UPSC Mains Answer PYQ 2023: Philosophy Paper 1 (Section- B) | Philosophy Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Section - B

Q5: Write short answers to the following in about 150 words each :
(a) “All human knowledge is empirical and therefore relative.” Critically examine Jaina theory of sevenfold judgement (saptabhanginaya) in the light of above statement.     (10 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
The Jaina theory of sevenfold judgement, known as Saptabhanginaya, is a method of evaluating propositions from multiple perspectives. This theory needs to be examined in the context of the statement that all human knowledge is empirical and therefore relative.

Points:

• Empiricism in Jaina Philosophy: Jainism emphasizes empirical knowledge gained through direct sensory perception and inference. It holds that true knowledge arises from direct experience.

• Saptabhanginaya - Sevenfold Judgement: The Saptabhanginaya provides a method to evaluate a proposition from seven different standpoints, including affirmation, negation, both, and neither.

• Relativity in Saptabhanginaya: The Saptabhanginaya recognizes that reality is multifaceted, and any proposition can be true, false, both, or neither depending on the standpoint from which it is examined.

• Example - Is the Pot Full or Empty?
  According to Saptabhanginaya, if we consider a pot that appears full, it can be true (from a macroscopic view), false (if we consider the space between particles), both (if we consider particles and empty space), or neither (if we consider it from a cosmic perspective).

Conclusion: 
The Jaina theory of sevenfold judgement aligns with the statement that all human knowledge is empirical and therefore relative. It acknowledges the relativity of truth and falsity based on different perspectives, emphasizing the importance of empirical experience in acquiring knowledge.

(b) “If Purusa and Prakrti are two completely independent realities, then no relation between the two is possible.” In the light of this statement make a brief presentation of Sankara’s criticism of Samkhya dualism.     (10 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Adi Sankara, a prominent figure in Advaita Vedanta, critiqued the dualism of the Samkhya philosophy, particularly the independent realities of Purusa and Prakrti.

Points:

• Independence of Purusa and Prakrti: Samkhya posits Purusa (consciousness) and Prakrti (material nature) as two distinct and independent realities.

• Sankara’s Critique: Sankara argued that if Purusa and Prakrti are entirely independent, no interaction or relation between them is possible. This leads to the problem of explaining how liberation (moksha) can be achieved.

• Illusion of Bondage (Avidya): Sankara introduced the concept of Avidya (ignorance) to explain the apparent bondage of the individual soul (Jiva) by Prakrti. He argued that this bondage is illusory and can be overcome through knowledge (jnana).

• Ultimate Non-Duality (Advaita): Sankara's Advaita Vedanta asserts the ultimate non-duality of reality, where there is no fundamental distinction between Purusa and Prakrti. Liberation is the realization of this non-duality.

Example - Rope and Snake Analogy:
Sankara often used the analogy of mistaking a rope for a snake in a dark room. The illusion of the snake is dispelled upon realizing the true nature of the rope. Similarly, the illusion of bondage is dispelled through self-realization.

Conclusion: 
Sankara's criticism of Samkhya dualism centers on the problem of explaining the interaction between the independent realities of Purusa and Prakrti. He proposes a non-dualistic perspective, emphasizing the illusory nature of bondage and the ultimate unity of reality.

(c) What is Advaitin interpretation of the great sentence (mahavakya) ‘Thou art that’ (tat tvam asi) ? Briefly discuss.       (10 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
The great sentence 'Tat Tvam Asi' from the Chandogya Upanishad is a central teaching in Advaita Vedanta. It signifies the identity of the individual soul (Atman) with the ultimate reality (Brahman).

Points:

• Identity of Atman and Brahman: Advaita Vedanta teaches that the individual soul (Atman) is fundamentally identical to the ultimate reality (Brahman). The essence of the individual is non-different from the absolute.

• Realization of Oneness: 'Tat Tvam Asi' emphasizes the process of self-realization, where the individual comes to understand their true nature as being one with the universal consciousness.

• Overcoming Ignorance (Avidya): The realization of the identity of Atman and Brahman leads to the dispelling of Avidya (ignorance) - the mistaken belief in the separate existence of the individual self.

• Example - Wave and Ocean Analogy: Just as a wave is not separate from the ocean but a temporary manifestation of it, the individual soul (Atman) is not distinct from the ultimate reality (Brahman), but a temporary expression of it.

Conclusion: 
The Advaitin interpretation of 'Tat Tvam Asi' underscores the ultimate identity of the individual soul (Atman) with the absolute reality (Brahman). This teaching forms the core of Advaita Vedanta, emphasizing self-realization and the transcendence of ignorance.

(d) Present an account of Vaisesika’s view of negation in the light of their statement -“Negation always has a counterpositive and absolute negation is an impossibility.”     (10 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
The Vaisesika school of Indian philosophy, attributed to Kanada, provides a unique perspective on the nature of negation and absolute negation.

Points:

• Negation in Vaisesika: Vaisesika posits that negation (abhava) is a category of existence alongside substance (dravya), quality (guna), and action (karma). It is considered a negative quality.

• Counterpositive in Negation: Vaisesika holds that negation always implies the existence of its counterpositive. For example, the absence of heat implies the existence of cold.

• Absolute Negation as Impossibility: Vaisesika asserts that absolute negation (atyantabhava) is an impossibility. It means the complete non-existence of something, which cannot be conceived or experienced.

• Example - Absolute Negation of a Rabbit's Horn: Vaisesika would argue that the absolute negation of a rabbit having a horn is impossible, as it involves a conceptual impossibility. A rabbit's horn is logically incoherent.

Conclusion: 
Vaisesika's view on negation highlights the principle that negation always implies the existence of its counterpositive. Absolute negation, representing complete non-existence, is considered an impossibility as it involves conceptual contradictions.

(e) Explain the nature and role of Supermind in evolution as per Aurobindo’s philosophy.     (10 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Sri Aurobindo, an influential Indian philosopher and spiritual teacher, proposed the concept of the Supermind as a crucial stage in the evolutionary process.

Points:

• Evolution as Ascent towards the Divine: Aurobindo posited that evolution is not a blind, material process, but a conscious ascent towards the Divine. It involves the unfolding of higher levels of consciousness.

• Role of Supermind: The Supermind represents a level of consciousness beyond the mental and vital levels. It is characterized by unity, harmony, and direct knowledge of Truth.

• Transformation of Consciousness: Aurobindo believed that individuals and eventually humanity as a whole can undergo a process of inner transformation, culminating in the emergence of the Supermind.

• Example - Spiritual Evolution: Aurobindo's philosophy envisions a path of spiritual evolution where individuals progress from ordinary human consciousness to a state of higher awareness, ultimately reaching the level of the Supermind.

Conclusion: 
Aurobindo's concept of the Supermind adds a spiritual dimension to the process of evolution. It suggests that human consciousness can evolve to a level of higher unity and knowledge, culminating in a state of divine consciousness. This perspective has influenced spiritual philosophy and practices worldwide.

Q6:
(a) Discuss Ramanuja’s criticism of Sankara’s conception of Brahman and Isvara (God).     (20 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Ramanuja, a prominent philosopher in the Vedanta tradition, offered a significant critique of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta, particularly concerning the concepts of Brahman and Isvara (God).

Points:

• Brahman as Nirguna vs. Saguna: Sankara conceived of Brahman as attributeless (nirguna), devoid of any qualities or attributes. Ramanuja, however, argued that Brahman possesses divine qualities (saguna), such as compassion, grace, and omniscience.

• Critique of Nirguna Brahman: Ramanuja contended that an attributeless Brahman is conceptually incomprehensible and cannot be an object of devotion or love. He emphasized the importance of a personal and loving relationship with God.

• Isvara as Impersonal vs. Personal: Sankara's Isvara is considered an impersonal, formless reality that is ultimately indistinguishable from Brahman. Ramanuja asserted that Isvara is a personal deity with distinct attributes and a relationship with the individual souls.

• Importance of Devotion (Bhakti): Ramanuja emphasized the path of devotion (bhakti) as a means to attain liberation. He argued that a personal God, with whom one can establish a loving relationship, provides a more accessible and fulfilling spiritual path.

Example - Relationship with God: For Sankara, the ultimate realization is the identity of individual consciousness with the impersonal Brahman. In contrast, Ramanuja's philosophy encourages a devotee to engage in a loving relationship with a personal God.

Conclusion: 
Ramanuja's criticism of Sankara's conception of Brahman and Isvara centers on the nature of the ultimate reality and the approach to spiritual realization. Ramanuja advocates for a personal, loving relationship with God, which he believes is a more accessible and fulfilling path to spiritual fulfillment.

(b) Present Bhatta’s view of anupalabdhi (non-cognition) as a valid means of knowledge.       (15 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Bhatta, a proponent of the Mimamsa school of Indian philosophy, asserted that anupalabdhi, or non-cognition, is a valid and independent means of knowledge.

Points:

• Definition of Anupalabdhi: Anupalabdhi refers to the knowledge derived from the absence or non-perception of an object that is expected to be present. It is a distinct form of cognition.

• Independent Source of Knowledge: Bhatta argued that anupalabdhi is a unique means of knowledge that provides information about the non-existence or absence of an object. It is not reducible to other forms of perception.

• Example - Missing Cow: If a person expects to see a cow in a field where cows usually graze, but does not find one, they acquire knowledge through anupalabdhi - the non-perception of the expected object.

• Application in Rituals and Linguistics: In Mimamsa, anupalabdhi plays a crucial role in Vedic rituals, where the absence of a required element is significant. It also has implications for linguistic analysis and understanding negation.

• Criticism from Other Schools: While Bhatta argued for the validity of anupalabdhi, other schools of Indian philosophy, such as Nyaya, have criticized this view, asserting that non-cognition is not an independent means of knowledge.

Conclusion: 
Bhatta's advocacy for anupalabdhi as a distinct means of knowledge highlights its importance in areas such as ritual performance and linguistic analysis. While it is accepted within the Mimamsa tradition, it faces criticism from other philosophical schools.

(c) Elucidate Naiyayikas view of ordinary and extraordinary perception. Are they justified in accepting that universals are perceived ? Discuss.      (15 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
The Naiyayika school of Indian philosophy, associated with Nyaya, has a nuanced view of perception, distinguishing between ordinary and extraordinary perception. They also address the question of perceiving universals.

Points:

• Ordinary and Extraordinary Perception: Ordinary perception (laukika pratyaksa) involves the direct apprehension of external objects through the sense organs. Extraordinary perception (alaukika pratyaksa) includes experiences like clairvoyance and perception of remote objects.

• Universals and Particulars: Naiyayikas posit that universals (samanya) exist as distinct entities, separate from particular instances (visesa). They hold that universals are directly perceived through a form of perception known as universals perception (savisayatmakam samanyalaksanam).

• Critique and Debate: Other schools, like Advaita Vedanta, have critiqued the Nyaya view, arguing that universals are not directly perceived but inferred from the perception of particulars. This debate revolves around the nature of universals.

• Example - Perception of Cowhood: According to Naiyayikas, the perception of a cow involves both the perception of the particular cow (visesa) and the universal concept of cowhood (samanya).

• Application in Epistemology: The Nyaya view of perception, particularly in relation to universals, has implications for their epistemology and their understanding of how knowledge is acquired.

Conclusion: 
The Naiyayika view of perception, including the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary perception, as well as the perception of universals, is a significant aspect of their epistemological framework. It has been a subject of philosophical debate and has contributed to the broader discourse on perception and universals in Indian philosophy.

Q7:
(a) Elucidate Naiyayikas account of fallacies of the middle term in relation to five characteristics of valid middle term.      (20 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
In Nyaya philosophy, the middle term (hetu) plays a crucial role in syllogistic reasoning. However, if the middle term is not properly employed, it can lead to fallacious arguments. Naiyayikas identify five characteristics of a valid middle term.

Points:
1. Five Characteristics of a Valid Middle Term:

• Sadhya (Major Term): The characteristic to be proven.
• Paksa (Minor Term): The subject of the argument.
• Vyapti (Invariable Concomitance): The invariable connection between the middle term and the major term.
• Asiddha (Absence of Counterexamples): The middle term should not be present where the major term is absent.
• Vyatirekin (Non-relation with Absence): The middle term should not be present where the major term is present.

2. Fallacy of Irrelevance (Asiddha):

• This fallacy occurs when the middle term is connected to the major term in a way that doesn't establish the invariable connection. For example, "Sound is eternal because it is audible."

3. Fallacy of Illicit Major (Vyatirekin):

• This fallacy happens when the middle term is related to the absence of the major term. For example, "Non-eternal things are non-eternal because they are non-eternal."

4. Fallacy of Illicit Minor (Asiddha):

• This occurs when the middle term is connected to the minor term but doesn't establish the invariable connection with the major term. For example, "This mountain is fiery because it smokes."

5. Fallacy of Circularity (Svarupasiddha):

• This fallacy arises when the middle term and major term are defined in terms of each other, leading to a circular argument.

Example - Fallacy of Irrelevance:

• "All metals are elements because they can conduct electricity." (Here, conductivity is not invariable, as some non-metallic elements can also conduct electricity.)

Conclusion: 
Naiyayikas' analysis of fallacies of the middle term highlights the importance of using the middle term correctly to ensure valid syllogistic reasoning. Understanding these fallacies helps in constructing sound arguments and identifying flawed ones.

(b) Liberation is defined by Advaita Vedantins as ‘attainment of that which is already attained’. How does Sankara illustrate this statement ? Discuss with your own comments.       (15 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Advaita Vedanta, as expounded by Sankara, posits that liberation (moksha) is not an attainment of something new, but a realization of one's innate nature as identical with Brahman.

Points:

• Identity of Atman and Brahman: According to Advaita, the individual soul (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman) are fundamentally identical. This identity is obscured by ignorance (avidya).

• Analogy of the Rope and Snake: Sankara uses the analogy of mistaking a rope for a snake. The fear and confusion caused by the mistaken snake disappear upon realizing it was always a rope. Similarly, liberation is the removal of ignorance to realize one's true nature as Brahman.

• Non-Dual Nature of Reality: In Advaita, ultimate reality is non-dual. There is no distinction between the individual soul and Brahman. Liberation is the experiential realization of this non-duality.

• Example - Dreamless Sleep: Sankara points to the experience of dreamless sleep, where the individual is not aware of distinctions, yet remains in a state of blissful existence. This state mirrors the non-dual nature of reality.

• Liberation as Self-Realization: Attaining liberation, therefore, is not acquiring something new, but recognizing one's true nature. It is the removal of ignorance (avidya) that veils this inherent identity.

Conclusion: 
Sankara's illustration of liberation emphasizes that it is not the acquisition of a new state or condition, but the realization of one's intrinsic nature as Brahman. This understanding leads to the cessation of ignorance and the experience of non-dual reality.

(c) Explain Chitta and its modifications in the philosophy of Yoga. Why does Yoga philosophy prescribe cessation of modifications of Chitta ? Give reasons in support of your answer.       (15 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
In Yoga philosophy, Chitta refers to the mind-stuff or consciousness, which includes the intellect, ego, and subconscious. The modifications of Chitta (Chitta Vrittis) are considered obstacles to spiritual realization.

Points:

• Modifications of Chitta (Chitta Vrittis): Chitta Vrittis are the fluctuations, modifications, or activities of the mind-stuff. They include thoughts, emotions, desires, memories, etc.

• Five Types of Vrittis: Yoga Sutras of Patanjali categorize Chitta Vrittis into five types: valid cognition (pramana), misconception (viparyaya), verbal delusion (vikalpa), sleep (nidra), and memory (smriti).

• Cessation of Vrittis for Liberation: According to Yoga philosophy, the goal of spiritual practice is to attain a state of Yoga or union, where the mind is free from these modifications. This state, known as Samadhi, leads to liberation (kaivalya).

• Reasons for Cessation of Vrittis: Chitta Vrittis lead to attachment, aversion, and the cycle of karma. By ceasing these modifications, one attains a state of inner peace, transcendence, and liberation from the cycle of rebirth.

• Example - Calming the Ripples in a Pond: The practice of Yoga can be likened to calming the ripples on the surface of a pond. When the mind-stuff is still, it reflects the true nature of reality, leading to liberation.

Conclusion: 
In Yoga philosophy, the cessation of Chitta Vrittis is considered essential for attaining liberation. By stilling the mind and removing its fluctuations, one realizes their true nature and achieves a state of inner freedom and spiritual realization. This process aligns with the ultimate goal of Yoga - union with the divine.

Q8:
(a) “Ignorance of dependent origination is suffering while its knowledge is cessation of suffering.”
Present an account of Buddhist soteriology in the light of above statement.       (20 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Buddhist soteriology is the study of the path to liberation (Nirvana) from suffering. Central to this is the concept of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada), which explains the arising of suffering and the means to its cessation.

Points:

• Ignorance as the Root Cause of Suffering: According to Buddhism, ignorance (avidya) is the fundamental cause of suffering (dukkha). It leads to attachment, aversion, and the cycle of rebirth (samsara).

• Dependent Origination: Dependent origination describes the interdependent nature of phenomena. It asserts that all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena. It is a chain of twelve links, beginning with ignorance and leading to suffering.

• Cessation through Knowledge: Understanding and realizing the nature of dependent origination leads to the cessation of suffering. When one comprehends the impermanent, interdependent nature of reality, attachment and aversion diminish, leading to Nirvana.

• Example - Chain of Ignorance to Suffering: Ignorance leads to volitional activities, which lead to consciousness, and so forth, until it culminates in birth, old age, and death, resulting in suffering. Understanding this chain allows one to break free from the cycle.

• Noble Eightfold Path: The knowledge that leads to the cessation of suffering is cultivated through practices such as right understanding, right intention, right speech, etc., collectively known as the Noble Eightfold Path.

Conclusion: 
In Buddhist soteriology, the understanding of dependent origination and the eradication of ignorance are central to achieving liberation from suffering. This realization leads to the cessation of the cycle of rebirth and the attainment of Nirvana.

(b) Write a note on Nyaya notion of Pragabhava (prior non-existence). How does this notion help Naiyayikas in defending their position on causation against the Sarhkhya view of causation ? Critically discuss.       (15 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
Nyaya, a school of Indian philosophy, introduces the concept of Pragabhava, which is prior non-existence. This notion plays a crucial role in their defense against the Samkhya view of causation.

Points:

• Pragabhava - Prior Non-Existence: Pragabhava refers to the non-existence of an effect before its creation. According to Nyaya, non-existence of an effect precedes its existence.

• Defense Against Samkhya: Samkhya posits a dualistic view of causation, where the effect (effectual cause) is considered pre-existent in the cause (material cause). Nyaya counters this by asserting that the effect must first be non-existent before it comes into existence.

• Example - Clay Pot: In Nyaya, the pot (effect) is considered non-existent in the clay (cause) before its creation. It doesn't pre-exist in the clay; it is brought into existence through the potter's action.

• Causation and Pragabhava: Nyaya argues that if the effect were already existent in the cause, there would be no need for a cause to bring it into being. Pragabhava establishes the causal relationship between the cause and effect.

• Critique of Samkhya’s View: Nyaya's notion of Pragabhava challenges the Samkhya understanding of causation, emphasizing the necessity for a causal action to bring about an effect.

Conclusion: 
Nyaya's concept of Pragabhava is instrumental in their defense against the Samkhya view of causation. It underscores the idea that effects do not pre-exist in their causes, providing a nuanced understanding of causality.

(c) Do words refer to universals or particulars or both ? Present an exposition of Nyaya and MTmarhsa position with regard to above question along with suitable examples.      (15 Marks)
Ans: 
Introduction: 
The Nyaya and Mimamsa schools of Indian philosophy have distinct views on whether words refer to universals, particulars, or both.

Points:

• Nyaya Position: Nyaya holds that words primarily refer to universals (samanya), which are general categories or concepts. Particulars (visesa) are secondary and are understood through universals.

• Example - Cow and Particular Cows: When we say "cow," it refers to the universal concept of cowhood. Specific cows are understood in relation to this universal category.

• Mimamsa Position: Mimamsa, on the other hand, argues that words primarily refer to particulars and their specific qualities. Universals are not independently real; they are constructed based on common characteristics observed in particulars.

• Example - Agni (Fire): In a Vedic ritual, when the term "Agni" is used, it refers to the specific fire being invoked in the ritual, not to the universal concept of fire.

• Both Views Acknowledge Universals: While Nyaya and Mimamsa have differing primary emphases, they do acknowledge the existence of both universals and particulars in language and thought.

Conclusion: 
Nyaya and Mimamsa present differing perspectives on the reference of words, with Nyaya emphasizing universals and Mimamsa giving priority to particulars. Both views contribute to the nuanced understanding of language and meaning in Indian philosophy.