(a) Discuss the main points of distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. Which one according to you should be preferred over the other? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (20 marks)

(b) Discuss t

Question

(a) Discuss the main points of distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. Which one according to you should be preferred over the other? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (20 marks)

(b) Discuss the nature of Soul and Bondage according to Jainism. (15 marks)

(c) Critically examine the idea of Brahman in Advaita philosophy of Śaṅkara. Does Śaṅkara's conception of Brahman leave room for theism? Discuss. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'discuss' demands a comprehensive, balanced treatment with critical analysis across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct body sections with clear sub-headings, and an integrated conclusion that draws thematic connections between the arguments for God, Jain soul-bondage, and Advaita Brahman.
- For (a): Clear distinction between a priori (reason alone, e.g., ontological) and a posteriori (empirical observation, e.g., cosmological, teleological) arguments with their epistemological foundations
- For (a): Critical evaluation with justified preference—citing Kant's critique of ontological arguments or Hume's empiricism versus rationalist defenses
- For (b): Jain conception of jiva (soul) as eternal, conscious, with inherent qualities; distinction between jiva and ajiva (non-soul)
- For (b): Nature of bandha (bondage) through karma particles (karma-pudgala) and the seven tattvas including samvara and nirjara
- For (c): Śaṅkara's conception of Brahman as nirguṇa (attributeless), sat-cit-ānanda, and the distinction between paramārtha and vyāvahārika
- For (c): Critical examination of theism question—Brahman as non-personal absolute versus saguna Brahman as lower truth; role of māyā/avidyā

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise definitions: for (a) correctly identifies a priori as independent of experience (Anselm, Descartes) versus a posteriori as empirical (Aquinas, Kalam); for (b) accurately distinguishes kevala-jñāna and the nine padārthas; for (c) correctly distinguishes nirguṇa/saguṇa Brahman and levels of reality	Generally correct but imprecise definitions; conflates some distinctions (e.g., treats all arguments as empirical) or misrepresents Jain karma mechanics or Śaṅkara's māyā	Fundamental errors: confuses a priori/a posteriori categories, describes soul as created in Jainism, or treats Śaṅkara's Brahman as personal God without qualification
Argument structure	20%	10	Logical progression within each part: (a) systematic comparison → evaluation with reasoned preference; (b) soul nature → bondage mechanism → liberation implication; (c) Brahman conception → critical analysis → theism evaluation; smooth transitions between parts	Adequate structure but uneven development—strong on (a) but descriptive on (b) and (c), or loses thread between comparative and evaluative phases	Disorganized or fragmented; lists points without argumentative connection; fails to address the 'which preferred' or 'room for theism' evaluative demands
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Specific citations: for (a) names Anselm, Descartes, Kant, Aquinas, Hume, or Indian thinkers like Udayana; for (b) references Mahāvīra, Kundakunda, Umasvati's Tattvārtha-sūtra; for (c) cites Śaṅkara's Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya, Māṇḍūkya-kārikā, or compares with Bhāskara/Rāmānuja	Mentions some thinkers but vaguely; references 'Jain philosophers' or 'Vedantins' without specificity; misses key authorities like Umasvati or Śaṅkara's commentators	No named thinkers; relies on generic references like 'some philosophers believe'; confuses schools (e.g., attributes Yoga concepts to Jainism)
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a) presents Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' or Hume's causal skepticism against rationalism/empiricism; for (b) acknowledges Buddhist anātman critique or Vedāntic ātman comparison; for (c) engages Rāmānuja's viśiṣṭādvaita critique or Bhāskara's bhedābheda, and addresses whether nirguṇa Brahman can accommodate devotion	Brief mention of opposing views without development; or presents critique without response; handles counter-positions for (a) but neglects them for (b) and (c)	No counter-arguments presented; one-sided presentation; ignores the critical/evaluative dimensions entirely in favor of description
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes across parts: reflects on how the epistemological debate in (a) illuminates the metaphysical commitments in (b) and (c); or connects Jain pluralistic souls versus Advaita monistic Brahman as contrasting solutions to bondage/liberation; justified personal stance on argument preference and theism question	Separate conclusions for each part without integration; restates main points without synthesis; weak justification for preference in (a) or theism verdict in (c)	Missing or abrupt conclusion; no attempt to connect the three philosophical traditions; contradictory positions across parts without acknowledgment

Q8

Directive word: Discuss

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2022 Paper II