Philosophy 2023 Paper I 50 marks Elucidate

Q7

(a) Elucidate Naiyāyikas account of fallacies of the middle term in relation to five characteristics of valid middle term. (20 marks) (b) Liberation is defined by Advaita Vedāntins as 'attainment of that which is already attained'. How does Śaṅkara illustrate this statement ? Discuss with your own comments. (15 marks) (c) Explain Chitta and its modifications in the philosophy of Yoga. Why does Yoga philosophy prescribe cessation of modifications of Chitta ? Give reasons in support of your answer. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) वैद्ध हेतु के पाँच लक्षणों के संदर्भ में नैयायिकों की हेत्वाभास की अवधारणा स्पष्ट कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) अद्वैतवेदान्तियों के अनुसार मोक्ष पूर्व प्राप्त की पुनः प्राप्ति (प्राप्तस्य प्राप्ति) है । इस कथन को शंकर किस प्रकार उदाहरणों से स्पष्ट करते हैं ? अपनी टिप्पणियों सहित विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) योग दर्शन के अनुसार चित्त एवं चित्तवृत्तियों की व्याख्या कीजिए । योग दर्शन चित्तवृत्तियों के निरोध का निर्देश क्यों देता है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क प्रस्तुत कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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

Elucidate requires clear exposition with illustrative depth. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief unified introduction acknowledging the three systems; systematic treatment of each sub-part with internal sub-headings; concluding synthesis on Indian philosophical approaches to knowledge, reality, and liberation.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Five characteristics of valid middle term (pakṣadharmatva, sādharmya, vaidharmya, avyabhicāritva, abādhitā) and their exact correspondence with five fallacies (savyabhicāra, viruddha, asiddha, satpratipakṣa, bādhita)
  • For (a): Systematic explanation of how each fallacy violates specific characteristic(s), with examples (e.g., 'sound is eternal because it is produced' as viruddha violating pakṣadharmatva)
  • For (b): Śaṅkara's illustration through analogies—'nacre-silver' (śukti-rajata), 'rope-snake' (rajju-sarpa), 'mirage-water'—showing pre-existent nature of Brahman obscured by ignorance
  • For (b): Concept of adhyāsa (superimposition) and apavāda (sublation) as mechanism; mokṣa as removal of avidyā not attainment of new state; critical evaluation of 'already attained' paradox
  • For (c): Chitta as antaḥkaraṇa comprising buddhi, ahaṃkāra, manas; five vṛttis (pramāṇa, viparyaya, vikalpa, nidrā, smṛti) and their klisṭa/aklisṭa classification
  • For (c): Cessation prescribed because vṛttis cause citta-vṛtti-nirodha as prerequisite for kaivalya; reasons—vṛttis bind puruṣa to prakṛti, nirodha reveals puruṣa in svarūpa; supporting arguments from Yoga Sūtras I.2, II.11, IV.34

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precise Sanskrit terminology with accurate definitions: for (a) correctly maps each hetvābhāsa to violated liṅga-lakṣaṇa; for (b) accurately presents Śaṅkara's analogies and adhyāsa theory; for (c) correctly distinguishes chitta components and vṛtti types with proper Yoga Sūtra citationsGenerally correct concepts but imprecise terminology, minor errors in mapping fallacies to characteristics, oversimplified analogies for (b), or incomplete vṛtti classification for (c)Major conceptual errors: conflating fallacies, misidentifying characteristics, confusing Śaṅkara with Rāmānuja on mokṣa, or equating chitta with buddhi alone; factually wrong Sūtra references
Argument structure20%10Logical progression within each part: (a) systematic five-fold analysis with violation-explanation-example pattern; (b) thesis-analogy-critical comment structure; (c) definition-classification-rationale synthesis; clear signposting and proportional developmentAdequate structure but uneven development—either excessive detail on some fallacies/vṛttis with neglect of others, or descriptive rather than analytical treatment of Śaṅkara's positionDisorganized, jumping between parts without completion; no internal structure within sub-parts; failure to address 'why' component in (c) or 'how' in (b)
Schools / thinkers cited18%9Primary source authority: Nyāya Sūtra/Gautama for (a), Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya/Chāndogya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya for (b), Patañjali's Yoga Sūtra with Vyāsa/Vācaspati commentary for (c); references to Gaṅgeśa or Udayana for (a) adds valueGeneric attribution ('Nyāya school says,' 'Yoga philosophy holds') without specific textual anchoring; secondary source dependence evident; missing commentary traditionsNo primary thinker identification; anachronistic or wrong attributions; treating all three as 'Hindu philosophy' without school-specific distinctions
Counter-position handling18%9For (a): acknowledges Vaiśeṣika variations or Buddhist (Dignāga) critique of Nyāya fallacy theory; for (b): presents objection—if Brahman already attained, why sādhana?—with Śaṅkara's response; for (c): addresses Sāṃkhya's alternative on vṛtti-jñāna vs. nirodha, or Vedāntic critique of Yoga's dualismBrief mention of alternative views without substantive engagement; or critical comment limited to generic observation without specific counter-argument identificationNo counter-positions presented; purely expository treatment; 'own comments' in (b) reduced to platitudes without philosophical tension
Conclusion & coherence22%11Synthesizes the three systems' complementary insights: Nyāya's logical rigor on valid knowledge, Advaita's ontological depth on reality-as-always-present, Yoga's practical discipline on consciousness transformation; connects to contemporary relevance (e.g., epistemological fallacies in public discourse, self-knowledge traditions)Separate conclusions for each part without cross-system integration; or abrupt ending without synthesis; mechanical summaryMissing conclusion entirely; or conclusion merely restates question; no demonstration that three parts belong to unified philosophical enterprise

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