Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each:

(a) "All human knowledge is empirical and therefore relative." Critically examine Jaina theory of sevenfold judgement (saptabhanginaya) in the light of above statement. (10 marks)

(b) "I

Question

Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each:

(a) "All human knowledge is empirical and therefore relative." Critically examine Jaina theory of sevenfold judgement (saptabhanginaya) in the light of above statement. (10 marks)

(b) "If Purusa and Prakrti are two completely independent realities, then no relation between the two is possible." In the light of this statement make a brief presentation of Śaṅkara's criticism of Sāṃkhya dualism. (10 marks)

(c) What is Advaitin interpretation of the great sentence (mahāvākya) 'Thou art that' (tat tvam asi) ? Briefly discuss. (10 marks)

(d) Present an account of Vaiśeṣika's view of negation in the light of their statement — "Negation always has a counterpositive and absolute negation is an impossibility." (10 marks)

(e) Explain the nature and role of Supermind in evolution as per Aurobindo's philosophy. (10 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

(a) Jaina saptabhaṅgī 
The statement has a partial truth: every naya is empirical and limited. But Jaina saptabhaṅgī does not accept its conclusion. It holds that an object possesses multiple aspects (aṇu) and any single empirical standpoint (naya) grasps only one aspect. Hence the seven predications—syād asti, syād nāsti, syād asti-nāsti, syād avaktavya, syād asti avaktavya, syād nāsti avaktavya, syād asti-nāsti avaktavya—are not seven contradictory opinions but seven conditioned affirmations. The third, syād asti-nāsti, means “in some respects it is and in some respects it is not,” not a temporal succession; the fourth, avaktavya, marks the inexpressibility of simultaneous affirmation and negation from one standpoint. Anekāntavāda thus transcends empirical relativism: it relativises each naya while preserving a comprehensive truth beyond any single empirical standpoint. Nayavāda limits every claim to its domain, so knowledge is neither merely empirical nor arbitrarily relative; it is multi-dimensional and conditionally valid.

(b) Śaṅkara’s criticism 
Śaṅkara’s objection is that Sāṃkhya cannot coherently maintain two independent realities. If Puruṣa and Prakṛti are wholly independent, no causal or purposive relation is possible; yet Sāṃkhya makes Prakṛti act for Puruṣa’s sake and Puruṣa witness Prakṛti’s evolution. If they are related, they are not independent; if independent, the world-process is inexplicable. Śaṅkara does not simply reject satkāryavāda; he accepts a form of it, that an effect must be grounded in its cause, but uses this to show that an unconscious Pradhana cannot be the efficient cause of conscious beings. An unconscious cause cannot produce intelligence, nor can it act for another’s sake without an intelligent agent. Moreover, Pradhana is only inferred from the world, whereas Brahman is directly revealed in the Upaniṣads as the sole cause. Hence Sāṃkhya dualism is a dependent hypothesis, not an independent reality.

(c) Advaitin mahāvākya 
For the Advaitin, tat tvam asi is not a statement that the individual body-mind is identical with the cosmic body. It is a mahāvākya whose function is to remove ignorance by revealing the identity of the innermost self with Brahman. The word tat denotes Brahman, infinite, attributeless, self-luminous; tvam denotes the jīva, apparently limited by body, mind and senses. The interpretation proceeds through jādajāhallakṣaṇa: the limiting adjuncts (upādhis) that are superimposed on Brahman and the jīva are removed, not the substratum itself. Thus the finite attributes of the jīva are negated as belonging to upādhis, while the infinite nature of Brahman is retained. What remains is the same consciousness, sat-cit-ānanda. The sentence therefore does not establish a new relation between two selves; it discloses that the jīvatman and paramātman are one in essence, the apparent difference being due to ignorance and limiting conditions.

(d) Vaiśeṣika negation 
Vaiśeṣika treats negation (abhāva) as a real but dependent category, always predicated of a counterpositive (pratiyogin). It is not a bare absence; it is the absence of a specific thing in a specific locus. Hence the four types: pragabhāva, prior non-existence, as the pot in the clay before production; pradhvamsabhāva, posterior non-existence, as the pot after destruction; atyantabhāva, absolute non-existence, as the pot in space where it never existed; and anyonyabhāva, mutual non-existence, as the pot in the cloth and the cloth in the pot. Each requires a pratiyogin: the pot, the clay, the space, the cloth. The statement that “negation always has a counterpositive” means that to say “x is absent” is to say “x is absent in y.” An absolute, counterpositive-less negation would be empty and self-contradictory, because negation is relational and cannot exist by itself. Thus Vaiśeṣika rejects a negation of all things as impossible; even universal absence must be located in some counterpositive.

(e) Aurobindo’s Supermind 
For Aurobindo, evolution is not merely biological ascent but the unfolding of Spirit in matter. The Supermind is the supramental consciousness, a truth-consciousness that is integral, self-aware and creative. It links Sachchidananda, the supreme reality, with matter, which is involution: Spirit descends into the lowest form while retaining its essential nature. Matter is not inert; it is Spirit in its densest expression, and evolution is the progressive revelation of higher consciousness through matter, life and mind. The Supermind is the goal and the transforming power of this process. It does not simply transcend nature but transforms it, bringing consciousness, life and body into harmony with supramental truth. Aurobindo’s triple transformation—psychic, spiritual and supramental—shows this: the psychic being awakens the inner self, spiritual practice purifies mind and life, and supramental transformation reorganises the whole nature so that the Supermind can manifest. Thus the Supermind is both the source and the fulfilment of evolution.

Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each: (a) "All human knowledge is empirical and therefore relative."…

Model answer

What "Critically examine" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2023 Paper I