Philosophy 2022 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) Inspite of accepting the intrinsic validity of knowledge, why and how Prabhākara and Kumārila differ in their interpretation of erroneous cognition ? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Explain Buddhist concept of Trīratna and their internal relation. Critically examine the consistency of Trīratnas with the Buddhist concept of No-soul (Nairātmyavāda). (15 marks) (c) How do Naiyāyikas respond to Cārvāka's objections against inference (anumāna) and establish inference as an independent means of knowledge ? Critically discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) ज्ञान की स्वतःप्रामाण्यता की स्वीकृति के बावजूद प्रभाकर एवं कुमारिल भ्रामक ज्ञान की व्याख्या में क्यों और कैसे भिन्न हैं ? विवेचन कीजिये । (20 अंक) (b) बौद्ध दर्शन की त्रिरत्न की अवधारणा तथा इनके अन्तःसम्बन्धों की व्याख्या कीजिये । बौद्ध दर्शन के नैरात्म्यवाद के साथ त्रिरत्न की सुसंगतता का समीक्षात्मक परीक्षण कीजिये । (15 अंक) (c) चार्वाक के अनुमान के विरोध में दिए गए आक्षेपों का नैयायिक किस प्रकार प्रत्युत्तर देते हैं तथा अनुमान को एक स्वतन्त्र ज्ञान-स्रोत के रूप में स्थापित करते हैं ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Philosophy questions

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 balanced exposition with critical analysis across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief unified introduction on epistemological debates in Indian philosophy → systematic treatment of (a) Prabhākara-Kumārila differences on error, (b) Trīratna-Nairātmyavāda tension, (c) Nyāya defense of anumāna against Cārvāka → integrated conclusion highlighting how these debates shaped Indian epistemology.

Key points expected

For (a): Explain svataḥ-prāmāṇya (intrinsic validity) as common ground; contrast Prabhākara's Akhyāti (error as incomplete knowledge, no positive misapprehension) with Kumārila's Anyathākhyāti/Viparītakhyāti (error as mislocation of real attributes); clarify their different ontological commitments regarding the status of the object in error
For (a): Analyze how Prabhākara's 'nirvikalpa' starting point vs Kumārila's 'savikalpa' realism leads to divergent error theories despite shared svataḥ-prāmāṇya framework
For (b): Define Trīratna (Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha) and their interrelation as refuge, teaching, and community; explain their functional unity in soteriological practice
For (b): Critically examine the apparent tension with Nairātmyavāda—whether Trīratna implies enduring entities vs anātman; present resolution through Dharmakīrti's causal efficacy (arthakriyā) or Prajñāpāramitā's emptiness hermeneutic
For (c): Outline Cārvāka's three classic objections—sādhāraṇa (common properties), asādhāraṇa (unique properties), and kalātyayāpadiṣṭa (time-gap/uncertainty of vyāpti)
For (c): Present Nyāya response—Gaṅgeśa's tāṅkārya-based vyāpti, upamāna-assisted universal establishment, and classification of anumāna as svārtha/parārtha; note Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali defense
For (c): Critical assessment of whether Nyāya successfully establishes anumāna as independent pramāṇa or merely rehabilitates it as conditional/derivative

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precisely defines svataḥ-prāmāṇya, Akhyāti/Anyathākhyāti, Trīratna components, Nairātmyavāda's two truths framework, and Nyāya's five-membered parārthānumāna; correctly identifies that Prabhākara denies illusory object-status while Kumārila accepts real substratum; accurately distinguishes Dharmakīrti's svalakṣaṇa-based resolution from Mādhyamika's prasaṅga approach	Defines key terms adequately but conflates Akhyāti with Anyathākhyāti or presents Trīratna descriptively without analyzing Nairātmyavāda tension; describes Cārvāka objections generally without precise classification; minor inaccuracies in attributing positions to thinkers	Misidentifies svataḥ-prāmāṇya as extrinsic validity; confuses Prabhākara with Kumārila's positions; treats Trīratna as three permanent souls; fundamentally misunderstands anumāna as mere guesswork; attributes Nyāya views to Cārvāka or vice versa
Argument structure	20%	10	For (a) builds systematic comparison showing how epistemological common ground generates divergent error theories through different phenomenological analyses; for (b) presents thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure on Trīratna-Nairātmyavāda consistency; for (c) follows objection-response-evaluation pattern with clear logical flow between Cārvāka's skeptical trilemma and Nyāya's counter-strategy; maintains thematic coherence across parts through focus on pramāṇa debates	Presents each part sequentially with adequate internal organization but weak explicit connections between parts; describes positions without showing argumentative progression (e.g., lists Prabhākara's view then Kumārila's without explaining why they diverge); covers Trīratna and Nairātmyavāda separately without sustained critical examination	Disorganized narrative jumping between schools without clear part-markers; no discernible argument structure—mere information dumping; fails to address 'why and how' in (a), 'critical examination' in (b), or 'critically discuss' in (c); conclusion absent or purely repetitive
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	For (a) references Śālikanātha's Prakaraṇapañcikā on Akhyāti and Kumārila's Ślokavārttika (Akhyāti chapter); for (b) cites Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā XXIV, Vasubandhu's Triṃśikā, Dharmakīrti's Pramāṇavārttika on saṅgha-prabhāvana; for (c) names Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa's Tattvopaplavasiṃha (Cārvāka), Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi (vyāptigraha section), Udayana's Kusumāñjali; demonstrates awareness of textual stratification within schools	Mentions Prabhākara and Kumārila by name with approximate school affiliation; identifies Buddha and 'Mahāyāna philosophers' generically; names Gautama (Nyāya-sūtra) and 'Cārvāka school' without specific texts or sub-commentators; some thinkers correctly placed but lacking precise textual anchoring	Confuses thinkers across schools (e.g., attributes Dharmakīrti to Mīmāṃsā); misspells or misidentifies key figures; relies solely on 'some philosophers say' without any named authority; anachronistic attributions (e.g., Gaṅgeśa responding directly to Prabhākara)
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a) presents Kumārila's critique of Akhyāti (error requires positive content, not mere absence) and Prabhākara's response regarding savikalpa-jñāna's inherent relationality; for (b) develops robust examination of ātman-vādin critique (Sāṅkhya, Nyāya) and internal Buddhist debate (Sarvāstivāda vs. Madhyamaka vs. Yogācāra resolutions); for (c) articulates Cārvāka's sādhāraṇa-asādhāraṇa dilemma with full force before showing Nyāya's tāṅkārya/avyabhicārita response; evaluates whether responses are ad hoc or genuinely decisive	Acknowledges opposing views in each part but presents them as strawmen or afterthoughts; describes Cārvāka objections without their full skeptical weight; mentions 'some scholars disagree' on Trīratna-Nairātmyavāda tension without specifying who or their arguments; Nyāya defense presented as unproblematic success without critical scrutiny	Ignores counter-positions entirely—purely expository of one view per part; misrepresents opposing arguments (e.g., claims Cārvāka accepts inference for practical purposes); dismisses tensions between Trīratna and Nairātmyavāda as 'merely apparent' without argument; no evaluation of response adequacy
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes three apparently disparate debates into unified thesis on Indian epistemology's self-reflexive character—how svataḥ-prāmāṇya, Nairātmyavāda, and anumāna-defense all negotiate between foundationalism and fallibilism; identifies that Prabhākara's 'error as non-knowledge' and Nyāya's 'vyāpti as natural regularity' share structural commitment to knowledge's self-justifying tendency, while Kumārila and Cārvāka represent externalist corrections; suggests contemporary relevance (e.g., Gettier problems, reliabilism); conclusion emerges organically from analysis rather than being appended	Provides separate concluding paragraphs for each part with basic summary; attempts weak thematic connection ('all these are important in Indian philosophy'); no genuine synthesis or meta-level insight; conclusion restates main points without advancing argument	No conclusion or abrupt termination after part (c); conclusion contradicts body (e.g., claims Prabhākara and Kumārila agree on error after detailing differences); introduces entirely new claims in conclusion; purely mechanical 'thus we have discussed' ending without intellectual integration

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 →