Philosophy 2023 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) Discuss Rāmānuja's criticism of Śaṅkara's conception of Brahman and Īśvara (God). (20 marks) (b) Present Bhatta's view of anupalabdhi (non-cognition) as a valid means of knowledge. (15 marks) (c) Elucidate Naiyāyikas view of ordinary and extraordinary perception. Are they justified in accepting that universals are perceived ? Discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) शंकर की ब्रह्म और ईश्वर संबंधी अवधारणाओं की रामानुज द्वारा की गई आलोचना की विवेचना कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) अनुपलब्धि प्रमाण पर भट्ट मत प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) नैयायिकों के लौकिक एवं अलौकिक प्रत्यक्ष संबंधी विचारों को स्पष्ट कीजिए । सामान्य अथवा जाति का प्रत्यक्ष होता है, इसे स्वीकार करने में क्या वे न्याय संगत हैं ? विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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, analytical treatment across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction establishing the three distinct epistemological/metaphysical debates; systematic treatment of each sub-part with internal coherence; conclusion synthesizing how these debates collectively shaped Indian philosophical discourse on knowledge and reality.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Rāmānuja's critique of Śaṅkara's nirguṇa Brahman—saguna vs nirguṇa distinction, the problem of avidyā locus, and the viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya relationship establishing Brahman-Īśvara identity
  • Part (a): Specific arguments: Brahman cannot be attributeless (nirviśeṣa) since consciousness implies distinction; the impossibility of māyā originating from indeterminate Brahman; cit-jaḍa distinction requiring Brahman as substrate
  • Part (b): Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's classification of anupalabdhi as sixth pramāṇa distinct from perception and inference; its object being non-existent entities (abhāva) and negative facts
  • Part (b): Technical exposition: vyatireka-anupalabdhi vs anvaya-anupalabdhi; the svarūpa and karaṇa dimensions; distinction from Prabhākara's rejection of anupalabdhi as independent pramāṇa
  • Part (c): Nyāya classification: laukika (ordinary) perception subdivided into savikalpa and nirvikalpa; alaukika (extraordinary) as yogaja, samanyalakṣaṇa, and jñānalakṣaṇa
  • Part (c): The sāmānya debate: Nyāya argument for samavāya-based perception of universals via extraordinary perception; critical evaluation through Buddhist (Dignāga) apoha critique and contemporary Nyāya responses

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precise use of technical Sanskrit terminology: for (a) correctly distinguishes viśiṣṭa, viśeṣaṇa, aprthaksiddhi; for (b) accurately presents anupalabdhi-hetu, dharmi, and pratiyogin relations; for (c) properly differentiates samanyalakṣaṇa from jñānalakṣaṇa pratyakṣa without conflating Nyāya-Vedānta perceptual theoriesGenerally accurate concepts but with imprecise terminology; may conflate Bhaṭṭa and Prabhākara on anupalabdhi, or confuse extraordinary perception types; minor errors in explaining samavāya's role in universal-perceptionFundamental conceptual errors: misidentifying Rāmānuja's position as Bhedābheda rather than Viśiṣṭādvaita; treating anupalabdhi as merely absence of perception; conflating ordinary/extraordinary perception with Indian/Buddhist distinctions
Argument structure20%10Each sub-part builds systematic argumentation: (a) progresses from metaphysical to epistemological critiques; (b) establishes anupalabdhi's necessity through elimination of alternatives; (c) presents Nyāya's perceptual hierarchy before evaluative critique; clear internal transitions and proportional development matching mark distributionCoherent structure but uneven development; one part may dominate disproportionately; arguments present but without clear logical progression between premises and conclusions; adequate but not sophisticated organizationDisorganized or fragmented response; parts treated as isolated blocks without thematic connection; missing argumentative steps; failure to address all components of multi-part questions; excessive digression into unrelated areas
Schools / thinkers cited18%9Appropriate textual grounding: for (a) references Śrībhāṣya and Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya passages; for (b) cites Śloka-vārttika and specific verses on anupalabdhi-pramāṇa; for (c) invokes Nyāyasūtra, Vātsyāyana, and Uddyotakara on samanyalakṣaṇa; mentions Gaṅgeśa for Navya-Nyāya refinementsNames major works (Śrībhāṣya, Śloka-vārttika, Nyāyasūtra) but without specific textual references; identifies thinkers correctly but misses school-internal distinctions (e.g., Bhaṭṭa vs Prabhākara, or early vs later Nyāya)Missing essential citations; confuses schools (attributing Prabhākara views to Bhaṭṭa, or Advaita arguments to Viśiṣṭādvaita); anachronistic attributions; reliance on secondary summaries without primary source awareness
Counter-position handling20%10Sophisticated dialectical engagement: for (a) presents Śaṅkara's possible responses (avidyā as bhāva-rūpa, anirvacanīya-khyāti) and Rāmānuja's rejoinders; for (b) contrasts Prabhākara's anupalabdhi-as-inference view with Bhaṭṭa's independent pramāṇa thesis; for (c) presents Buddhist apoha critique and Nyāya's samavāya defense, with balanced assessmentAcknowledges opposing views but treatment is superficial; mentions Prabhākara or Buddhist positions without detailed argument reconstruction; limited engagement with potential objections to the positions defendedOne-sided presentation without counter-positions; misrepresents opposing views (strawman fallacy); complete omission of dialectical context; failure to address the evaluative component in part (c)'s 'Are they justified?'
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three apparently disparate debates into unified reflection on Indian epistemology's scope—how debates on Brahman's nature, absence-cognition, and perceptual range collectively expand pramāṇa theory; indicates contemporary relevance (comparative philosophy of religion, negative facts in logic); returns to thematic unity without mere repetitionBrief concluding paragraph summarizing main points; some attempt at synthesis but largely additive rather than integrative; adequate closure without elevating the discussion; may miss opportunity to connect parts (a)-(c) through pramāṇa-theoretic lensAbrupt ending or missing conclusion; mere restatement of points without synthesis; conclusion contradicts body; failure to address the evaluative demands in parts (a) and (c); no thematic integration across the three sub-parts

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 2023 Paper I