Q6
(a) Discuss the concept of immortality of soul with special reference to Hindu tradition. (20 marks) (b) Elucidate the concept of liberation according to Advaita Vedānta. Explain the role of knowledge in the attainment of liberation. (15 marks) (c) Do you consider that religion and morality are inseparable? Give reasons for your answer. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) हिन्दू परम्परा के विशेष संदर्भ में आत्मा की अमरता की अवधारणा की विवेचना कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) अद्वैत वेदान्त के अनुसार मोक्ष की अवधारणा को स्पष्ट कीजिए । मोक्ष की प्राप्ति में ज्ञान की भूमिका की व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) क्या आप समझते हैं कि धर्म और नैतिकता अविभाज्य हैं ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क दीजिए । (15 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' demands a comprehensive, analytical treatment across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction framing the soul-liberation-morality nexus; systematic treatment of (a) Hindu immortality concepts, (b) Advaita mokṣa with jñāna-yoga, and (c) religion-morality debate with balanced argumentation; conclusion synthesizing how metaphysical foundations inform ethical practice in Indian thought.
Key points expected
- For (a): Distinguish between ātman as immortal consciousness versus jīva as embodied soul; explain transmigration (saṃsāra) through karma-bandha; reference Upaniṣadic 'neti neti', Bhagavadgītā's indestructibility argument (2.20-25), and contrast Sāṅkhya's puruṣa plurality with Vedāntic unity
- For (a): Clarify that immortality ≠ eternal persistence of individual identity but cessation of particularized existence; mention mṛtyu as transformation not annihilation
- For (b): Explain mokṣa as realization of identity between ātman and Brahman (jīva-brahma-aikya); analyze adhyāsa (superimposition) and its removal through brahma-jñāna; detail Śaṅkara's three-level reality (pāramārthika, vyāvahārika, prātibhāsika)
- For (b): Elucidate fourfold sādhana-catuṣṭaya and systematic progression through śravaṇa-manana-nididhyāsana; contrast jñāna-mārga with karma/bhakti in Śaṅkara's framework
- For (c): Present arguments for inseparability: Dharmaśāstra's ritual-ethical fusion, Kantian 'moral religion', Tillich's ultimate concern; present arguments for separation: logical independence thesis (Kai Nielsen), Buddhist śīla without īśvara, Durkheim's functional autonomy
- For (c): Critical evaluation through Indian lens: Gandhi's 'truth is God' versus Ambedkar's ethical Buddhism; conclude with nuanced position recognizing historical contingency not logical necessity
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely distinguishes ātman/anātman debates; accurately renders Śaṅkara's adhyāsa theory without conflating with Bhāskara or Yādavaprakāśa; correctly identifies that Advaita mokṣa is jīvanmukti not videhamukti as primary goal; for (c) avoids conflating 'religion' with 'theism' | Basic grasp of ātman immortality but conflates jīva/ātman; describes mokṣa vaguely as 'freedom' without specifying aikya-jñāna; presents religion-morality debate as simple yes/no without conceptual nuance | Fundamental errors: treats ātman as created entity, describes mokṣa as physical heaven, or reduces religion-morality question to 'all religions teach good values' |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Each part builds systematically: (a) establishes metaphysical foundation → (b) derives soteriological consequence → (c) examines practical-ethical implications; clear internal progression within each sub-part with signposting; appropriate weight to marks distribution | Coherent within each part but weak inter-part connections; some imbalance (e.g., excessive detail on (a) at cost of (c)); arguments present but not always sequenced logically | Disjointed treatment with no evident structure; parts answered as isolated fragments; severe imbalance ignoring 15-mark sections; repetitive or circular reasoning |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites Bṛhadāraṇyaka/Chāndogya on ātman, Gītā on avināśi tu tad viddhi; for (b): precise reference to Śaṅkara's Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, or Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahmasiddhi; for (c): brings in Kant, Durkheim, Gandhi, Ambedkar with specific textual grounding | Mentions major figures (Śaṅkara, Vivekananda) but without specific textual reference; generic citation of 'Upaniṣads' or 'Vedānta'; for (c) relies on common examples without philosophical depth | No authentic philosophical references; anachronistic or invented attributions; confuses schools (e.g., attributes Dvaita position to Advaita) |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a): addresses Buddhist anātman and Cārvāka dehalabdha-sukha as genuine challenges; for (b): engages Viśiṣṭādvaita's critique of māyāvāda and jñāna-mārga accessibility; for (c): presents separation thesis sympathetically before reasoned adjudication | Acknowledges opposing views superficially (e.g., 'some philosophers disagree'); counter-arguments mentioned but not developed; tendency to dismiss rather than engage | Polemical or monological treatment; no recognition of legitimate alternatives; strawman representations of opposing positions |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes three parts into coherent vision: how immortality-understanding shapes liberation-seeking which informs ethical orientation; demonstrates that Indian philosophy's metaphysics-ethics integration offers distinctive perspective on religion-morality question; forward-looking closing on contemporary relevance | Brief summary of each part without genuine synthesis; conclusion restates points rather than integrating them; generic closing statement | Missing or abrupt conclusion; no connection between parts; contradictory positions across sub-answers without acknowledgment |
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 II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss critically the distributive theory of justice as propounded by R. Nozic…
- Q2 (a) Discuss whether Amartya Sen's idea of justice is an improvement upon Rawl's theory of justice. (20 marks) (b) Explain the reformative t…
- Q3 (a) Discuss anarchism as a political ideology. Is it possible to dispense with political authority completely? Give reasons for your answer…
- Q4 (a) Discuss the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar regarding caste-discrimination in Indian society. What are the measures suggested by him for its…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the nature of God as propounded in Nyāya philosophy. (10 marks) (b) Dis…
- Q6 (a) Discuss the concept of immortality of soul with special reference to Hindu tradition. (20 marks) (b) Elucidate the concept of liberatio…
- Q7 (a) Discuss the role of reason and faith in religion. Can reason be a regulative force in the formulation of religious beliefs? Explain. (2…
- Q8 (a) What is non-cognitive theory of religious language? Explain critically in the light of R.B. Braithwaite's views. (20 marks) (b) Discuss…