UPSC Mains Answer PYQ 2018: Philosophy Paper 1 (Section- B) | Philosophy Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

1. Interdependent Nature of All Phenomena: Madhyamika Buddhists assert that all phenomena are interdependent and lack inherent, self-existent nature. Pratītyasamutpāda illustrates this interconnectedness by showing that each thing arises in dependence on other things. Nothing has independent existence.

2. Emptiness of Inherent Existence: Pratītyasamutpāda demonstrates that because everything arises in dependence on something else, it cannot possess inherent existence. For example, if you examine a tree, you find it depends on soil, water, sunlight, and more. Without these conditions, the tree wouldn't exist. This lack of inherent existence is the basis for the concept of Śūnyatā.

3. Chain of Causes and Conditions: Pratītyasamutpāda describes the chain of causes and conditions that give rise to phenomena. These causes and conditions are constantly changing, indicating impermanence and reinforcing the idea that nothing has a fixed, unchanging essence.

4. The Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Madhyamika philosophy emphasizes the "Middle Way" between eternalism and nihilism. Pratītyasamutpāda helps establish this Middle Way by showing that while phenomena lack inherent existence, they are not entirely non-existent either. They exist conventionally, dependently, and relatively.

5. Ultimate Reality vs. Conventional Reality: Pratītyasamutpāda distinguishes between ultimate reality and conventional reality. Ultimate reality is the emptiness of inherent existence, while conventional reality deals with the everyday world of appearances. This distinction helps Madhyamikas clarify that while phenomena lack inherent existence ultimately, they do exist conventionally.

Conclusion: The Madhyamika Buddhists employ Pratītyasamutpāda to establish their doctrine of Śūnyatā by emphasizing the interconnectedness, impermanence, and lack of inherent existence in all phenomena. Pratītyasamutpāda serves as a crucial tool in dismantling the concept of self-existent entities and contributes to the understanding of the Middle Way between extreme views. This doctrine not only forms the philosophical foundation of Madhyamika Buddhism but also provides a profound perspective on the nature of reality and the path to enlightenment.

Q2: Is it consistent for the Buddhists to admit the theory of Nairātmyavāda and the doctrine of Nirvana simultaneously? Give reasons in favour of your answer.
Ans:
Introduction: In Buddhist philosophy, Nairātmyavāda is the doctrine of "no-self" or "anatta," asserting that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul (Atman). On the other hand, Nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, representing liberation from suffering and the cycle of birth and death (samsara). Some may question whether it is consistent for Buddhists to admit both Nairātmyavāda and the doctrine of Nirvana simultaneously, given the absence of a permanent self. Here are reasons in favor of the consistency of these two concepts:

1. Non-self and Nirvana Are Complementary: In Buddhist thought, the doctrine of Nairātmyavāda serves as the foundation for the doctrine of Nirvana. It is precisely because there is no permanent, unchanging self that liberation (Nirvana) from the cycle of suffering is possible. The absence of a fixed self allows for the transcendence of suffering and rebirth.

2. Nirvana as Liberation from Suffering: Nirvana is not the realization of a permanent self but the cessation of suffering and the end of the cycle of birth and death. It is the state where the illusion of selfhood is dispelled, and one attains freedom from the suffering caused by attachment to the impermanent and illusory.

3. Anatta and Dependent Origination: The concept of anatta is closely tied to the idea of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Dependent origination explains the interdependence and impermanence of all phenomena, including the self. Nirvana is the realization of this interdependence, and it is consistent with the absence of a permanent self.

4. The Illusion of Self: According to Buddhism, the belief in a permanent self is an illusion and a source of suffering. Nirvana is the state where this illusion is shattered, and one transcends the attachment to the self. In this sense, the absence of self is a prerequisite for Nirvana.

Example: Consider a person who believes in the existence of a solid and unchanging self (Atman). This belief leads to clinging, aversion, and suffering when faced with life's impermanence and the inevitability of death. Through the practice of mindfulness and meditation, this person comes to realize the absence of a fixed self, leading to a profound shift in their understanding. With the realization of anatta, they no longer cling to a concept of self, and this liberation from attachment is Nirvana.

Conclusion: The consistency of Nairātmyavāda (the doctrine of no-self) and the doctrine of Nirvana lies in their complementary roles within Buddhist philosophy. The absence of a permanent self is the foundation for the possibility of liberation from suffering and the attainment of Nirvana. Nirvana does not involve the establishment of a permanent self but rather the transcendence of the illusion of selfhood, leading to the end of suffering and the cycle of birth and death. These concepts work in harmony to provide a profound understanding of the human condition and the path to liberation in Buddhism.

Q3: How do the Jaina philosophers explain 'bondage'? What, according to them, is the distinction between "liberated soul' and 'bound soul'? What do the Jainas think about the condition of the 'liberated soul'? Discuss.
Ans:
Introduction: Jaina philosophy, founded by Lord Mahavira, offers a unique perspective on the concepts of bondage and liberation. Jainas believe that the soul (jiva) is inherently pure but becomes entangled in karmic matter, leading to bondage. Liberation (moksha) is the ultimate goal, where the soul is free from karmic bondage and attains its pure, liberated state. Here's how Jaina philosophers explain these concepts:

1. Karma Bondage: Jainas believe that the soul becomes bound due to the accumulation of karma (karmic matter) through its actions and intentions. This karmic matter adheres to the soul and obscures its true nature.

2. Types of Karma: There are eight types of karma in Jainism, divided into destructive (ghatiya) and non-destructive (aghātiya) karmas. These karmas determine the conditions and experiences of the soul in subsequent births.

Distinction Between Liberated Soul and Bound Soul:

1. Bound Soul (Samsari Jiva):

   • Bound souls are entangled in karmic matter, which results in cycles of birth, death, and rebirth (samsara).
   • They experience suffering and bondage due to the effects of accumulated karma.
   • Bound souls are subject to desires, passions, and attachments, which further perpetuate their karmic bondage.
   • Examples of bound souls are ordinary individuals who have not attained moksha.

2. Liberated Soul (Siddha Jiva):

   • Liberated souls have completely shed all karmic matter and have attained moksha, liberation from the cycle of birth and death.
   • They exist in a state of eternal bliss, infinite knowledge, and infinite perception.
   • Liberated souls are beyond all forms of suffering and have transcended desires and attachments.
   • Examples of liberated souls include Lord Mahavira and other enlightened beings.

Condition of the Liberated Soul:

1. State of Absolute Perfection: Liberated souls are in a state of absolute perfection, known as Siddhatva. They have shed all karmas, and their inherent purity shines forth.

2. Infinite Bliss: Liberated souls experience infinite bliss (ananda), which is beyond any worldly pleasure or pain. They are eternally content and serene.

3. Infinite Knowledge: They possess infinite knowledge (kevala jnana), allowing them to perceive all aspects of reality without error or limitation.

4. Infinite Perception: Liberated souls have infinite perception (kevala darshana), enabling them to see and understand everything simultaneously.

Example: Consider a person who has lived a life of virtue and non-violence and has practiced deep meditation, leading to spiritual realization. This individual gradually reduces their karmic bondage and reaches a state of liberation. In this liberated state, they experience boundless bliss, knowledge, and perception, completely free from the cycle of birth and death.

Conclusion: Jaina philosophers explain bondage as the entanglement of the soul in karmic matter due to its actions and intentions. Liberation is the state of complete freedom from this karmic bondage. Liberated souls in Jainism exist in a state of eternal bliss, infinite knowledge, and perception, experiencing the ultimate perfection and purity of the soul. This distinction between the bound and liberated soul is central to Jaina philosophy and its path to spiritual realization.

Q4: How does Rāmānuja refute the doctrine of Maya as propounded by Sankara? Why is Māyā needed by both Råmånuja and Sankara to establish their doctrines? Discuss.
Ans:
Introduction: The doctrine of Maya is a significant point of contention and discussion between the Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankaracharya and the Visishtadvaita Vedanta of Ramanuja. While Shankara sees Maya as an essential concept to establish his doctrine of non-dualism (Advaita), Ramanuja, a proponent of qualified non-dualism (Visishtadvaita), refutes the concept of Maya. Here's how Ramanuja refutes the doctrine of Maya and why both philosophers find Maya essential for their doctrines:

1. Existence of the World: Ramanuja argues that the material world, including individual souls, is real and not an illusion (Maya). He asserts that everything has a permanent reality in the ultimate Brahman.

2. Dependence on Brahman: While acknowledging the diversity of the world, Ramanuja contends that the entire creation, including individual souls, depends on Brahman (Vishnu) as their substratum. He rejects the idea that the world is mere appearance.

3. Interconnectedness: Ramanuja emphasizes the interconnectedness of all beings with Brahman, suggesting that there is no inherent separation or illusion that needs to be dispelled. Instead, souls need to realize their true relationship with Brahman.

4. Bhakti and Surrender: Ramanuja places great importance on devotion (bhakti) and complete surrender to God (Vishnu) as the means to attain liberation. He believes that by understanding one's dependence on God and surrendering to Him, an individual can achieve spiritual realization.

Why Maya is Needed by Both Ramanuja and Shankara:

1. Shankara's Perspective:

   • Doctrine of Illusion: Shankara uses the concept of Maya to explain the apparent diversity of the world as an illusion. This illusion creates the perception of a separate reality, ultimately leading to non-dual realization.
   • Brahman's Transcendence: Maya allows Shankara to reconcile the transcendent nature of Brahman with the empirical world, making it accessible for spiritual seekers.

2. Ramanuja's Perspective:

   • Bridging the Gap: Although Ramanuja refutes Maya, he still recognizes the need for a concept that bridges the gap between the individual souls and the ultimate reality, Vishnu.
   • Importance of Devotion: Maya is replaced by the emphasis on devotion and surrender as the means to bridge this gap. Devotion becomes the connecting link between finite souls and the infinite God.

Example: Consider a person seeking spiritual realization. In Shankara's Advaita, Maya serves as the veil that obscures the true nature of Brahman. Through contemplation and knowledge, the individual can remove this illusion and realize their oneness with Brahman.

In Ramanuja's Visishtadvaita, the person focuses on devotion and surrender to God (Vishnu) instead of dispelling Maya. By recognizing their inherent connection to God and surrendering with devotion, they attain spiritual realization and liberation.

Conclusion: Ramanuja refutes the concept of Maya in favor of a more concrete reality of the material world and individual souls. However, both Shankara and Ramanuja recognize the need for a conceptual framework to explain the relationship between the finite and the infinite, whether through Maya or devotion, in their respective doctrines of Advaita and Visishtadvaita. Maya serves as a philosophical tool for explaining the apparent diversity of the world and the path to spiritual realization in these Vedantic traditions.

Q5: Does the admission of Svayamprakaśavada necessarily lead to the admission of Svatahprāmānyavāda? Discuss after the Naiyayikas, the Mimāmsakas and the Advaita Vedantins.
Ans:
Introduction: Svayamprakasavada and Svatahpramanyavada are two related but distinct philosophical concepts within Indian philosophy. Svayamprakasavada refers to the self-luminosity or self-revealing nature of knowledge or consciousness, while Svatahpramanyavada pertains to the self-validity or self-authenticity of knowledge. The admission of Svayamprakasavada does not necessarily lead to the admission of Svatahpramanyavada. Here, we'll discuss how the Naiyayikas, the Mimamsakas, and the Advaita Vedantins view these concepts and whether they consider them interrelated:

Naiyayikas (Nyaya School):

1. Svayamprakasavada: The Naiyayikas accept Svayamprakasavada to some extent. They believe that certain types of knowledge are self-revealing, such as perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumana). For example, when one sees a pot, the knowledge of the pot's existence is self-revealing through perception.

2. Svatahpramanyavada: However, the Naiyayikas emphasize the need for external validation and verification (paratah pramanya) of knowledge. They do not fully subscribe to Svatahpramanyavada because they believe that knowledge requires external means and justification to be considered valid. For them, knowledge is not self-authenticating.

Mimamsakas (Mimamsa School):

1. Svayamprakasavada: The Mimamsakas do not typically accept Svayamprakasavada. They emphasize that knowledge, especially in religious and ritual matters, requires the guidance of the Vedas and proper interpretation by qualified authorities.

2. Svatahpramanyavada: Similarly, the Mimamsakas do not support Svatahpramanyavada. They insist on the authority of the Vedas and the need for external validation and justification for knowledge to be considered valid.

Advaita Vedantins:

1. Svayamprakasavada: Advaita Vedantins, particularly followers of Adi Shankaracharya, advocate Svayamprakasavada concerning the ultimate reality, Brahman. They argue that Brahman is self-revealing, and knowledge of Brahman arises through direct realization (anubhava) rather than external means.

2. Svatahpramanyavada: Advaita Vedantins also introduce the concept of Svatahpramanyavada in the context of ultimate spiritual realization (Moksha). They assert that the self-realization of one's identity with Brahman is self-authenticating and does not require external validation.

Conclusion: The admission of Svayamprakasavada does not necessarily lead to the admission of Svatahpramanyavada, as demonstrated by the Naiyayikas, the Mimamsakas, and the Advaita Vedantins. While some schools accept the self-revealing nature of certain knowledge, they may still emphasize the need for external validation and justification. Conversely, others, like Advaita Vedanta, combine both concepts by asserting that ultimate spiritual realization is both self-revealing and self-authenticating. The acceptance or rejection of these concepts depends on the specific philosophical perspectives and traditions within Indian philosophy.

Q6: Is Cārvāka rejection of inference acceptable to the other systems of Indian philosophy? If not, why? Do you think the views of other systems to be justified? Give reasons for your answer.
Ans:
Introduction: The Cārvāka (also known as Lokāyata) school of philosophy in ancient India is known for its materialistic and atheistic views. One of their key rejections is the denial of inference (anumana) as a valid means of knowledge. This stance is not acceptable to the other systems of Indian philosophy, primarily because inference is regarded as a fundamental and valid means of acquiring knowledge in these systems. Here, we'll discuss why Cārvāka's rejection of inference is not acceptable to other philosophical systems and whether these views are justified:

Why Cārvāka's Rejection of Inference Is Not Acceptable:

1. Inference as a Pramana (Means of Knowledge): Inference (anumana) is considered one of the six pramanas (means of knowledge) in classical Indian philosophy. It plays a crucial role in establishing knowledge about unperceived or remote objects, causality, and the unseen.

2. Widespread Acceptance: Inference is widely accepted and employed as a valid means of knowledge by other Indian philosophical schools, including Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, and Buddhism. It is a foundational method for reasoning and understanding the world.

3. Practical Application: Inference is used extensively in everyday life, scientific inquiry, and philosophical discourse. It allows humans to make informed decisions, predict outcomes, and understand complex phenomena.

Views of Other Systems and Their Justification:

1. Nyaya and Vaisheshika: Nyaya and Vaisheshika are among the philosophical schools that strongly uphold inference. They provide elaborate frameworks for valid inference, logical reasoning, and the rules of inference (nyaya).

2. Samkhya and Yoga: Samkhya and Yoga accept inference as a valid means of knowledge. Inference helps establish the principles of causality and the nature of the self (purusha) in Samkhya, while Yoga employs inference to understand the workings of the mind and the path to liberation.

3. Vedanta: Vedanta, including both Advaita and Visishtadvaita, recognizes inference as a means to understand the self and the ultimate reality (Brahman). Inference is instrumental in their philosophical arguments and discussions.

4. Buddhism: Although the Buddhist epistemological system includes several pramanas, inference is one of them. It is used to establish various aspects of Buddhist philosophy, including the Four Noble Truths and the nature of suffering.

Justification for Acceptance of Inference:

1. Empirical Evidence: Other philosophical systems argue that inference is grounded in empirical evidence and logical reasoning. It allows for the expansion of knowledge beyond direct perception and aids in understanding complex phenomena.

2. Logical Consistency: Inference follows principles of logic, such as the law of causality, which is crucial for understanding the world and establishing meaningful connections between events and entities.

3. Practical Utility: Inference is indispensable in practical life and scientific inquiry. Its rejection would hinder human understanding and limit the ability to make informed decisions.

Conclusion: The Cārvāka rejection of inference is not acceptable to other systems of Indian philosophy because inference is a widely accepted and practical means of knowledge. It is grounded in empirical evidence, logic, and has practical utility. While philosophical debates exist on the extent and scope of inference, its fundamental role in understanding the world and acquiring knowledge is recognized and justified by these systems.

Q7: What is Evolution according to Sri Aurobindo? Describe the process of triple transformation and the nature of gnostic being in his philosophy.
Ans:
Introduction: Sri Aurobindo, a renowned Indian philosopher and spiritual teacher, developed a comprehensive philosophy that encompasses the evolution of consciousness and the emergence of a higher spiritual reality. According to Sri Aurobindo, evolution is not limited to the physical realm but extends to the realms of consciousness and spirituality. His philosophy introduces the concept of triple transformation and the nature of the gnostic being. Here is an overview of these key aspects in Sri Aurobindo's philosophy:

Evolution according to Sri Aurobindo:

1. Integral Evolution: Sri Aurobindo's concept of evolution is integral, encompassing the physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of existence. He believes that evolution is a purposeful process leading towards a higher divine consciousness.

2. Involution: Sri Aurobindo posits the idea of involution, where the divine consciousness descends into matter, becoming involved in the material world. This marks the starting point of the evolutionary journey.

3. Emergence of Life and Mind: Evolution proceeds through stages, with life emerging from matter and mind emerging from life. Each stage represents a progressive complexity of consciousness.

4. Supermind and Divine Consciousness: Beyond the mental stage, Sri Aurobindo introduces the concept of the supermind, a higher plane of consciousness that transcends human mental limitations. The ultimate goal of evolution is to reach the divine consciousness through the supermind.

The Process of Triple Transformation:

1. Psychic Transformation: The first phase of triple transformation involves the awakening and liberation of the psychic being or the soul within. The psychic being represents the true inner self and is characterized by qualities such as love, compassion, and inner guidance.

2. Spiritual Transformation: The second phase is the spiritual transformation, where the individual transcends the limitations of the ego and the mental self. This phase involves connecting with the higher spiritual realms and experiencing a divine presence.

3. Supramental Transformation: The third and final phase is the supramental transformation. Here, the individual undergoes a radical shift in consciousness, ascending to the level of the supermind. This phase represents the pinnacle of spiritual evolution and is characterized by unity, harmony, and divine knowledge.

Nature of the Gnostic Being:

1. Gnostic Being: The gnostic being is the outcome of the triple transformation and represents a state of divine realization and perfection. It is characterized by the direct and unmediated experience of the divine consciousness.

2. Unity and Wholeness: The gnostic being embodies a state of unity and wholeness. It transcends dualities and divisions and experiences the oneness of all existence.

3. Divine Knowledge: The gnostic being possesses a direct and unerring knowledge of the divine and the cosmic reality. It operates from a place of divine wisdom and intuitive insight.

Example: Consider an individual who embarks on a spiritual journey and undergoes the triple transformation as described by Sri Aurobindo. Initially, they may experience a deep inner awakening and connection with their inner self (psychic transformation). As they progress, they may have profound spiritual experiences, feeling a direct connection with the divine (spiritual transformation). Finally, they may reach a state where they live in constant communion with the divine, embodying the qualities of the gnostic being.

Conclusion: In Sri Aurobindo's philosophy, evolution is a holistic process that extends beyond the physical realm into the realms of consciousness and spirituality. The triple transformation represents the stages of this evolution, culminating in the realization of the gnostic being, which embodies unity, divine knowledge, and a direct connection with the divine consciousness. Sri Aurobindo's philosophy offers a profound perspective on the purpose and potential of human existence.