Answer the following questions in about 150 words each:

(a) Do you think Cārvāka's philosophy is positivistic in nature ? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. 10 marks

(b) Explain the six reasons offered by the Naiyāyikas to prove the e

Question

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each:

(a) Do you think Cārvāka's philosophy is positivistic in nature ? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. 10 marks

(b) Explain the six reasons offered by the Naiyāyikas to prove the existence of the self. 10 marks

(c) Do these two sentences "Air does not have heat" and "Air is not fire" refer to the same type of absence or abhāva, according to the Vaiśeṣikas ? Discuss. 10 marks

(d) How does Bhāṭṭa's view of nature of word-meaning and sentential-meaning differ from Prābhākara's view ? Critically discuss. 10 marks

(e) "In Viśiṣṭādvaita philosophy, the relationship between God and the world is parallel to that between an individual self and its body." Critically discuss. 10 marks

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'critically discuss' demands balanced exposition and evaluative judgment across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words (20% time) per sub-part, with slightly more weight to (d) and (e) due to their critical complexity. Structure each 150-word response as: brief thesis statement → doctrinal exposition → critical evaluation → succinct conclusion. For (a), begin with definitional clarity on positivism; for (b), enumerate systematically; for (c), deploy technical Vaiśeṣika terminology; for (d) and (e), ensure comparative analysis with explicit 'however' transitions to show critical distance.
- (a) Cārvāka's epistemological commitment to pratyakṣa (perception) as sole pramāṇa; rejection of anumāna (inference), śabda (testimony), and ātmā; comparison with Comtean positivism's rejection of metaphysics; distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism; reference to Bṛhaspati Sūtra or Lokāyata fragments
- (b) Six Naiyāyika proofs: āyuṣaḥ saṃyogāt (conjunction with life), indriyārthasaṃyogaḥ (sensory contact), pratibandhāyogāt (impossibility of denying self), hṛdayapradeśa (location in heart), prāṇāyāma (breath control), and mṛtyukāla (death experience); each linked to Nyāya Sūtra 3.1.18-21
- (c) Vaiśeṣika taxonomy of abhāva: saṃsargābhāva (mutual absence) vs. anyonyābhāva (difference); 'Air does not have heat' as dharmābhāva (absence of attribute); 'Air is not fire' as saṃsargābhāva (numerical difference); reference to Praśastapāda's Bhāṣya on absence as sixth category
- (d) Bhāṭṭa (Kumārila): abhihitānvayavāda—word-meanings are denotative (nominative) and syntactic connection is post-verbal; Prābhākara: anvitābhidhānavāda—word-meanings are already syntactically connected; sentential meaning as bhāvanā (injunctive force) vs. vidhi; critical assessment of which preserves linguistic economy
- (e) Rāmānuja's śarīra-śarīri-bhāva (body-soul relation): God as antaryāmin (inner controller); world as God's body through apr̥thak-siddhi (inseparability); comparison with Fichte's absolute ego or Spinoza's modes; critical evaluation of whether this avoids pantheism; role of nitya-vibhūti (divine body) vs. liṅga-śarīra

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise deployment of technical Sanskrit terms (pramāṇa, abhāva, anvitābhidhāna, apr̥thak-siddhi) with accurate doctrinal content; for (a), distinguishes logical positivism from Cārvāka's materialism; for (c), correctly identifies saṃsargābhāva vs. dharmābhāva; no conflation of Bhāṭṭa and Prābhākara positions	Generally accurate concepts but imprecise terminology (e.g., 'absence' without Vaiśeṣika classification); minor errors in attributing views (e.g., conflating Kumārila and Prabhākara on word-meaning); oversimplified comparison of Cārvāka with positivism without nuance	Fundamental conceptual errors (e.g., attributing ātmā to Cārvāka; confusing saṃsargābhāva with anyonyābhāva; describing Bhāṭṭa and Prābhākara as holding identical views); anachronistic or Western philosophical terms misapplied to Indian systems without justification
Argument structure	20%	10	Each sub-part follows clear thesis-evidence-evaluation micro-structure; (b) presents six reasons in logical sequence (epistemological to experiential); (d) and (e) deploy explicit comparative markers ('whereas,' 'in contrast'); smooth transitions between sub-parts if attempted as integrated response	Adequate structure per sub-part but uneven development (e.g., elaborate on (a) and (e), cursory on (b) and (c)); enumeration in (b) present but without explanatory linkage; some comparative intent in (d) and (e) but implicit rather than explicit	Disorganized or missing structure; (b) as incomplete list without explanation; (d) as mere juxtaposition without analytical comparison; no discernible evaluative component in 'critically discuss' sections; sub-parts treated as isolated fragments without coherence
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Primary source references: Bṛhaspati Sūtra or Lokāyata for (a); Gautama's Nyāya Sūtra 3.1.18-21 for (b); Praśastapāda or Kaṇāda for (c); Kumārila's Ślokavārttika and Prabhākara's Bṛhatī for (d); Rāmānuja's Śrībhāṣya or Vedāntadīpa for (e); secondary scholarship (e.g., Dasgupta, Potter, Clooney) judiciously used	School identification correct but specific texts or thinkers absent (e.g., 'Nyāya philosophers' without Gautama; 'Mīmāṃsākas' without Bhāṭṭa/Prābhākara distinction); generic references to 'Indian philosophers' or 'ancient thinkers' without specificity	Misattribution of schools (e.g., Cārvāka as Vaiśeṣika; Bhāṭṭa as Vedāntin); no primary text awareness; reliance on textbook generalizations without philosophical specificity; anachronistic or invented sources
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a), addresses objection that Cārvāka's hedonism is normative, not merely descriptive; for (d), presents each school's critique of the other (Bhāṭṭa's charge of infinite regress against Prābhākara; Prābhākara's charge of compositional complexity against Bhāṭṭa); for (e), engages Śaṅkara's māyāvāda critique of body-soul analogy; self-aware evaluation of limitations	Some awareness of alternative positions but underdeveloped (e.g., noting 'some scholars disagree' without specification); for (d), mentions both views but not their mutual critique; for (e), acknowledges 'this view has been criticized' without naming opponent or argument	No counter-position engagement despite 'critically discuss' directive; one-sided exposition; for (a), uncritical acceptance of positivism label; for (d) and (e), purely descriptive with evaluative vocabulary ('significantly,' 'importantly') substituting for actual critique
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Each sub-part achieves succinct closure that synthesizes exposition and critique; for (a), nuanced verdict on positivism as partial fit; for (e), balanced assessment of whether śarīra-śarīri-bhāva successfully articulates theism; if attempted as integrated response, thematic unity across sub-parts (e.g., pramāṇa-theory thread from (a) to (d))	Present but generic conclusions ('thus we see,' 'in conclusion'); no synthetic judgment; sub-parts stand as isolated responses without cross-reference; satisfactory closure per part but no intellectual progression	Abrupt or missing conclusions; repetition of introduction instead of synthesis; for (e), no assessment of the parallel's adequacy; if integrated attempt, forced or false connections between disparate sub-topics; word limit violations with truncated final sub-part

Q5

Directive word: Critically discuss

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Philosophy 2024 Paper I