Philosophy 2025 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Explain the ground on which Cārvāka rejects inference (anumāna) as a valid source of knowledge. 10 (b) Present an exposition of the debate between Naiyāyikas and Buddhists with reference to the notion of Pramāṇa and Pramāṇaphala. 10 (c) Delineate the main points of difference between the theory of intrinsic validation (svataḥ prāmāṇyavāda) and theory of extrinsic validation (prataḥ prāmāṇyavāda) in classical Indian philosophy. 10 (d) Examine Rāmānuja's seven objections against Māyāvāda of Advaita. 10 (e) Present an exposition of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika's theory of causation. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए : (a) उन आधारों की व्याख्या कीजिए जिनके बल पर चार्वाक ज्ञान के वैध स्रोत के रूप में अनुमान का निषेध करता है । 10 (b) नैयायिकों एवं बौद्धों के मध्य प्रमाण एवं प्रमाणफल सम्बन्धी संवाद का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए । 10 (c) शास्त्रीय भारतीय दर्शन में स्वतः प्रामाण्यवाद तथा परतः प्रामाण्यवाद के सिद्धांतों के मध्य विभेद के प्रमुख बिन्दुओं को रेखांकित कीजिए । 10 (d) अद्वैत के मायावाद के विरुद्ध रामानुज की ससानुपपत्तियों की परीक्षा कीजिए । 10 (e) न्याय-वैशेषिकों के कारणता के सिद्धान्त की व्याख्या प्रस्तुत कीजिए । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' demands clear exposition with logical reasoning for each sub-part. Allocate approximately 30 words each to (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) — roughly equal distribution since all carry 10 marks. Structure each part as: thesis statement → 2-3 supporting points → brief illustration. No separate introduction or conclusion needed; begin directly with (a) and move sequentially through (e), using clear separators between parts.

Key points expected

  • (a) Cārvāka's rejection of anumāna: cites the 'unperceivable' nature of vyāpti, infinite regress in establishing universal concomitance, and the example of fire/smoke doubt in wet fuel; mentions Bṛhaspatisūtra or Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha reference
  • (b) Nyāya-Buddhist debate on Pramāṇa-Pramāṇaphala: Nyāya's view of pramāṇa as cause and pramāṇaphala as resultant knowledge versus Buddhist Dignāga's identification of both as sākṣātkāra; mentions svārthānumāna vs. parārthānumāna distinction
  • (c) Svataḥ vs. parataḥ prāmāṇyavāda: Mīmāṃsā (Kumārila) and Advaita (Mandana/Dharmarāja) on intrinsic validity requiring only absence of defects versus Nyāya (Gaṅgeśa) on extrinsic validation needing verification; cites parataḥ apramāṇyavāda as Nyāya's corollary
  • (d) Rāmānuja's seven objections: lists at least 4-5 of — (1) avasthā viśeṣa, (2) saṃśaya doṣa, (3) pramāṇa virodha, (4) jñāna virodha, (5) kriyā virodha, (6) dṛṣṭānta hāni, (7) śruti virodha; specifically mentions Śrībhāṣya as source
  • (e) Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika causation: ārambha-vāda (asatkārya-vāda) with five causes (nimitta, upādāna, samavāyi, asamavāyi, pratyavāya); contrasts with Sāṃkhya satkārya-vāda; mentions threefold classification of karaka or the samavāya relation
  • Cross-school comparisons: at least two parts should explicitly contrast positions (e.g., (b) Nyāya vs. Buddhist; (c) Mīmāṃsā vs. Nyāya; (e) Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika vs. Sāṃkhya)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10For (a), accurately defines vyāpti and the wet fuel counter-example; for (b), correctly distinguishes svārtha/parārtha anumāna in Dignāga; for (c), precisely states Kumārila's svataḥ and Gaṅgeśa's parataḥ positions; for (d), names at least 5 objections with Sanskrit terms; for (e), correctly identifies ārambha-vāda and lists five causes without confusion with SāṃkhyaDefines basic concepts correctly but conflates technical terms (e.g., mixes satkārya/ asatkārya in (e)); states positions without precise Sanskrit terminology; mentions 3-4 objections in (d) without systematic enumerationMisidentifies schools (e.g., attributes svataḥ prāmāṇya to Nyāya); confuses pramāṇa and prameya; garbles Rāmānuja's objections into generic criticism of illusion; fundamental errors in causal theory
Argument structure20%10Each sub-part follows deductive structure: thesis → grounds → example/implication; (a) shows Cārvāka's regress argument clearly; (b) presents Nyāya then Buddhist position symmetrically; (c) uses tabular or parallel construction for comparison; (d) enumerates objections sequentially; (e) moves from definition to classification to school contrastLogical flow present but uneven — some parts well-structured (e.g., (c) with clear comparison) while others list points without connecting logic; transitions between parts marked but mechanical; occasional circular reasoning in causal explanationRandom fact accumulation without argumentative thread; no discernible structure within sub-parts; jumps between schools without signaling; conclusion in one part contradicts another; severe time misallocation leaving parts incomplete
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Cites specific texts: Bṛhaspatisūtra or Jayarāśi's Tattvopaplavasiṃha for (a); Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya and Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi for (b); Kumārila's Ślokavārttika and Mandana's Brahmasiddhi for (c); Rāmānuja's Śrībhāṣya for (d); Praśastapāda's Padārthadharmasaṃgraha for (e); minimum 4 specific textual referencesNames schools correctly and mentions 1-2 thinkers (e.g., only 'Kumārila' without text, 'Dignāga' without work); generic references like 'Nyāya sūtra' without specificity; no anachronistic attributions but thin textual groundingMisattributes positions (e.g., Śaṅkara to svataḥ prāmāṇya); invents non-existent texts; confuses commentators with founders; complete absence of primary source references; anachronistic pairings
Counter-position handling20%10(a) notes Uddyotakara's Nyāya response to Cārvāka; (b) presents both Nyāya and Buddhist positions as internally coherent rather than caricatured; (c) mentions Nyāya's charge of infinite regress against svataḥvāda; (d) acknowledges Advaitin's possible reply to at least two objections; (e) explicitly contrasts with Sāṃkhya satkārya-vāda; demonstrates awareness of dialectical contextMentions opposing view in passing but doesn't develop response; (b) describes one side better than other; (d) lists objections without noting they're specifically against Śaṅkara's vivartavāda; static presentation without dialogical tensionOne-sided partisan presentation (e.g., only Cārvāka's view without why others reject it); treats debate positions as errors to correct rather than philosophical alternatives; complete absence of counter-argument awareness in comparative parts
Conclusion & coherence20%10Maintains thematic unity across five parts through implicit thread of pramāṇa theory's development; each part's conclusion connects to broader epistemological concern; precise word discipline (~150 words per part); no part exceeds 170 words or falls below 130; seamless transitions between (a)-(e); final sentence of (e) gestures toward contemporary relevance or systematic integrationParts complete but uneven in depth; word count varies significantly (100-180 range); transitions present but formulaic ('Another important topic...'); no synthetic conclusion but no contradictions between parts; occasional repetition of examplesSevere imbalance — one part dominates at expense of others; parts contradict each other (e.g., (c) and (d) making incompatible claims about Advaita); missing sub-parts or grossly incomplete; no discernible connection between epistemology in (a)-(c) and metaphysics in (d)-(e); exceeds word limit substantially

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 2025 Paper I