Philosophy 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) How does the Vedantic view of Religious Pluralism address the conflicting truth claims of different faiths ? Answer with reference to Swami Vivekananda's view of Universal Religion. (20 marks) (b) What proofs do Nyāya philosophers offer for the existence of God ? Discuss. (15 marks) (c) Is the concept of immortality of soul a necessary condition for Rebirth ? Discuss with reference to the Bhagavad Gītā. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) धार्मिक बहुलवाद का वेदान्ती मत विभिन्न आस्थाओं के संघर्षरत सत्य दावों को किस प्रकार सम्बोधित करता है ? स्वामी विवेकानन्द के सार्वभौम धर्म के मत के सन्दर्भ में उत्तर दीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) न्याय दार्शनिक ईश्वर की सत्ता के लिए क्या प्रमाण प्रस्तुत करते हैं ? विवेचन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) क्या आत्मा की अमरता की अवधारणा पुनर्जन्म के लिए एक आवश्यक शर्त है ? भगवद्गीता के सन्दर्भ में विवेचन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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' requires a balanced, analytical treatment across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of your word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then treat each sub-part as a distinct section with internal coherence, followed by a synthesizing conclusion that connects Vivekananda's universalism with Nyaya rationalism and Gita's metaphysics.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Vivekananda's thesis of Universal Religion as realization of inherent divinity; distinction between 'essential' and 'non-essential' aspects of religions; the 'many paths, one truth' (ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti) framework for resolving conflicting truth-claims
  • For (a): The four Yogas (Karma, Bhakti, Jnana, Raja) as complementary paths; rejection of proselytization and emphasis on tolerance based on Vedantic ontology of one Atman-Brahman identity
  • For (b): Nyaya's five arguments for God (Ishvara): from creation/kāryāt (cosmological), from dissolution/āyojanāt, from adṛṣṭa (unseen moral forces), from śabda (Vedic authority), and the argument from design/nyāyataḥ
  • For (b): Udayana's elaboration in Nyāyakusumāñjali: inference of Īśvara as efficient cause (nimitta-kāraṇa) through the logic of 'apurva' requiring a conscious agent; refutation of pradhāna as unconscious cause
  • For (c): The Gita's distinction between dehāntara-prāpti (change of bodies, BG 2.13, 2.22) and the soul's immortality (avināśi, BG 2.20-25); whether immortality is logically prior to or merely co-extensive with rebirth
  • For (c): Critical analysis of whether immortality is necessary condition or sufficient condition; the Gita's argument that rebirth requires both immortality and karma-bandha; alternative views (Carvaka denial, Buddhist anatmavada) as foil

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise exposition of Vivekananda's 'Universal Religion' as organized spirituality rather than synthetic religion; accurate presentation of Nyaya's inferential schema for Īśvara with correct Sanskrit terminology (kāryāt, āyojanāt, etc.); correct interpretation of Gita's dehāntara-prāpti versus avināśitva distinction without conflating immortality with eternalismBroadly correct understanding of religious pluralism and Nyaya theism but with imprecise terminology; conflates immortality with rebirth in (c) or misses the conditional relationship; minor errors in attributing specific arguments to Nyaya sūtras versus UdayanaConfuses Vivekananda with Radhakrishnan's neo-Hinduism; misidentifies Nyaya arguments (e.g., calling them 'ontological' rather than cosmological/inferential); fundamental misunderstanding of Gita's position on soul's nature; conflates moksha with rebirth
Argument structure20%10Clear tripartite structure with proportional development; for (a) moves from problem of conflicting truth-claims to Vedantic solution via hierarchical pluralism; for (b) enumerates then evaluates Nyaya proofs systematically; for (c) establishes logical relationship between immortality and rebirth through conditional analysis; effective transitions between sub-partsAdequate structure with identifiable sections but uneven development; (a) may be descriptive rather than analytical; (b) lists proofs without evaluating their cumulative force; (c) presents both sides but without clear logical progression; weak connective tissue between sub-partsUndifferentiated narrative without clear sub-part demarcation; disproportionate treatment (e.g., excessive detail on one part); missing logical steps in argumentation; no visible structure or paragraph organization
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): cites Vivekananda's Chicago addresses (1893), Raja Yoga, Bhakti Yoga; for (b): references Gautama's Nyāyasūtra (4.1.19-21), Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali, Vātsyāyana's bhāṣya; for (c): specific Gita chapters (2, 5, 13) with śloka references; mentions counter-positions like Carvaka (dehatmavada) and Buddhist anatmavadaMentions Vivekananda and Nyaya generally without specific texts; cites Gita but without chapter/verse precision; limited range of thinkers; may mention Shankara or Ramanuja without clear relevance to the specific sub-questionsNo primary text references; confuses schools (e.g., attributes Nyaya arguments to Vedanta); anachronistic or irrelevant thinkers; fabricated citations; complete absence of textual grounding
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): addresses exclusivist challenge (Hick, Kantian pluralism) and Vivekananda's response; for (b): considers Mīmāṃsā objections to Īśvara, Buddhist prasaṅga refutations, and Nyaya's replies; for (c): examines whether Buddhist anatmavāda allows rebirth without permanent soul, and evaluates if immortality is sufficient or merely necessaryBrief acknowledgment of opposing views without sustained engagement; for (a) mentions religious exclusivism superficially; for (b) notes Buddhist critique without Nyaya's defense; for (c) mentions Carvaka denial without analyzing the logical structure of the debateNo counter-positions presented; one-sided partisan presentation; misrepresents opposing views (straw man); dismisses alternatives without argument; complete absence of critical tension in the answer
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent vision: Vivekananda's pluralistic spirituality, Nyaya's rational theism, and Gita's metaphysics of immortal soul as complementary aspects of Indian philosophical response to religious and existential questions; identifies underlying unity in diversity of approaches; forward-looking observation on contemporary relevanceSeparate conclusions for each sub-part without synthesis; restates main points without advancing the argument; weak connection between the three philosophical themes; generic concluding remarksAbrupt ending without conclusion; missing sub-part (c); contradictory positions across sub-parts without acknowledgment; completely disjointed final paragraph unrelated to question

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 II