(a) How do the advocates of anirvacanīya-khyāti refute the position of the Naiyāyikas and establish the position of Advaitins regarding the problem of error ? Critically discuss. (20 marks)
(b) If everything is momentary then how do the Buddhists exp

Question

(a) How do the advocates of anirvacanīya-khyāti refute the position of the Naiyāyikas and establish the position of Advaitins regarding the problem of error ? Critically discuss. (20 marks)
(b) If everything is momentary then how do the Buddhists explain the problem of memory and personal identity ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)
(c) Explain the Jain view of seven-fold (sapta-bhaṅgī) 'Naya'. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'critically discuss' demands balanced exposition and evaluation across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction framing the three philosophical problems; body with clear sub-headings for each part presenting Advaita's anirvacanīya-khyāti with refutation of Nyāya's anyathā-khyāti, Buddhist kṣaṇikavāda's response to memory/identity through saṃtāna and ālayavijñāna, and Jain sapta-bhaṅgī with illustrations; conclusion synthesizing how each school resolves epistemological/metaphysical tensions.
- Part (a): Accurate exposition of anirvacanīya-khyāti as indescribable appearance of Brahman, distinct from sat (real) and asat (unreal)
- Part (a): Systematic refutation of Nyāya's anyathā-khyāti (error as mislocation of real object) and sat-khyāti (error as somehow real)
- Part (a): Establishment of vivartavāda through examples like rope-snake, sublation (bādha) as proof of prior ignorance
- Part (b): Buddhist doctrine of kṣaṇikavāda (momentariness) and its tension with memory/smṛti and personal identity
- Part (b): Saṃtāna (stream of consciousness), ālayavijñāna (store-house consciousness) or pudgala as explanatory mechanisms
- Part (c): Complete enumeration of sapta-bhaṅgī: syād asti, syād nāsti, syād asti-nāsti, syād avaktavya, and their combinations
- Part (c): Illustration through examples (e.g., pot) showing how naya captures anekāntavāda and avoids ekānta (absolutism)
- Critical dimension: Evaluation of internal consistency in each position and brief comparative assessment of their explanatory adequacy

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise definitions: for (a) anirvacanīya as neither sat nor asat nor ubhaya; for (b) kṣaṇa as minimum duration of existence, distinction between saṃtāna and ātmavāda; for (c) correct Sanskrit forms of all seven predications with proper use of 'syāt'	Generally accurate but imprecise: conflates anirvacanīya with mithyā without explaining indescribability, vague on ālayavijñāna, lists seven bhaṅgī but garbles order or logical relations	Fundamental errors: treats anirvacanīya as 'illusion' without technical meaning, confuses Buddhist momentariness with nihilism, presents sapta-bhaṅgī as simple 'maybe' statements without structural logic
Argument structure	20%	10	Clear dialectical progression in (a): Nyāya position → Advaita critique → positive establishment; in (b) problem posed → Buddhist response → residual difficulties; in (c) systematic exposition from asti to avaktavya with logical derivation	Adequate coverage but weak integration: describes positions sequentially without showing argumentative links, treats three parts as disconnected essays, missing transitions between exposition and critique	Disorganized or incomplete: jumps between schools without focus, omits either refutation in (a) or critical evaluation in (b), presents sapta-bhaṅgī as arbitrary list without showing how each follows from anekāntavāda
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Specific textual/thinker references: for (a) Śaṅkara's adhyāsa-bhāṣya, Citsukha's refutation of asat-khyāti; for (b) Vasubandhu's Triṃśikā on ālayavijñāna, Dharmakīrti's saṃtāna-pratyaya; for (c) Umāsvāti's Tattvārthasūtra, Kundakunda's exposition	Generic school attribution without specific thinkers: 'Advaitins say,' 'Buddhists argue,' 'Jains believe'—no textual grounding or chronological awareness of doctrinal development	Misattribution or anachronism: attributes ālayavijñāna to Hīnayāna schools, confuses Śaṅkara with post-Śaṅkara sub-commentators, presents sapta-bhaṅgī as Mahāvīra's direct teaching without developmental context
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): precise reconstruction of Nyāya's anyathā-khyāti (error as sat-cyuti) and sat-khyāti, then Advaita's internal critique; for (b): acknowledgment of Hīnayāna-Mahāyāna tension, recognition of Hindu ātman-vāda critique; for (c): implicit contrast with ekānta positions, recognition of limits of naya	Superficial engagement: mentions Nyāya briefly in (a) without explaining their positive theory, notes 'critics' of Buddhism without specifics, omits how sapta-bhaṅgī responds to skepticism	Absent or distorted: no actual Nyāya position presented in (a), ignores well-known Buddhist difficulty with memory entirely, presents Jain naya as unproblematic without recognizing pramāṇa tensions
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes three epistemological strategies: Advaita's transcendence of error through sublation, Buddhism's functional continuity without substance, Jain's perspectival pluralism; evaluates relative success in resolving subject-object continuity; connects to broader UPSC themes like secularism/anekāntavāda or scientific temper	Separate summaries for each part without integration; generic conclusion that 'each school has merits'; no thematic connection between error-theory, personal identity, and perspectival knowledge	Missing or incoherent conclusion; abrupt ending with part (c); or false synthesis that conflates the three positions; conclusion contradicts earlier exposition

Q7

Directive word: Critically discuss

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2021 Paper I