Philosophy 2023 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q5

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)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में संक्षिप्त उत्तर दीजिए : (a) "सभी मानवीय ज्ञान आनुभविक है तथा इस कारण सापेक्ष है ।" उपरोक्त कथन के आलोक में जैनों के सप्तभंगीय सिद्धान्त की आलोचनात्मक परीक्षा कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) "यदि पुरुष और प्रकृति दो पूर्ण रूप से स्वतन्त्र सत्ताएँ हैं तो इन दोनों के बीच कोई भी संबंध सम्भव नहीं है ।" इस कथन के आलोक में शंकर की सांख्य द्वैतवाद की आलोचना का संक्षिप्त विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) महावाक्य 'तत् त्वम् असि' की अद्वैतवादी व्याख्या क्या है ? संक्षिप्त विवरण दीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) वैशेषिकों के कथन — "अभाव भाव का प्रतियोगी होता है तथा निरपेक्ष अभाव असंभव है" — के प्रकाश में उनकी अभाव की अवधारणा का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) श्रीअरबिंदो के दर्शन के अनुसार विकासक्रम में अतिमनस् (सुपरमाइन्ड) के स्वरूप तथा भूमिका की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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

Critically examine the Jaina saptabhanginaya in (a) by showing how it transcends empirical relativism through anekantavada; for (b)-(e), apply explain/discuss directives with equal 30-word allocation per part (~150 words each). Structure: brief contextual hook per part, doctrinal exposition with Sanskrit terms, and synthetic conclusion showing inter-school connections where possible.

Key points expected

(a) Jaina saptabhanginaya: seven predications (syad-asti, syad-nasti, etc.), anekantavada as response to empirical relativism, nayavada limiting each standpoint
(b) Śaṅkara's critique of Sāṃkhya: refutation of satkaryavada, pradhana's unintelligent nature cannot create for Purusa's sake, illegitimacy of inferred pradhana vs. revealed Brahman
(c) Advaitin mahavakya interpretation: tat tvam asi via jahadajahallakshana, removal of conflicting attributes (upadhi), identity of jivatman and paramatman
(d) Vaisheshika negation: four types (pragabhava, pradhvamsabhava, atyantabhava, anyonyabhava), counterpositive (pratiyogin) requirement, rejection of absolute negation as self-contradictory
(e) Aurobindo's Supermind: as integral consciousness linking Sachchidananda and matter, role in involution-evolution, triple transformation (psychic, spiritual, supramental)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Accurately defines saptabhanginaya's sevenfold structure, Śaṅkara's specific logical objections to pradhana, jahadajahallakshana, four Vaisheshika negations with pratiyogin, and Supermind's ontological status; no conflation of abhava types or mahavakya hermeneutics	Basic definitions present but confuses syadvada with nayavada, omits jahallakshana distinction, or misidentifies Supermind as mere higher mind; minor Sanskrit errors	Fundamental errors: treats saptabhanginaya as skepticism, conflates Śaṅkara's critique with Yoga's, describes Supermind as Vedantic maya, or invents fifth negation type
Argument structure	20%	10	Each 150-word segment follows thesis-evidence-implication micro-structure; (a) shows how anekantavada avoids both absolutism and relativism; (b) presents Śaṅkara's dilemma argument then refutation; logical connectors between parts create cumulative philosophical narrative	Descriptive coverage of all five parts but uneven development; some parts lack clear argumentative arc or conflate exposition with analysis; transitions between sub-parts absent	Disjointed bullet-like statements; no discernible argument in critical parts; (a) merely lists seven predications without examining the 'empirical/relative' provocation; (b) describes Sāṃkhya without Śaṅkara's critique
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Names Kundakunda (Pravacanasara) for Jaina epistemology; cites Brahmasutrabhashya II.2 for Śaṅkara's critique; references Padmapada or Suresvara for mahavakya interpretation; mentions Prashastapada for Vaisheshika; uses Life Divine for Aurobindo's terminology	Generic school attribution without specific thinkers; mentions 'Jaina philosophers' or 'Advaita commentators' without names; no textual references	Anachronistic or wrong attributions: attributes saptabhanginaya to Mahavira directly, cites Bhagavadgita for Śaṅkara's Sāṃkhya critique, or confuses Aurobindo with Vivekananda
Counter-position handling	20%	10	(a) addresses how saptabhanginaya responds to Nyaya's epistemological realism and Buddhist skepticism; (b) presents Sāṃkhya's satkaryavada defense before refutation; (d) considers Buddhist asatkaya or Madhyamika emptiness as contrasting negation theories; shows awareness of alternative positions	Acknowledges opposing views superficially; mentions 'some philosophers disagree' without specifying who or their arguments; defensive rather than dialogical presentation	Ignores counter-positions entirely; presents each school as self-evident truth; no critical tension in 'critically examine' part; strawman characterization of Sāṃkhya in (b)
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Brief concluding synthesis (1-2 sentences) showing thematic unity: Indian epistemologies negotiating between absolutism and relativism, or evolution of realist to idealist to integral metaphysics; maintains terminological consistency across all five parts	Abrupt ending without synthesis; or forced connection ('all Indian philosophy is spiritual'); some terminological drift (using 'absolute' differently in (a) and (d))	No conclusion; or completely unrelated final statement; contradictory positions across parts without acknowledgment (e.g., affirming absolute negation in (a) while denying it in (d))

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 →