Q7
(a) Why does Śaṃkara consider Sāṃkhya Philosophy as his chief opponent (pradhāna malla) ? Examine his arguments against Sāṃkhya Philosophy. 20 (b) Explain the nature of God and its role in Kaivalya in yoga philosophy. 15 (c) Is Jaina philosophy pluralistic and realistic ? Critically discuss. 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) शंकर सांख्य दर्शन को अपना प्रधान मल्ल क्यों मानते हैं ? सांख्य दर्शन के विरुद्ध उनके तर्कों का परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (b) योग दर्शन में ईश्वर के स्वरूप एवं कैवल्य में इसकी भूमिका की व्याख्या कीजिए । 15 (c) क्या जैन दर्शन बहुतत्ववादी एवं यथार्थवादी है ? आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । 15
Directive word: Critically examine
This question asks you to critically examine. 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
This question demands critical examination across three distinct philosophical systems. Spend approximately 40% of your word budget on part (a) given its 20 marks, addressing why Śaṃkara designates Sāṃkhya as pradhāna malla and his specific refutations of prakṛti-pariṇāma-vāda and satkārya-vāda. Allocate ~30% each to parts (b) and (c): for (b) explain Īśvara's nature as viśeṣa-puruṣa and role in kaivalya through klesha-karma-vipāka-śayyāpahāra; for (c) critically discuss Jaina anekāntavāda, syādvāda, and saptabhaṅgī-nyāya as foundations of pluralistic realism. Structure with a brief integrative introduction, three clearly demarcated sections with sub-headings, and a conclusion synthesizing how these debates shaped classical Indian epistemology and metaphysics.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Śaṃkara's designation of Sāṃkhya as pradhāna malla due to its structural proximity to Advaita Vedānta (shared acceptance of mokṣa, jñāna-yoga, and transcendence of duḥkha) combined with fundamental metaphysical divergence on Brahman vs. prakṛti as ontological ground
- Part (a): Detailed examination of Śaṃkara's arguments—refutation of satkārya-vāda in Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya II.1, critique of prakṛti as unconscious yet teleological, impossibility of puruṣa-prakṛti interaction without īśvara, and the scriptural incompatibility of dualism with jīva-brahma-aikya
- Part (b): Nature of Īśvara/God in Yoga—viśeṣa-puruṣa untouched by kleshas and karma, eternal consciousness distinct from prakṛti-liberated puruṣas, object of īśvara-praṇidhāna in Yoga-sūtra I.23-29
- Part (b): Role in kaivalya—Īśvara as adhiṣṭhātṛ (cosmic administrator) facilitating removal of obstacles, not direct giver of liberation; kaivalya as complete cessation of citta-vṛttis and puruṣa's return to intrinsic consciousness, with Īśvara as model yogin
- Part (c): Jaina pluralism—anekāntavāda's rejection of ekānta, acceptance of multiple nayas (standpoints), syādvāda's seven-fold predication acknowledging reality's complex nature
- Part (c): Jaina realism—sāmarthya-nirapekṣa-vyavahāra, acceptance of jīva and ajīva as independently real, sat (existence) as permanent essence amid pariṇāma; critical evaluation of whether this constitutes robust realism or perspectival constructivism
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise use of technical Sanskrit terms: for (a) distinguishes satkārya-vāda from asatkārya-vāda, identifies pradhāna malla's strategic significance; for (b) correctly identifies Īśvara as viśeṣa-puruṣa not sṛṣṭi-kartṛ in theistic sense; for (c) accurately explicates saptabhaṅgī-nyāya and distinguishes naya from pramāṇa | Generally correct concepts but imprecise terminology—e.g., conflates pradhāna malla with mūla malla, treats Īśvara in Yoga as creator God, or confuses anekāntavāda with simple relativism | Fundamental conceptual errors: misidentifies Sāṃkhya as idealist, treats kaivalya as merger with Īśvara, or describes Jaina philosophy as monistic; demonstrates confusion between Yoga's Īśvara and Vedāntic Brahman |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | For (a) presents Śaṃkara's hermeneutic strategy—why Sāṃkhya's sophistication makes it dangerous, then systematic refutation; for (b) builds from Yoga-sūtra I.23-29 to II.1, 45-51 showing logical progression to kaivalya; for (c) structures as thesis (pluralism), antithesis (realism), synthesis (critical evaluation of whether anekāntavāda undermines realism) | Coherent structure within each part but weak transitions between (a), (b), (c); arguments presented as lists rather than developed chains; some logical gaps in connecting premises to conclusions | Disorganized or fragmented response; no clear demarcation between sub-parts; arguments asserted without development; conclusion merely restates points without synthesis; significant imbalance in part coverage |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | Primary texts cited precisely: for (a) Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya II.1.1-7, II.2.1-10, Gauḍapādīya-kārikā IV; for (b) Yoga-sūtra I.23-29, II.1, 45-51, Vyāsa-bhāṣya, Vācaspati-miśra's Tattva-vaiśāradī; for (c) Tattvārtha-sūtra, Samaya-sāra, works of Kundakunda and Umāsvāti; secondary scholarship from S.N. Dasgupta, Hiriyanna, or Matilal | Mentions key texts without specific sūtra/chapter references; cites generic 'Yoga philosophy' or 'Jaina texts' without specificity; limited or no secondary scholarship | No textual references or incorrect attributions (e.g., cites Bhagavad-gītā for Sāṃkhya metaphysics, confuses Patañjali's Yoga with Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya); relies entirely on textbook summaries without direct engagement |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | For (a) presents Sāṃkhya defense (Vijñāna-bhikṣu's response to Vedāntic critique, utility of prakṛti as explanatory principle) before refutation; for (b) addresses Yoga's 'theistic problem'—whether Īśvara is necessary given prakṛti-puruṣa dualism; for (c) engages critics (Mookerjee, Jaini) on whether anekāntavāda collapses into skepticism or idealism | Acknowledges opposing views superficially; presents Sāṃkhya or Jaina positions but doesn't develop their internal coherence before critique; limited engagement with scholarly debates | Straw-man presentation of opposing positions; no recognition of Sāṃkhya's sophistication or Jaina epistemological nuances; one-sided advocacy for Vedānta or dismissal of Yoga's Īśvara as 'unnecessary addition' |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes three parts into coherent narrative about classical Indian philosophy's central problematic: the relationship between consciousness and matter, unity and multiplicity; evaluates whether these debates remain philosophically productive; connects to contemporary relevance (comparative philosophy of mind, environmental ethics from Jaina non-violence) | Brief conclusion summarizing main points without deeper synthesis; some attempt to connect parts but connections feel forced or superficial; no engagement with broader significance | No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely lists what was discussed; complete disconnect between three parts as if answering three separate questions; no recognition of thematic unity in Indian philosophical inquiry |
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
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "Ideas are timeless and spaceless." Elucidate this statement with refe…
- Q2 (a) What are the basic tenets of Rationalism ? How does Descartes build a system of Philosophy in consonance with them ? Discuss. 20 (b) "A…
- Q3 (a) "We should look not to an ideal language which derives its meaning from facts and has a precise logical structure but empirically, to t…
- Q4 (a) How is Husserl's account of "I think" different from that of Descartes ? Critically discuss. 20 (b) "We can affirm the truth of any sen…
- 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 v…
- Q6 (a) Present a detailed account of Gautama's definition of Perception. 20 (b) How is Brahman conceptualised in Advaita philosophy as both Ni…
- Q7 (a) Why does Śaṃkara consider Sāṃkhya Philosophy as his chief opponent (pradhāna malla) ? Examine his arguments against Sāṃkhya Philosophy.…
- Q8 (a) Discuss the idea of Bimba-pratibimbavāda as presented in Vedanta philosophy along with its soteriological significance. 20 (b) 'Both As…