Philosophy 2021 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q6

(a) Explain with reference to Yoga Philosophy, the nature of kleśas. How does the removal of these lead to kaivalya ? (20 marks) (b) Explain the Sāṅkhya view on three gunas (guna-traya) and their modifications. (15 marks) (c) What, according to Mīmāṃsakas, is the ontological status of abhāva (absence) and how does one know it ? Explain and examine. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) योग दर्शन के अनुसार क्लेशों के स्वरूप की व्याख्या कीजिए । उनके निराकरण से किस प्रकार कैवल्य उपलब्ध होता है ? (20 अंक) (b) तीन गुण (गुण-त्रय) तथा उनके रूपान्तरण के विषय में सांख्य-दर्शन के मत की व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) मीमांसकों के अनुसार अभाव का सत्तामूलक स्वरूप क्या है तथा किसी व्यक्ति को उसका ज्ञान किस प्रकार होता है ? व्याख्या तथा परीक्षण कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' demands clear exposition of concepts with causal connections. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging Yoga-Samkhya-Mimamsa as orthodox systems; for (a) spend ~40% word budget (20 marks) detailing five kleśas, their hierarchy with avidyā as root, and the pratiprasava process leading to kaivalya; for (b) allocate ~30% (15 marks) on guṇa-traya, their sāttvika-rājasika-tāmasika nature, and pariṇāma/vikāra modifications; for (c) reserve ~30% (15 marks) examining Kumārila's four-fold abhāva classification, dharmābhāva vs. saṃsargābhāva, and anupalabdhi pramāṇa with Bhāṭṭa-Prābhākara debate; conclude with integrative remark on orthodox systems' complementary insights.

Key points expected

(a) Five kleśas: avidyā, asmitā, rāga, dveṣa, abhiniveśa; avidyā as root cause; kleśa-mūla producing karma-vāsanā cycle
(a) Pratiprasava as dissolution of kleśas through viveka-khyāti; citta-vṛtti-nirodha leading to puruṣa-kāśa and kaivalya
(b) Three guṇas: sattva (illumination), rajas (activity), tamas (restraint); their mutual suppression and support (anyonya-śyāna-āśraya)
(b) Guṇa modifications: pariṇāma (transformation), sādharmya (homogeneous), vaidharmya (heterogeneous); evolution from prakṛti to mahat-ahaṅkāra-tanmātras
(c) Kumārila's four abhāvas: pragabhāva, pradhvaṃsābhāva, atyantābhāva, anyonyābhāva; abhāva as bhāva-pratiyogin (correlative existent)
(c) Anupalabdhi as independent pramāṇa; Bhāṭṭa view (direct perception of absence) vs. Prābhākara (negation of cognition); dharmābhāva vs. saṃsargābhāva distinction

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	25%	12.5	Precise Sanskrit terminology with accurate definitions: for (a) distinguishes kleśa-bīja from vāsanā, cites YS II.3-9; for (b) correctly maps guṇa-sāmya as prakṛti-laya and guṇa-vaiṣamya as sṛṣṭi; for (c) accurately presents Kumārila's svābhāvika-abhāva and avoids conflating abhāva with ātyantika-abhāva	Basic definitions correct but Sanskrit terms occasionally misspelled or conflated; understands kleśas as 'afflictions' and guṇas as 'qualities' without technical depth; abhāva recognized as 'absence' but anupalabdhi mechanism unclear	Fundamental errors: confuses kleśas with doṣas (Ayurveda), mistakes guṇas for attributes of Īśvara, treats abhāva as pure non-existence rather than pratiyogin; misidentifies kaivalya as mokṣa in general sense
Argument structure	20%	10	Clear causal chains: for (a) avidyā→kleśa→karma→janma→duḥkha→kaivalya through pratiprasava; for (b) prakṛti→guṇa-sāmya/vaiṣamya→evolution hierarchy; for (c) abhāva as prameya→anupalabdhi as pramāṇa→cognitive process; each sub-part has internal thesis-evidence-conclusion	Descriptive coverage of all parts but weak causal connections; lists kleśas and guṇas without showing systematic interrelation; mentions anupalabdhi but doesn't explain how it differs from anumāna	Disorganized listing without logical flow; jumps between schools without transition; (a)(b)(c) appear as disconnected notes; no visible argument for how kleśa-removal causes kaivalya or why guṇa theory matters for abhāva
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Primary texts: Patañjali's Yoga Sūtra with Vyāsa's bhāṣya for (a); Sāṅkhyakārikā (especially kārikās 12-13 on guṇas) with Gauḍapāda/Māṭhara commentaries for (b); Kumārila's Ślokavārttika (anupalabdhi-śāstra), Prabhākara's Bṛhatī, Śālikanātha's Prakaraṇapañcikā for (c); references to Sureśvara's Naiskarmyasiddhi on kaivalya	Mentions Patañjali, Īśvarakṛṣṇa, Kumārila by name but without specific textual references; attributes guṇa theory vaguely to 'Sāṅkhya philosophers'; knows Prābhākara-Bhāṭṭa distinction but cannot name their works	No philosopher or text named; generic references to 'Yoga school,' 'Sāṅkhya thinkers,' 'Mīmāṃsakas'; confuses commentators (e.g., attributes Yoga bhāṣya to Saṅkara); anachronistic citations or mixing of schools
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): contrasts Yoga kleśa theory with Buddhist kleśa (āsava/kilesa) and Vedānta's ajñāna; for (b): addresses Vedānta's critique of guṇa as pariṇāmin (change contradicting satkāryavāda) and Sāṅkhya response; for (c): presents Nyāya's abhāva-anumāna thesis vs. Mīmāṃsā's anupalabdhi-pramāṇa, with Dharmakīrti's svasaṃvedana challenge	Brief mention that other schools differ without elaboration; notes Buddhist influence on kleśa concept or Nyāya's different abhāva treatment but doesn't develop the contrast; 'examine' in (c) addressed superficially	No counter-positions mentioned; treats each school in isolation; ignores 'examine' directive in (c); presents Mīmāṃsā view as uncontested fact; fails to show philosophical dialogue between systems
Conclusion & coherence	15%	7.5	Synthesizes three orthodox (āstika) systems' complementary contributions to Indian epistemology and metaphysics: Yoga's practical soteriology, Sāṅkhya's evolutionary cosmology, Mīmāṃsā's linguistic ontology; connects kaivalya, prakṛti-laya, and abhāva-jñāna as progressive refinements of knowledge; contemporary relevance (e.g., kleśas and modern psychology, guṇas in personality theory)	Separate conclusions for each sub-part without integrative vision; restates main points without synthesis; generic closing statement about 'importance of Indian philosophy'	Abrupt ending after last sub-part; no conclusion; or conclusion contradicts body (e.g., claims all three schools agree on kaivalya); word imbalance with disproportionate (a) and rushed (c)

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 →