to Nyāya Philosophy, the nature of śabda as the advice of āpta (a reliable person). (10 marks) (c) Is 'inseparability' (ayuta-siddhatva) a necessary condition or a sufficient condition for defining characteristics (lakṣaṇa) of samavāya (inherence) ? Explain with reference to Vaiśeṣika Philosophy. (10 marks) (d) Distinguish between pudgala-nairātmyavāda and dharma-nairātmyavāda with reference to Buddhist Philosophy. (10 marks) (e) Comment on the bearing of Cārvāka epistemology on the rejection of transcendental entities by them. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में संक्षिप्त उत्तर दीजिये : (a) क्या बीज में वृक्ष अन्तर्निहित होता है ? न्याय-वैशेषिक दर्शन के संदर्भ में विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) न्याय दर्शन के संदर्भ में आप्त पुरुष द्वारा दिए गए परामर्श के रूप में शब्द के स्वरूप की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) समवाय के लक्षण के रूप में अयुत सिद्धत्व एक अनिवार्य उपाधि है अथवा पर्याप्त उपाधि ? वैशेषिक दर्शन के संदर्भ में व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) बौद्ध दर्शन के संदर्भ में पुद्गल-नैरात्म्यवाद तथा धर्म-नैरात्म्यवाद के बीच अन्तर स्पष्ट कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) चार्वाक की ज्ञान मीमांसा का उनके द्वारा ईन्द्रियातीत वस्तुओं की अस्वीकृति से सम्बन्ध के विषय में टिप्पणी प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10 अंक)
Directive word: Discuss
This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'discuss' for part (a) demands critical examination with arguments for and against, while parts (b)-(e) require explanation, analysis, and commentary. Allocate approximately 30 words/2 minutes per sub-part (150 words each, 10 marks each), structuring each as: brief context → core philosophical position → specific school reference → concise conclusion. No unified introduction or conclusion is needed; treat each sub-part as a standalone short answer.
Key points expected
- (a) Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika rejection of seed-tree identity: samavāya (inherence) as relation, not identity; refutation of Sāṃkhya satkāryavāda; asatkāryavāda position that effect is non-existent before causation
- (b) Śabda pramāṇa: āpta as trustworthy authority; conditions for āptatva (knowledge of object, desire to communicate, proper expression); distinction from testimony in general; classification into dṛṣṭārtha and adṛṣṭārtha
- (c) Samavāya lakṣaṇa: ayuta-siddhatva as necessary but not sufficient condition; need for additional condition of sannikarṣa (contact) or niyata-sambandha; distinction from saṃyoga (conjunction)
- (d) Buddhist nairātmyavāda: pudgala-nairātmyavāda (rejection of permanent self, Hīnayāna/Sarvāstivāda/Sautrāntika) vs. dharma-nairātmyavāda (rejection of svabhāva in dharmas, Yogācāra/Mādhyamika); śūnyatā as culmination
- (e) Cārvāka epistemology: pratyakṣa as sole pramāṇa; rejection of anumāna, śabda, upamāna; consequent rejection of ātman, īśvara, mokṣa, karma, svarga as unverifiable; lokāyata materialism
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise use of technical terms: asatkāryavāda, samavāya, ayuta-siddhatva, āpta, pudgala/dharma-nairātmyavāda, pratyakṣa; accurate distinction between Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika positions where they diverge; correct identification of Cārvāka as Lokāyata | Generally correct concepts but imprecise terminology (e.g., confusing samavāya with saṃyoga, or treating āpta as ordinary testimony); minor errors in school attribution | Fundamental conceptual errors: identifying Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika with satkāryavāda, confusing the two types of nairātmyavāda, or mischaracterizing Cārvāka as accepting inference |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part follows clear logical progression: for (a) thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure; for (c) necessary/sufficient condition analysis with proper logical form; for (d) systematic comparison using criteria; all within word limit | Adequate structure but uneven development; some sub-parts lack clear argument flow or exceed word limit on some parts while skimping on others | Disorganized or fragmented responses; failure to address the specific question asked (e.g., not answering whether condition is necessary or sufficient in part c); rambling without philosophical focus |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | Specific textual references: Gautama's Nyāyasūtra for śabda, Praśastapāda's Bhāṣya for samavāya, Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā for dharma-nairātmyavāda, Bṛhaspati Sūtra for Cārvāka; mentions of Uddyotakara, Vācaspati Miśra, or Dignāga where relevant | Correct school identification but generic references without specific sūtra or commentator names; mentions 'Nyāya philosophers' or 'Buddhists' without specificity | Missing or incorrect attributions; confusing Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna positions, or attributing Vaiśeṣika views to Nyāya without distinction; no primary text references |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a): explicit contrast with Sāṃkhya satkāryavāda; for (d): acknowledgment of Abhidharma schools' intermediate positions; for (e): brief mention of orthodox counter-arguments (e.g., Mīmāṃsā defense of śabda); demonstrates awareness of dialectical context | Brief mention of opposing views without elaboration; or handles counter-position in some sub-parts but not others | No awareness of opposing positions; one-sided presentation; or misidentifies the counter-position (e.g., treating Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika as identical to Sāṃkhya) |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part ends with precise, memorable conclusion: for (a) summary of asatkāryavāda implication; for (c) definitive judgment on necessary vs. sufficient; for (e) succinct statement of materialist consequence; consistent quality across all five parts | Adequate conclusions but some weak or generic; uneven quality across sub-parts; some conclusions merely restate without synthesis | Missing conclusions in multiple sub-parts; or conclusions that contradict the body; failure to address the specific question (especially parts a, c, e which require judgment) |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Philosophy 2021 Paper I
- Q1 Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each: (a) "There is a red chair." How would Plato explain this statement with the u…
- Q2 (a) Discuss Hegel's Dialectical method. Explain how his dialectical method leads him to the Absolute Idealism. (20 marks) (b) What accordin…
- Q3 (a) What are the main arguments put forward by Moore in his paper "A Defence of Common Sense" to prove that there are possible propositions…
- Q4 (a) Present a critical exposition of Husserl's criticism of 'natural attitude'. How does Husserl propose to address the problems involved i…
- Q5 Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each: (a) Does the seed contain the tree ? Discuss with reference to Nyāya-Vaiśeṣik…
- Q6 (a) Explain with reference to Yoga Philosophy, the nature of kleśas. How does the removal of these lead to kaivalya ? (20 marks) (b) Explai…
- Q7 (a) How do the advocates of anirvacanīya-khyāti refute the position of the Naiyāyikas and establish the position of Advaitins regarding the…
- Q8 (a) According to Śrī Aurobindo, 'the awakening of the psychic being and its gradual prominence over all other parts of the being is the fir…