(a) Critically examine the arguments of Nyaya for the existence of God. (20 marks)

(b) Examine the significance of the concept of rebirth in the theory of Karma. (15 marks)

(c) Explain the symbolic nature of religious language according to Tillich.

Question

(a) Critically examine the arguments of Nyaya for the existence of God. (20 marks)

(b) Examine the significance of the concept of rebirth in the theory of Karma. (15 marks)

(c) Explain the symbolic nature of religious language according to Tillich. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced analysis with evaluation, while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and 'explain' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief composite introduction → systematic treatment of (a) with Nyaya arguments and criticisms, (b) with rebirth-karma interconnection, (c) with Tillich's symbolic theology → integrated conclusion showing how these diverse perspectives illuminate philosophy of religion.
- For (a): Nyaya's five proofs for Īśvara—argument from design (śrīkara), from adṛṣṭa/adrṣṭa (unseen moral forces), from authority of Vedas, from cosmological order, and from the need for a moral dispenser; mention Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali and Gaṅgeśa's refinements
- For (a): Critical evaluation citing Buddhist (Dharmakīrti, Cārvāka) objections—regression of causes, impossibility of proving omniscience, and the logical alternative of natural causation without creator
- For (b): Analysis of rebirth (punarbhava/punarjanma) as mechanism ensuring karmic fruition across lifetimes; distinction between sancita, prārabdha, and āgāmi karma; rebirth as solution to problem of evil and apparent injustice
- For (b): Significance in Sāṅkhya-Yoga, Vedānta, and Jain traditions; contrast with Mīmāṃsā's early ambiguity and Cārvāka's rejection; ethical implications for mokṣa-oriented action
- For (c): Tillich's distinction between symbols and signs; participation theory where religious symbols participate in the reality they represent; symbolic language as non-literal yet non-arbitrary
- For (c): Application to 'God' as ultimate concern, the symbolic nature of religious assertions overcoming literalistic atheism; comparison with Braithwaite's non-cognitivism and Wittgenstein's language games
- Cross-cutting synthesis: How Nyaya's literal theism, karma-rebirth's metaphysical framework, and Tillich's symbolic approach represent three distinct solutions to religious epistemology and language

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise exposition of Nyaya's inferential structure (hetu-udāharaṇa), correct Sanskrit terminology (adṛṣṭa, īśvara, punarbhava), accurate rendering of Tillich's 'ultimate concern' and participation theory; no conflation of Nyaya's God with Vedāntic Brahman or Tillich with Tillich's Protestant theology oversimplified	Generally accurate but imprecise—uses 'God' generically for īśvara, conflates rebirth with transmigration loosely, describes Tillich's symbols as merely 'metaphors' or 'allegories'; minor terminological errors in Sanskrit concepts	Fundamental misconceptions—treats Nyaya arguments as ontological like Aquinas without noting inferential structure, confuses karma with fate or reward-punishment framework, misrepresents Tillich as advocating literal religious language or pure atheism
Argument structure	20%	10	Clear logical progression in each part: for (a) presents each proof then systematic criticism; for (b) establishes conceptual link then explores multi-dimensional significance; for (c) builds from sign-symbol distinction to theological application; effective transitions between parts showing thematic unity	Adequate organization with some logical gaps—descriptive rather than analytical in parts, uneven treatment where one sub-part dominates, conclusion merely summarizes without integration; some repetition across sections	Disorganized or fragmented—no clear thesis, jumps between topics without development, parts treated as isolated answers without composite structure, missing introduction or conclusion, significant imbalance (e.g., 80% on part a, cursory treatment of b and c)
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Primary sources cited: Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali and Kusumāñjaliyātti for (a); Śaṅkara's Brahmasūtrabhāṣya II.1 and Bhagavadgītā for karma-rebirth synthesis in (b); Tillich's Dynamics of Faith and Systematic Theology Volume I for (c); secondary scholarship (e.g., Potter, Halbfass, Gilkey) appropriately deployed	Some correct names but limited specificity—mentions 'Nyaya philosophers' generically, 'Hindu thinkers' for karma, Tillich without work references; relies on textbook summaries rather than direct textual engagement; no secondary scholarship	Incorrect or anachronistic attributions—attributes karma-rebirth exclusively to Buddhism, confuses Nyaya with Yoga darśana, cites Tillich's political writings for philosophy of religion; significant factual errors in thinker-school alignment
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): engages Buddhist prasaṅga (reductio) arguments, Cārvāka's materialism, and internal Nyaya debates (Jayanta's defense against Kumārila); for (b): addresses Cārvāka's 'no memory, no rebirth' and Śrī Harṣa's Vedāntic critique of karma's mechanism; for (c): contrasts with logical positivism (Ayer) and neo-orthodoxy (Barth), evaluates strengths and limitations	Acknowledges some opposition but superficially—mentions 'Buddhists disagreed' without argument reconstruction, notes 'some reject rebirth' without specifics, contrasts Tillich with 'literalists' vaguely; evaluation tends toward assertion rather than reasoned assessment	Absent or token engagement—no counter-arguments presented, or dismissed without examination ('however, this is wrong'); straw-man representations of opposing views; one-sided advocacy rather than critical examination as demanded
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes three disparate topics into coherent philosophy of religion perspective—contrasts Nyaya's literal foundationalism, karma-rebirth's metaphysical moral economy, and Tillich's symbolic non-literalism as complementary approaches to religious knowledge; reflects on contemporary relevance (secularism, religious pluralism, scientific naturalism); precise, balanced final assessment	Brief summary of main points without genuine synthesis; some attempt at connection but forced or superficial ('all three show importance of religion'); conclusion disproportionate to essay length; no forward-looking or evaluative closing	Missing, abrupt, or entirely descriptive conclusion; no integration across parts; new arguments introduced in conclusion; ideological or preachy closing unsupported by analysis; significant word-count imbalance with rushed or absent final section

Q7

Directive word: Critically examine

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2023 Paper II