Q7
(a) "An unquestionable acceptance of only one Absolute Truth will inevitably result in religious exclusivism." Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Is it possible to have an idea of Liberation without the conception of a real agent? In this context, discuss the difference between Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita systems of thought. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the nature and variety of religious experiences as presented by William James. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) "केवल एक परम सत्य की अविवाद स्वीकार्यता अपरिहार्य रूप से धार्मिक व्यावर्तकतावाद में फलित होगी।" व्याख्या कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) क्या एक यथार्थ कर्ता की अवधारणा के बिना मोक्ष की अवधारणा संभव है? इस संदर्भ में अद्वैत तथा विशिष्टाद्वैत दर्शन के बीच अंतर की विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) विलियम जेम्स द्वारा प्रस्तुत धार्मिक अनुभवों के स्वरूप तथा प्रकारों की विवेचना कीजिए। (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' requires a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on religious pluralism and liberation; for (a) examine the link between absolute truth-claims and exclusivism with examples; for (b) contrast the ontological status of jīva in Śaṅkara's Advaita (vivartavāda, māyā) versus Rāmānuja's Viśiṣṭādvaita (pariṇāmavāda, real agent); for (c) systematically present James's four characteristics and typology; conclude with synthesis on whether pluralism accommodates multiple absolutes.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Analysis of how epistemological absolutism (one Truth) logically entails soteriological exclusivism (one path), with examples from Hick's pluralistic hypothesis versus traditional exclusivism
- Part (a): Distinction between metaphysical absolutism and epistemological humility; reference to Indian examples like 'Ekam sat viprāḥ bahudhā vadanti' as alternative to exclusivism
- Part (b): Advaita position: jīva as apparent individual (vivartavāda), māyā as obscuring power, mokṣa as jīva-brahma-aikya requiring no real agent persistence
- Part (b): Viśiṣṭādvaita position: jīva as real, eternal part (aṃśa) of Brahman, body-soul analogy (śarīra-śarīri-bhāva), mokṣa as kaivalya with continued individuality in service
- Part (c): James's four marks of mystical experience: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, passivity; and his typology: healthy-minded vs sick soul, once-born vs twice-born, conversion, saintliness
- Part (c): James's pluralistic conclusion that mystical experiences are genuine but do not prove any single theological absolute, supporting religious pluralism over exclusivism
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise definitions: for (a) distinguishes metaphysical from epistemological absolutism; for (b) accurately captures vivartavāda vs pariṇāmavāda, māyā vs real pariṇāma, and the ontological status of jīva in both systems; for (c) correctly identifies all four characteristics and typology without conflating James with Otto or Stace | Generally correct definitions but some imprecision: conflates māyā with illusion in popular sense, or confuses James's noetic quality with Otto's mysterium tremendum, or oversimplifies the exclusivism-pluralism distinction | Major conceptual errors: treats Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita as identical, misidentifies James's characteristics, or conflates religious exclusivism with fundamentalism without philosophical grounding |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Clear logical progression in each part: (a) conditional analysis of premise-conclusion relationship with qualified acceptance; (b) systematic comparison on specific parameters (ontological status of jīva, nature of bondage, mechanism of liberation); (c) descriptive-analytical structure moving from phenomenology to epistemology; effective transitions between parts | Adequate structure but uneven: one part well-developed (typically James) while others lack analytical depth; some logical gaps in connecting absolute truth to exclusivism, or in explaining why real agent matters for liberation | Disorganized or fragmented: parts treated as isolated essays without thematic connection; no clear thesis in (a), confused exposition of Vedānta systems, or mere listing of James's points without analysis |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | Substantive engagement: (a) Hick, Knitter, or Panikkar on pluralism; Kantian epistemology if relevant; (b) precise textual references to Śaṅkara's Brahmasūtrabhāṣya and Rāmānuja's Śrībhāṣya; (c) James's Varieties of Religious Experience with specific chapter references; connects Indian and Western frameworks where appropriate | Mentions major figures but superficially: names Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja without specific doctrines, cites James generally without textual specificity, or omits secondary thinkers who could strengthen (a) | Missing essential thinkers: no mention of specific Vedānta texts, confuses James with William James's father or brother, or relies entirely on generic textbook summaries without philosophical depth |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | Robust counter-arguments: for (a) considers how inclusivism (Rahner's 'anonymous Christian') or pluralism complicates the inevitability claim; for (b) presents the Advaita critique of Viśiṣṭādvaita (dṛṣṭānta failure) and vice versa (māyā's unintelligibility); for (c) addresses James's critics (Freud, reductionists) or alternative typologies (Stace, Otto) | Acknowledges opposing views but weakly: mentions alternative positions without developing them, or presents straw-man versions of the other Vedānta school | One-sided presentation: no counter-arguments in (a), uncritical acceptance of one Vedānta position in (b), or purely expository treatment of James without critical engagement |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes all three parts into a coherent position on religious pluralism: shows how (a)'s epistemological problem is addressed by (c)'s phenomenological pluralism, while (b) illustrates how metaphysical commitments shape soteriological possibilities; offers nuanced judgment on whether liberation requires real agency; maintains thematic unity across 50 marks | Separate conclusions for each part without synthetic integration; or attempts synthesis but forced/artificial connection between James and Vedānta | Missing or extremely weak conclusion; parts appear as disconnected answers; no return to the broader theme of religious pluralism; abrupt ending |
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 2022 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the role of enlightenment movement in the rise of humanism. (10 marks)…
- Q2 (a) What arguments does Bodin present to contend that sovereignty must be absolute, perpetual and undivided? Is Bodin's conception of sover…
- Q3 (a) Do you agree that economic development does not on its own lead to human development and social progress? Give reasons and justificatio…
- Q4 (a) Discuss propaganda as a challenge to democratic form of government. (20 marks) (b) Does idea of unconditional rights necessarily lead t…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Write an essay on Spinoza's notion of God and His attributes. (10 marks) (b) "O…
- Q6 (a) Present a critical exposition of different arguments offered by St. Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of God also known as 'Five Wa…
- Q7 (a) "An unquestionable acceptance of only one Absolute Truth will inevitably result in religious exclusivism." Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Is i…
- Q8 (a) Discuss the main points of distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. Which one according to you…