Philosophy 2024 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) How do I know that I know ? Answer this question with reference to the Naiyāyikas, the Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsākas and the Prābhākaras. 20 marks (b) "A candidate who is never seen to be studying during the day time secures a high position in a competitive exam." How would the Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsākas and the Naiyāyikas explain the success of this candidate ? Discuss. 15 marks (c) On what grounds do the Prābhākaras and the Naiyāyikas reject memory as a source of knowledge ? Discuss. 15 marks

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) मुझे यह ज्ञान कैसे होता है कि मैं जानता हूँ ? नैयायिकों, भट्ट मीमांसकों तथा प्रभाकरों के संदर्भ में इस प्रश्न का उत्तर दीजिए। 20 अंक (b) "एक अभ्यर्थी जिसे दिन के समय में कभी अध्ययन करते हुए नहीं देखा गया है, एक प्रतियोगी परीक्षा में उच्च स्थान प्राप्त कर लेता है।" भट्ट मीमांसक तथा नैयायिक इस अभ्यर्थी की सफलता की किस प्रकार व्याख्या करेंगे ? विवेचना कीजिए। 15 अंक (c) किन आधारों पर प्रभाकर तथा नैयायिक, स्मृति को प्रमाण के रूप में अस्वीकार करते हैं ? विवेचना कीजिए। 15 अंक

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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 comprehensive, analytical treatment with balanced exposition and critical comparison across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) as it carries 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on pramāṇa theory and self-cognition; systematic treatment of (a) comparing the three schools on anuvyavasāya/self-awareness, followed by (b) on inference-based causal explanation versus presumption (arthāpatti), then (c) on memory's epistemic status; conclude with synthesis on Indian epistemology's nuanced approach to knowledge validation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Naiyāyika theory of anuvyavasāya (cognition of cognition) as intrinsic yet requiring subsequent recognition; Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsāka position that knowledge is self-luminous (svaprakāśa) but requires vedanā-jñāna or result-phala for certitude; Prābhākara doctrine of tripuṭī-saṃvit where knowledge reveals itself, object and subject simultaneously without separate anuvyavasāya
  • Part (a): Distinction between svataḥ-pramāṇya (intrinsic validity) positions—Naiyāyikas accept parataḥ-pramāṇya (extrinsic validity) requiring confirmation, while both Mīmāṃsā schools defend svataḥ-pramāṇya but differ on whether doubt requires extra validation
  • Part (b): Bhāṭṭa explanation via arthāpatti (presumption/postulation)—studying at night is inferred to explain success despite no daytime observation; Naiyāyika explanation via anumāna (inference) from effect (success) to cause (studying) based on vyāpti between effort and examination results
  • Part (b): Contrast Bhāṭṭa arthāpatti as śruta-artha-smaraṇa (recollection of heard meaning) versus Nyāya anumāna with five-membered syllogism; mention Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's Ślokavārttika and Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi references
  • Part (c): Prābhākara rejection of memory as pramāṇa—memory is smaraṇa, not fresh apprehension (anubhava), and involves kalpanā (ideation) contaminating pure perception; Naiyāyika rejection on grounds that memory lacks prāmāṇya-producing conditions (present sense-contact, proper causal chain)
  • Part (c): Specific technical grounds—Prābhākaras cite memory's dependence on past perception and its inability to reveal present reality; Naiyāyikas emphasize memory's lack of pratyakṣa-lakṣaṇa (perceptual marks) and its classification as smṛti-jñāna versus pramāṇa-janya jñāna
  • Cross-part synthesis: Demonstrate how these debates reflect deeper metaphysical commitments—Nyāya realism requiring external validation, Mīmāṃsā ritual-hermeneutic priorities privileging intrinsic validity, and epistemological versus psychological conceptions of pramāṇa

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines anuvyavasāya, svaprakāśatva, tripuṭī-saṃvit, arthāpatti, and smṛti versus pramāṇa without conflating Bhāṭṭa and Prābhākara positions; accurately distinguishes parataḥ-pramāṇya from svataḥ-pramāṇya variants; correctly identifies that Prābhākaras reject anuvyavasāya as separate category while Naiyāyikas require it for self-knowledgeDefines key terms adequately but blurs distinctions between Bhāṭṭa and Prābhākara on self-luminosity; conflates arthāpatti with anumāna or misrepresents Nyāya's five-membered syllogism application; treats memory rejection superficially without specifying technical groundsConfuses anuvyavasāya with pratyakṣa; misattributes svataḥ-pramāṇya to Naiyāyikas; conflates all three schools as holding identical views; fundamentally misunderstands arthāpatti as 'guesswork' rather than prescribed pramāṇa; fails to distinguish why each school rejects memory
Argument structure20%10For (a), presents three-way comparison with clear thesis-antithesis structure showing how each school's metaphysics drives their epistemology; for (b), constructs parallel analysis showing how same phenomenon yields different explanatory frameworks; for (c), distinguishes ontological versus epistemological grounds for memory rejection; maintains logical flow between parts with explicit transitionsTreats each school sequentially without systematic comparison; explains positions adequately but misses how (a) grounds (b) and (c); presents arthāpatti and anumāna as alternative labels rather than structurally different pramāṇas; conclusion merely summarizes without integrationDescriptive listing without argumentative architecture; jumps between schools randomly; treats three parts as disconnected essays; no visible connection between self-knowledge theory and memory rejection; conclusion absent or consists of platitudes about Indian philosophy's greatness
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Cites Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi on anuvyavasāya; Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's Ślokavārttika (especially codanā and pramāṇa chapters); Prabhākara's Bṛhatī or Ṛgveda-bhāṣya on tripuṭī; Jayanta Bhaṭṭa's Nyāyamañjarī on memory; references Udayana's Kusumāñjali for Nyāya refinements; demonstrates awareness of textual stratificationMentions Gaṅgeśa, Kumārila, and Prabhākara by name without specific works; cites 'Nyāya-sūtra' and 'Mīmāṃsā-sūtra' generically; attributes positions correctly to schools but lacks textual specificity; no awareness of commentarial developmentNo primary thinker citations; refers only to 'Naiyāyikas' and 'Mīmāṃsākas' as monolithic entities; invents or misattributes texts; confuses Prabhākara with Bhāṭṭa authors; attributes modern positions to classical thinkers
Counter-position handling20%10For (a), presents Nyāya critique of svaprakāśatva (infinite regress objection) and Mīmāṃsā response; for (b), shows how Nyāya would critique arthāpatti as reducible to anumāna and Bhāṭṭa defense; for (c), examines Advaita or Sāṃkhya counter-position that accepts memory as pramāṇa; demonstrates awareness of internal Mīmāṃsā debate between Bhāṭṭa and Prābhākara as itself dialecticalAcknowledges that schools disagree without detailed reconstruction of specific objections; mentions Nyāya-Mīmāṃsā polemic superficially; notes that some schools accept memory without explaining who or why; treats positions as static rather than developed through debatePresents each school in isolation with no awareness of inter-school critique; ignores obvious tensions (e.g., if knowledge is self-luminous, why do Bhāṭṭas need vedanā-jñāna?); no recognition that arthāpatti was controversially admitted as pramāṇa; asserts positions without defending against obvious objections
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts into thesis about Indian epistemology's spectrum from external validation (Nyāya) to intrinsic luminosity (Mīmāṃsā), showing how this explains differential treatment of memory and causal inference; connects to contemporary relevance (testimonial knowledge, self-awareness debates); demonstrates how part (a)'s self-knowledge theory constrains answers to (b) and (c); ends with qualified assessment rather than mere summarySummarizes main positions without synthetic insight; notes that schools differ but offers no explanatory framework; connects parts mechanically ('thus we see three views'); conclusion repeats introduction without development; generic statement about Indian philosophy's contributionNo conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion introduces new material; three parts appear as unrelated fragments; no return to 'How do I know that I know' as organizing question; ends with unexamined assertion about 'synthesis of all views' or 'all are correct'

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 2024 Paper I