UPSC Mains Answer PYQ 2024: Philosophy Paper 2 (Section- B) | Philosophy Optional for UPSC PDF Download

SECTION B

Q5: Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (10 × 5 = 50 Marks)
(a) Can there be a religion without morality? Discuss.
Ans: Religion and morality are deeply interconnected components of human civilization. Religion generally refers to a system of beliefs and practices centered on the sacred, divine, or ultimate reality, while morality pertains to principles concerning right and wrong behavior. Philosophers and theologians have long debated whether religion is the foundation of morality or whether the two can exist independently.

Main Points:

1. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives:

   • Many religious traditions explicitly prescribe moral codes—such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity or the Yamas and Niyamas in Hinduism.

   • Philosophers like Immanuel Kant argued that moral law within us gives us a basis to postulate God, implying morality may even precede religion.

2. Religion Without Morality – Is It Possible?

   • Some argue that religion without morality is possible, particularly in ritualistic traditions where ritual performance is prioritized over ethical behavior.

   • For example, ancient Roman religion involved public rituals to appease gods, with less emphasis on moral teachings.

3. Religious Ritualism vs. Moral Conduct:

   • In many cases, religious adherents may follow rituals without aligning with moral principles. However, this may lead to a formalistic religion that lacks ethical substance.

   • The Bhagavad Gītā critiques those who are overly focused on rituals (karma-kāṇḍa) while ignoring the essence of dharma (righteousness).

4. Modern Perspectives:

   • Thinkers like Bertrand Russell believed morality can exist independently of religion, arguing that ethical behavior is rooted in social and rational foundations.

   • Secular humanism promotes morality without religious belief, focusing on human well-being and reasoning.

5. Examples:

   • Jainism, though religious, emphasizes morality (non-violence, truth) more than theism.

   • Nazism used quasi-religious imagery and ritual without moral compass, showcasing a danger of religion without ethics.

While religion can exist without morality in a technical or ritualistic sense, such a religion may lack depth and transformative power. True religion, in its most evolved form, is often inseparable from morality. Ethical living is often the essence of spiritual practice across major religions, suggesting that while religion without morality is possible, it may not be meaningful or fulfilling.

(b) Write a note on the notion of absolute truth in the context of religion.
Ans: In the religious context, the notion of absolute truth refers to the belief in a singular, unchanging, and ultimate reality or divine principle that transcends time, space, and cultural differences. This concept serves as the foundation of many religious doctrines and philosophical inquiries.

Main Points:

1. Definition of Absolute Truth:

   • Absolute truth is independent of individual beliefs, emotions, or cultural variations. It is seen as eternal and universal.

   • In religion, it often refers to God, Brahman, Nirvana, or the Ultimate Reality.

2. Examples in Religions:

   • In Christianity, absolute truth is embodied in God and the teachings of Jesus.

   • In Hinduism, Brahman is the unchanging, eternal truth behind the universe (as per Advaita Vedanta by Shankaracharya).

   • Buddhism talks about the Four Noble Truths and Nirvana as ultimate truths beyond worldly illusion.

3. Philosophical Debate:

   • Relativists argue that truth is context-dependent and subjective.

   • Realists or Absolutists, like Plato, hold that truth is objective and discoverable.

4. Pluralism and the Challenge of Absolutism:

   • Thinkers like John Hick proposed religious pluralism, suggesting different religions offer different perspectives on the same ultimate truth.

   • This poses a challenge to the exclusive claim of any one religion to absolute truth.

5. Criticisms:

   • Claiming exclusive access to absolute truth can lead to religious intolerance and dogmatism.

   • Interfaith dialogue often encourages a more inclusive understanding of truth.

Absolute truth in religion serves as a foundational concept for faith and practice, providing a guiding ideal for spiritual seekers. However, in a pluralistic world, this notion must be approached with humility and openness to diverse perspectives, acknowledging that no single tradition may have a monopoly over ultimate reality.

(c) Discuss the concept of liberation (Apavarga) according to Nyāya-Vaiśeșika.
Ans: In Indian philosophy, liberation (mokṣa or apavarga) is the ultimate goal of life, marking freedom from suffering and rebirth. The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school, known for its realism and analytical approach, offers a unique perspective on liberation, differing from more spiritual or mystical traditions.

Main Points:

1. Definition of Apavarga:

   • Apavarga is the cessation of all pain and rebirth, leading to a state of pure consciousness.

   • Unlike Advaita's merging with Brahman, here it is freedom from duḥkha (suffering) and apunarbhava (non-return/rebirth).

2. Nature of the Self (Ātman):

   • Self is eternal, individual, and conscious.

   • Liberation means the self remains as a disembodied pure knower, devoid of any pleasure or pain.

3. Cause of Bondage:

   • Bondage is due to false knowledge (mithyājñāna), attachment, and actions (karma).

   • Karma binds the soul to the cycle of birth and death.

4. Path to Liberation:

   • Right knowledge (tattvajñāna) is essential—understanding the nature of substances (padārthas), self, and God.

   • Liberation is achieved through the elimination of ignorance and desire.

5. Role of God (Īśvara):

   • Nyāya accepts a theistic framework, where God is the cause of creation and dispenser of karma.

   • But liberation is self-earned, not granted.

6. Comparison with Other Schools:

   • Unlike Vedānta, there is no blissful union with Brahman.

   • Unlike Buddhism, the self is not denied but affirmed.

7. Example:

   • A seeker practicing logical inquiry and controlling desires attains true knowledge, leading to detachment and liberation.

According to Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, liberation is not mystical union but a logical, rational cessation of suffering and rebirth. It reflects the school’s emphasis on reason, analysis, and knowledge. Though less poetic than other traditions, its approach makes liberation a systematic and attainable goal grounded in logic and ethical living.

(d) Discuss the role of reason in religion.
Ans: The relationship between reason and religion has been a central issue in philosophy and theology. While religion often involves faith in divine revelation and the unseen, reason refers to logical thinking and rational inquiry. Many traditions and thinkers have debated whether reason supports or contradicts religious beliefs. Understanding this relationship is essential to bridge faith and intellect.

Main Points:

1. Reason as a Support for Faith:

   • Thinkers like Thomas Aquinas believed reason can help understand and explain religious truths.

   • In Summa Theologica, Aquinas used natural theology to argue that God’s existence can be proved through reason (e.g., the Five Ways).

2. Faith Beyond Reason but Not Against It:

   • Religion often addresses metaphysical questions beyond empirical verification.

   • Blaise Pascal argued in Pascal's Wager that reason can justify belief in God even when certainty is impossible.

3. Reason in Interpretation of Scriptures:

   • Religious texts often contain allegories and metaphors. Reason is used to interpret deeper meanings.

   • Example: Al-Ghazali argued for reconciling reason with revelation in Islamic philosophy, especially in The Incoherence of the Philosophers.

4. Reason in Theological and Moral Discourses:

   • Rational debates on issues like the problem of evil or divine justice rely on logic.

   • Example: St. Augustine used reason to explain the origin of evil through free will rather than God’s will.

5. Critics of Rational Religion:

   • Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, warned against reducing religion to mere rational systems. He emphasized subjective faith and personal commitment over intellectual reasoning.

   • Tertullian famously said, “I believe because it is absurd,” expressing that faith sometimes defies logic.

6. Modern Perspectives:

   • John Hick emphasized the role of critical reason in religious pluralism, proposing that rational dialogue between religions leads to greater understanding.

Reason plays a complementary role in religion. While it may not grasp the entire scope of divine mystery, it provides tools for understanding, defending, and interpreting faith. Reason and religion, when integrated, offer a holistic approach to life’s fundamental questions. True spiritual growth may lie in a balance between rational inquiry and faith-based commitment.

(e) Explain the analogical nature of religious language.
Ans: Religious language seeks to describe divine and transcendent realities which are beyond human experience. Since direct language often fails to capture these realities, religious expressions are frequently analogical—using familiar terms to describe unfamiliar, sacred concepts. Understanding the analogical nature of religious language helps in interpreting sacred texts and theological ideas meaningfully.

Main Points:

1. What is Analogical Language?

   • Analogy refers to expressing something indirectly by comparison—not literally, but not purely metaphorically either.

   • Example: Saying “God is wise” uses human wisdom analogically to describe divine wisdom, acknowledging both similarity and difference.

2. Theory by St. Thomas Aquinas:

   • Aquinas distinguished between univocal, equivocal, and analogical language.

     • Univocal: Same meaning in all contexts.

     • Equivocal: Completely different meanings.

     • Analogical: Partly similar and partly different—ideal for speaking about God.

   • For Aquinas, analogical language avoids both anthropomorphism and agnosticism.

3. Examples of Analogical Terms in Religion:

   • “God is merciful”: Refers to an infinite form of mercy, unlike human mercy but relatable.

   • “God is father”: Doesn’t mean biological father but conveys care, authority, and creation.

4. Role in Interpreting Scriptures:

   • Many parables and metaphors in the Bible, Qur’an, and Gita use analogy.

   • Example: In the Gita, Krishna’s discourse uses analogies like the “city of nine gates” to describe the body.

5. Philosophical Significance:

   • Religious language must be accessible yet humble in its claims.

   • Analogical language bridges finite human concepts and infinite divine reality.

6. Criticism and Alternatives:

   • Logical Positivists like A.J. Ayer argued that religious statements are meaningless since they are not verifiable.

   • In response, thinkers like Paul Tillich proposed symbolic theology, where religious language functions symbolically, much like analogy.

The analogical nature of religious language allows believers to speak about the ineffable in meaningful ways. It provides a middle ground between literalism and complete silence on the divine. By using analogy, religion remains both intelligible and reverent, acknowledging the limitations of language while pointing toward higher truths.

Q6:
(a) Is it necessary to adhere to the notions of immortality of soul and rebirth in order to have a robust conception of liberation? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (20 Marks)
Ans: The concepts of liberation (mokṣa), immortality of the soul (ātman), and rebirth (saṃsāra) are central to many Indian philosophical systems. Liberation is often seen as the cessation of rebirth and suffering, implying a prior belief in both the eternal soul and the cycle of rebirth. The question explores whether belief in these notions is essential for a comprehensive theory of liberation.

Main Points:

1. Liberation in Hindu Systems:

   • In Vedānta, Sāṃkhya, and Yoga, liberation is release from the cycle of birth and death (saṃsāra).

   • These systems rely on the belief in an immortal, unchanging soul (ātman or puruṣa) which undergoes multiple births due to ignorance and karma.

2. Rebirth and Karma as Justificatory Concepts:

   • Rebirth gives context to suffering and moral causality over lifetimes.

   • Liberation makes sense as freedom from rebirth only if rebirth is assumed.

   • Example: In Sāṃkhya, puruṣa attains liberation by realizing its distinction from prakṛti, ending rebirth.

3. Buddhist Exception:

   • Buddhism denies an eternal soul (anattā) yet retains the concept of rebirth and liberation (nirvāṇa).

   • Here, liberation is freedom from the chain of conditioned existence (pratītyasamutpāda), not tied to an eternal self.

   • Shows liberation does not require belief in a permanent self, but does retain the rebirth idea.

4. Materialist Schools:

   • The Cārvāka school rejects soul and rebirth, and hence denies liberation beyond physical death.

   • Their idea of "liberation" is pleasure in this life, showing that without these concepts, mokṣa is redefined entirely.

5. Contemporary Interpretations:

   • Thinkers like Radhakrishnan and Jiddu Krishnamurti view liberation as freedom from psychological bondage, broadening the concept beyond metaphysical beliefs.

A robust conception of liberation typically relies on the doctrines of immortality of soul and rebirth, especially in Indian traditions. However, exceptions like Buddhism prove that liberation can be conceptualized without a permanent soul, though rebirth often remains central. In modern or secular interpretations, liberation may be psychological or existential, detaching it from metaphysical assumptions altogether.

(b) How does the notion of God in Spinoza's philosophy embedded in his metaphysics of substance and attributes? Critically discuss. (15 Marks)
Ans: Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century rationalist, offers a unique conception of God that merges metaphysics with theology. In his magnum opus, Ethics, he identifies God with Nature (Deus sive Natura), proposing a monistic view of reality. His concept of substance and attributes forms the bedrock of his theology.

Main Points:

1. Substance as God/Nature:

   • For Spinoza, substance is that which exists in itself and is conceived through itself.

   • There is only one substance, and that is God, who is infinite and self-caused.

2. Attributes as Expressions of Substance:

   • Substance expresses itself through infinite attributes, though humans perceive only two: thought and extension.

   • Thus, mind and matter are not distinct substances but aspects of the same divine reality.

3. Rejection of Anthropomorphic God:

   • Spinoza denies a personal, anthropomorphic God. God does not have emotions or intervene in human affairs.

   • This pantheistic view sees everything as modes (modifications) of God.

4. God as Immanent, Not Transcendent:

   • Traditional theism views God as a creator separate from creation.

   • Spinoza’s God is immanent, meaning everything is in God, and God is in everything.

5. Criticisms:

   • Critics like Leibniz argued that Spinoza's God is indistinguishable from nature, making him an atheist in disguise.

   • Others praise him for integrating science, reason, and spirituality in a coherent system.

6. Ethical Implications:

   • Understanding reality through reason leads to freedom and blessedness—a rational form of salvation.

   • God is not worshipped through ritual, but through intellectual love (amor Dei intellectualis).

Spinoza’s concept of God is deeply embedded in his metaphysics, portraying God as infinite, impersonal substance with infinite attributes. Though he deviates from traditional religious views, he offers a rational, unified vision of divinity, blurring the line between theology and philosophy. His system remains a critical landmark in Western metaphysics.

(c) "The problem of evil is a direct offshoot of how God is conceptualised in a system." Critically discuss. (15 Marks)
Ans: The problem of evil questions how an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God can coexist with the presence of evil in the world. It arises primarily in monotheistic systems that attribute these maximal qualities to God. Thus, how God is conceptualized directly influences how evil is explained.

Main Points:

1. The Logical Problem of Evil:

   • If God is all-powerful, he can eliminate evil.

   • If God is all-good, he should want to eliminate evil.

   • Evil exists → Therefore, such a God may not exist.

   • Formulated by philosophers like Epicurus and J.L. Mackie.

2. Theodicies as Responses:

   • Free Will Defense (Augustine): Evil results from human misuse of free will.

   • Soul-making Theodicy (Irenaeus, later developed by John Hick): Suffering is essential for spiritual growth.

   • These theodicies emerge because God is seen as good and powerful yet non-coercive.

3. God in Non-Theistic Systems:

   • In Buddhism, which does not affirm a creator God, the problem of evil is reframed as dukkha (suffering) caused by desire and ignorance, not divine will.

   • In Spinoza’s pantheism, God is not a moral agent, hence evil is not a moral issue but a lack of understanding of reality.

4. Reconceptualising God:

   • Process Theology (Alfred North Whitehead): God is not omnipotent in a classical sense but evolves with creation.

   • This helps explain why God may not prevent evil.

5. Criticism of Theodicies:

   • Critics like Ivan Karamazov (in Dostoevsky's novel) argue that no justification is sufficient for the suffering of innocents, especially children.

The problem of evil arises directly from how a system defines God. In traditions where God is all-powerful and all-good, the presence of evil demands explanation. In systems that redefine God's attributes or deny God altogether, the issue is less acute or differently framed. Thus, the conceptualization of divinity fundamentally shapes the moral and metaphysical discourse on evil.

Q7:
(a) State and evaluate Buddhism as a religion without God. (20 Marks)
Ans: Buddhism is often described as a non-theistic religion—a system of spiritual and ethical practice that does not posit the existence of a creator God. While traditional religions focus on worship, divine command, and eternal reward, Buddhism centers on human suffering (dukkha), its causes, and the path to its cessation. This raises a unique question: Can a religion truly exist and thrive without belief in a God?

Main Points:

1. Absence of a Creator God:

   • Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of God; instead, he focused on practical concerns like suffering and liberation.

   • The concept of Iśvara (Supreme Being) is explicitly rejected in early Buddhist texts like the Tevijja Sutta.

2. Core Teachings:

   • Buddhism is grounded in the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path, not divine authority.

   • The law of karma and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) explain causality without invoking God.

3. Rejection of Atman:

   • Unlike Hinduism, which posits a soul (ātman) connected with Brahman, Buddhism promotes anattā (no-self).

   • This denies the eternal soul that would relate to a creator God.

4. Rational and Empirical Orientation:

   • Emphasis on personal experience, reason, and meditative insight over blind faith.

   • Buddha encouraged inquiry (Kalama Sutta), making it a rational path.

5. Moral Framework Without God:

   • Ethics in Buddhism arise from compassion, mindfulness, and awareness, not fear of divine punishment.

   • Example: The principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) is upheld without divine command.

6. Theistic Influences in Later Buddhism:

   • Mahayana Buddhism includes devotional aspects like Bodhisattvas and cosmic Buddhas (e.g., Amitābha).

   • These figures function like deities but are not omnipotent creators; their roles are compassionate guides.

7. Criticism and Counterarguments:

   • Critics argue Buddhism lacks the emotional fulfillment or moral absolute offered by theism.

   • However, others praise its universal accessibility and freedom from dogma.

Buddhism stands as a successful example of a religion without God. By focusing on human experience, ethical conduct, and self-realization, it offers a profound spiritual path without invoking divine authority. While it may differ from Abrahamic traditions, Buddhism’s impact shows that religion can thrive on ethical and existential grounds, not just theological ones.

(b) What kind of epistemic justifications are possible with regard to claims to revelation? Discuss with your own comments. (15 Marks)
​Ans: Revelation refers to knowledge or truth disclosed by a divine source, often found in sacred scriptures or mystical experiences. Since revelation claims transcend ordinary human experience, their epistemic justification—the rational grounds for believing them—becomes a philosophical challenge.

Main Points:
Types of Revelation:-

• General revelation: Knowledge of God through nature, reason, and moral conscience.

• Special revelation: Divine truths revealed through scripture, prophets, or mystical experiences.

Epistemic Justification:-
a. Testimonial Justification:

• Belief in revelation based on trustworthy testimony of religious figures or sacred texts.

• Criticism: Testimonies vary across religions; risk of cultural bias or subjectivity.

b. Experiential Justification:

• Mystics report direct encounters with the divine (e.g., Rāmānujā, St. Teresa of Ávila).

• Problem: Private experiences cannot be objectively verified or replicated.

c. Pragmatic Justification:

• If belief in revelation leads to moral transformation or inner peace, it is epistemically meaningful.

• Example: William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience defends religion on pragmatic grounds.

d. Coherence Theory:

• Revelations are justified if they cohere with the believer’s broader worldview.

• Limitation: Coherence doesn’t guarantee truth, only internal consistency.

Reformed Epistemology:-

• Proposed by Alvin Plantinga, argues belief in God or revelation can be properly basic, not requiring empirical proof.

• Critics question whether this allows for any belief to be justified.

Own Comment:-

• Epistemic justification of revelation is deeply tied to context and interpretive frameworks.

• While difficult to rationally prove, revelations can have existential and moral relevance, which gives them practical justification for believers.

Revelation, though difficult to validate in empirical or deductive terms, can be epistemically justified through testimony, experience, pragmatism, and coherence. Ultimately, its credibility often rests on the transformative impact it has on individuals and communities, making it a blend of faith and reason.

(c) Present an exposition of ontological proof for the existence of God along with its criticism. (10 + 5 = 15 Marks)
Ans: The ontological argument is a philosophical attempt to prove God’s existence through pure reason, without reference to experience. It is one of the most debated arguments in philosophy of religion, initiated by St. Anselm in the 11th century.

Exposition:

1. Anselm's Formulation (Proslogion):

   • God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

   • A being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind.

   • Therefore, God must exist in reality, or else he would not be the greatest conceivable being.

2. Descartes' Version:

   • Existence is a necessary predicate of a perfect being.

   • Just as triangles must have three sides, a perfect being must exist.

3. Modern Version – Modal Ontological Argument (Alvin Plantinga):

   • If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world.

   • If it exists in some possible world, it must exist in all possible worlds, including the actual world.

Criticism:

1. Gaunilo’s Counterexample:

   • Replaced God with “the greatest conceivable island” to show the flaw in logic.

   • Just because one can conceive of something doesn’t mean it must exist.

2. Immanuel Kant:

   • Existence is not a predicate; it adds nothing to the concept of a being.

   • Saying “God exists” doesn’t increase the greatness of the concept.

3. Empirical Objection:

   • Critics argue that existence claims must be verified by sense experience, not logic alone.

The ontological argument is a unique rational approach to theism, aiming to prove God’s existence by logic alone. While it has intuitive appeal and formal elegance, it faces serious criticisms, particularly from Kant and Gaunilo, who question whether existence can be logically derived from definition. It remains more of a philosophical curiosity than a conclusive proof for many thinkers.

Q8:
(a) Distinguish between cognitivist and non-cognitivist account of religious language. Does the cognitivist account lead to any contradiction? Answer with reference to the philosophical views of R. B. Braithwaite. (10 + 10 = 20 Marks)
Ans: Religious language has been a central topic in philosophy of religion. The way we interpret religious statements—whether they are conveying knowledge or expressing non-cognitive attitudes—has led to two major approaches: cognitivism and non-cognitivism. These approaches have differing views on whether religious language is meaningful and whether it can be evaluated for truth.

Main Points:

1. Cognitivist Account of Religious Language:

   • Cognitivism asserts that religious statements are propositional, i.e., they are expressing factual claims about the world, which can be true or false.

   • Example: “God created the world” is seen as a statement that can be empirically verified or falsified.

   • Cognitivists like A. J. Ayer and Logical Positivists argue that religious statements must be verifiable to be meaningful.

2. Non-Cognitivist Account of Religious Language:

   • Non-cognitivism suggests that religious statements are not meant to be propositional or factual claims but are instead expressive of attitudes, emotions, or personal commitments.

   • Example: Saying "God is love" does not assert a factual claim about God but expresses a particular emotional or spiritual attitude.

   • Philosophers like R. B. Braithwaite argued that religious statements should be understood as expressive of moral and emotional commitments rather than literal truths.

3. R. B. Braithwaite’s View:

   • Braithwaite proposed that religious language is meaningful, but not in terms of objective factual statements. For him, religious statements express moral commitments rather than claims about the empirical world.

   • He claimed that "God is love" is not a statement that can be verified scientifically but represents the moral intention or commitment to behave in a loving way.

   • He viewed religious language as a moral guide rather than a set of metaphysical assertions.

4. Cognitivist Account and Its Contradictions:

   • Contradictions in Cognitivism arise when religious language makes claims about the supernatural or non-empirical phenomena that cannot be verified.

   • For example, claims like "God is omnipotent" or "God is eternal" cannot be empirically verified, leading to the verification principle of logical positivists which critiques such statements as meaningless.

   • The contradiction lies in the fact that if religious statements are empirical claims, they become problematic when they concern metaphysical entities that are not accessible to our senses.

5. Challenges for Braithwaite’s Account:

   • Braithwaite’s non-cognitivism also faces challenges. Some argue that his view might reduce religious language to mere moral platitudes, thereby losing the richness of religious experience.

   • Critics like Richard Swinburne argue that Braithwaite’s theory fails to capture the true depth and complexity of religious language that is often reflective of divine truths.

The distinction between cognitivist and non-cognitivist accounts of religious language highlights differing views on the meaning and truth of religious statements. Braithwaite’s non-cognitivist view effectively shifts the focus from factual claims to moral expressions, but it risks simplifying the role of religious language. The cognitivist approach, while intellectually rigorous, encounters contradictions in its application to non-verifiable religious claims. Both approaches offer valuable insights but face limitations when addressing the full scope of religious language.

(b) "In order to be conceived as the ultimate cause of the world, God must necessarily have some form of physical manifestation." Do you agree with this view? Give reasons and justifications for your answer. (15 Marks)
Ans: The question of whether God, as the ultimate cause of the universe, must have a physical manifestation touches upon important debates in theology and metaphysics. The idea of God as a transcendent, non-physical entity is common in many religious traditions. However, the need for physical manifestation is often argued to enhance God's understanding and relationship with humanity.

Main Points:

1. God as Non-Physical (Transcendence):

   • In many religious traditions, such as Christianity and Islam, God is conceived as transcendent and beyond the physical world.

   • God’s nature is often described as infinite, immaterial, and omniscient, making a physical manifestation unnecessary.

   • Philosophical view: Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant argue that God, being the ultimate cause, transcends physical reality and is not bound by physical laws.

2. God and Creation:

   • The concept of God as Creator in monotheistic religions suggests that God is the originator of the universe but not necessarily part of the universe itself.

   • The creation is often viewed as a separate entity from God. Thus, God’s physical manifestation would suggest a limitation or containment of His infinite nature.

3. Philosophical Justifications Against Physical Manifestation:

   • Rational Theism: God is an absolute being and cannot be confined to the limitations of physical space.

   • Immanence without Physicality: While God is immanent in the world, His presence can be felt in spiritual, not physical terms. Mystical experiences or divine revelation provide a means of knowing God without necessitating physical form.

4. The Role of Revelation:

   • In many religions, God reveals Himself in non-physical ways—through scriptures, prophecies, or personal experiences. Revelation is not restricted to physical appearances.

   • Example: In Judaism, God is often represented as invisible and not confined to any form.

5. Arguments for a Physical Manifestation:

   • Some theistic views argue that God’s physical manifestation (e.g., the incarnation of Christ in Christianity) helps human beings relate to the divine on a more personal and experiential level.

   • The Incarnation of Jesus Christ is a key example in Christianity, where God takes a physical form to bridge the gap between the divine and human realms.

6. Criticism of Physical Manifestation:

   • The theological problem with God’s physical manifestation is the limitation it imposes on His nature. A personal God may facilitate human connection, but God’s true nature remains infinitely greater than any physical form.

   • In Hinduism, Brahman is also beyond physical form, with avatars (like Krishna) being temporary manifestations for divine interaction rather than permanent physical embodiment.

The necessity of a physical manifestation of God is not required to conceive of Him as the ultimate cause of the world. Transcendence, infinity, and immanence allow for a conception of God that is not bound by physical limitations. While physical manifestations may enhance personal connection, they contradict the idea of God’s infinite, non-material nature in many religious traditions.

(c) Discuss the main features of religious experience according to Advaita Vedanta. (15 Marks)
Ans: Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy that emphasizes the idea of non-duality (Advaita) and the ultimate oneness of the self (Atman) with Brahman (the absolute reality). Religious experience, in this context, is not about worshiping a deity but realizing the true nature of the self and the universe.

Main Points:

1. Oneness of Atman and Brahman:

   • The core idea of Advaita Vedanta is that Atman (the individual soul) is identical to Brahman (the supreme reality). The apparent distinction between the two is due to ignorance (Avidya).

   • Religious experience involves the realization that the individual self is not separate but part of the universal consciousness.

2. Maya (Illusion):

   • The world as we experience it is governed by Maya, the illusion that creates the appearance of multiplicity and duality.

   • Religious experience is the awakening from this illusion, where one realizes the non-dual nature of reality.

3. Jnana (Knowledge) as the Path:

   • The path to religious experience in Advaita Vedanta is through Jnana Yoga, the knowledge that dispels ignorance and reveals the unity of Atman and Brahman.

   • Realization occurs not through rituals but through direct experiential insight into the nature of the self.

4. Satsang and the Role of the Guru:

   • Satsang (association with enlightened beings) and the Guru (spiritual teacher) play a central role in guiding the individual towards self-realization.

   • The Guru helps the seeker to transcend ignorance and see the truth through direct experience.

5. Transformation and Liberation (Moksha):

   • The ultimate religious experience is liberation (Moksha), which occurs when one transcends the ego and realizes their identity with Brahman.

   • This leads to freedom from samsara (the cycle of birth and rebirth) and the end of suffering.

Religious experience in Advaita Vedanta is centered around the realization of non-duality. By understanding that the individual self is one with Brahman, one experiences the ultimate liberation and freedom from illusion. The emphasis is on self-knowledge rather than external worship, and the realization of oneness with the universe is seen as the highest form of religious experience.