top of page

IAS PHILOSOPHY 2022 OPTIONAL PAPER 1 CIVIL SERVICE MAIN SOLVED Q7, Q8

PHILOSOPHY (Paper I)

Time Allowed : Three Hours Maximum Marks : 250








7. a Inspite of accepting the intrinsic validity of knowledge, why and how Prabhakar and Kumarila differ in their interpretation of erroneous cognition ? Discuss.


Answer- Prabhakara and Kumarila are two important Indian philosophers who lived in the 7th and 8th centuries CE. They both belong to the school of Indian philosophy known as Mimamsa, which focuses on the interpretation of Vedic texts and the performance of Vedic rituals.

While both Prabhakara and Kumarila accept the intrinsic validity of knowledge, they differ in their interpretation of erroneous cognition. Prabhakara holds that erroneous cognition is a real and valid form of knowledge, whereas Kumarila holds that erroneous cognition is a mere illusion and not a valid form of knowledge.

Prabhakara's position is based on the idea that all cognition, including erroneous cognition, arises from a valid means of knowledge (pramana). According to Prabhakara, erroneous cognition occurs when a valid means of knowledge is obstructed or distorted in some way. For example, if someone sees a rope and mistakes it for a snake, their cognition is erroneous but still valid, because it arises from the valid means of visual perception.

Kumarila, on the other hand, argues that erroneous cognition is not a valid form of knowledge because it does not correspond to reality. According to Kumarila, erroneous cognition occurs when there is a mismatch between the object and the cognition of the object. For example, if someone sees a rope and mistakes it for a snake, their cognition is not valid because it does not correspond to the reality of the object.

Overall, while both Prabhakara and Kumarila accept the intrinsic validity of knowledge, they differ in their interpretation of erroneous cognition. Prabhakara holds that erroneous cognition is a real and valid form of knowledge, whereas Kumarila holds that it is not valid because it does not correspond to reality.


7. (b) Explain Buddhist concept of Trratna and their internal relation. Critically examinethe consistency of Trratnas with the Buddhist concept of No-soul (Nairatmyavada).


Answer- The concept of the Three Jewels or Three Treasures (Trikaya or Triratna) is an essential doctrine in Buddhism. The Three Jewels refer to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. The Buddha is the historical figure of Gautama Buddha, who taught the path to liberation from suffering. The Dharma is the teachings of the Buddha, which provide a framework for understanding reality and achieving liberation. The Sangha is the community of monks and nuns who have renounced worldly life and are dedicated to practicing and teaching the Dharma.

The Three Jewels are considered to be interrelated and interconnected. The Buddha is the teacher who shows the way to liberation, the Dharma is the path to liberation, and the Sangha is the community of practitioners who support and guide one another on the path.

The concept of the Three Jewels is consistent with the Buddhist concept of no-soul or Nairatmyavada. The Buddha taught that there is no permanent, unchanging, or independent self or soul. Rather, the self is a constantly changing and interdependent process, dependent on causes and conditions.

The Three Jewels can be seen as three interdependent aspects of the path to liberation. The Buddha is the teacher who shows the way, but he himself is not a permanent or independent self. The Dharma is the path to liberation, but it is not a permanent or independent entity. The Sangha is the community of practitioners who support one another on the path, but they themselves are also impermanent and interdependent.

In this sense, the Three Jewels are consistent with the Buddhist concept of no-soul, as they represent a dynamic and interdependent process of liberation, rather than fixed and permanent entities.

However, it is important to note that there are different interpretations of the concept of no-soul within Buddhism, and some schools may place greater emphasis on the concept of emptiness or shunyata, which suggests that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence. In this context, the Three Jewels may be seen as empty of inherent existence, rather than simply impermanent and interdependent.

Overall, the concept of the Three Jewels is consistent with the Buddhist concept of no-soul, as it emphasizes the interdependent and dynamic nature of reality, rather than fixed and permanent entities. However, the precise relationship between the Three Jewels and the concept of emptiness may vary depending on the interpretation within different Buddhist schools.



7. c How do Naiyayikas respond to Carvaka's objections against inference (anumana) and establish inference as an independent means of knowledge ? Critically discuss.


Answer- The Naiyayikas were a school of Indian philosophy that developed a system of logic and epistemology. They believed in the validity of inference (anumana) as a means of knowledge and sought to establish it as an independent means of knowledge. However, the Carvaka school of philosophy rejected inference as a means of knowledge and argued against its validity.

The Carvaka school of philosophy held that only perception (pratyaksha) was a valid means of knowledge, and that inference was not valid because it relied on assumptions and could not establish a certain conclusion. They argued that inference was based on unproven premises and that it could not provide any new knowledge.

In response, the Naiyayikas developed a sophisticated system of logic to establish the validity of inference as an independent means of knowledge. They argued that inference was based on three distinct elements: the hetu (reason), the paksha (subject), and the sadhya (conclusion).

The hetu is the reason or evidence that supports the conclusion. The paksha is the subject or the thing that is being inferred. The sadhya is the conclusion that is being drawn based on the hetu.

The Naiyayikas argued that inference was a valid means of knowledge because it followed a set of rules or canons. These rules include the agreement between the hetu and the paksha, the absence of any contradictory hetu, and the presence of a positive correlation between the hetu and the sadhya.

They also argued that inference was capable of providing new knowledge because it could establish a conclusion that was not directly observable through perception. For example, by observing smoke, one can infer the presence of fire, even if one cannot directly perceive the fire.

In conclusion, the Naiyayikas responded to Carvaka's objections against inference by establishing a sophisticated system of logic to establish the validity of inference as an independent means of knowledge. They argued that inference was based on valid premises and followed a set of rules that allowed it to establish new knowledge. While there may still be debates over the validity and limitations of inference, the Naiyayikas successfully established it as a valid and reliable means of knowledge within their philosophical system


7. d `Brahma satyam jaganmithya, jivo Brahmaiva naparah'. In the light of this statement explain the ontological status of nvara, Eva and Saksi as elucidated in Advaita Vedanta.


Answer- The statement "Brahma satyam jaganmithya, jivo Brahmaiva naparah" is a famous dictum in Advaita Vedanta. It translates to "Brahman is the only reality, the world is an illusion, and the individual self (jiva) is not different from Brahman." This statement expresses the central tenet of Advaita Vedanta, which holds that there is only one ultimate reality, Brahman, and that everything else is illusory and ultimately unreal.

In Advaita Vedanta, the ontological status of the world, the individual self (jiva), and the witness or observer (saksi) are understood in relation to the ultimate reality of Brahman.

The world or jagat is considered to be an illusory manifestation of Brahman, like a dream or a mirage. It is not absolutely real in itself, but rather it appears to be real due to ignorance or avidya. The world is said to be mithya, which means that it has a dependent reality, but is ultimately unreal.

The individual self or jiva is understood to be a limited manifestation of Brahman, which appears to be separate due to ignorance or avidya. The jiva is not a separate, independently existing entity, but is rather a temporary manifestation of Brahman, like a wave in the ocean. The jiva is said to be anatma, which means that it is not ultimately real, but rather a temporary and illusory manifestation of Brahman.

The witness or observer, known as saksi, is considered to be the pure consciousness that witnesses all phenomena, including the illusory world and the temporary manifestations of the jiva. The saksi is said to be the true self or atman, which is not different from Brahman. The saksi is understood to be the ultimate reality, which is eternal, unchanging, and non-dual.

In conclusion, the ontological status of the world, the individual self, and the witness in Advaita Vedanta is understood in relation to the ultimate reality of Brahman. The world is considered to be illusory, the individual self is a temporary manifestation of Brahman, and the witness or observer is the ultimate reality of Brahman. The central tenet of Advaita Vedanta is that there is only one ultimate reality, which is non-dual and infinite.


8. a. Explain and evaluate the role of integral yoga in the process of triple transformation for individual evolution as expounded by Sri Aurobindo.


Answer- Sri Aurobindo's philosophy emphasizes the concept of triple transformation as a path towards individual evolution. The three transformations are the psychic transformation, the spiritual transformation, and the supramental transformation. Integral Yoga, also known as Purna Yoga, is the method Sri Aurobindo proposed for the triple transformation process.

Integral Yoga is a comprehensive system of spiritual practice that aims to integrate all aspects of human existence, including the physical, vital, mental, and spiritual. It is a synthesis of different yogic practices such as karma yoga, bhakti yoga, jnana yoga, and raja yoga. The primary goal of Integral Yoga is to create a conscious union between the individual soul and the divine consciousness.

The first transformation, the psychic transformation, involves the realization of one's inner self, which is the foundation for all further progress. The psychic being, or the soul, is the core of the human personality, and the goal of the psychic transformation is to bring it to the forefront of consciousness. Integral Yoga seeks to awaken the psychic being by practicing self-awareness and self-examination, leading to self-discovery.

The second transformation, the spiritual transformation, involves the attainment of spiritual consciousness, which is beyond the limitations of the mental and vital levels of existence. Integral Yoga involves the cultivation of spiritual qualities such as devotion, surrender, and aspiration, leading to the awakening of the spiritual consciousness.

The final transformation, the supramental transformation, involves the manifestation of the divine consciousness in the physical world. Integral Yoga involves the integration of the supramental consciousness with the mental, vital, and physical levels of existence. This leads to a complete transformation of the individual and the emergence of a new species of humanity.

Overall, Integral Yoga is a comprehensive and systematic approach to the triple transformation process, offering a path towards individual evolution. It emphasizes the integration of all aspects of human existence, leading to the realization of the individual's highest potential.

In evaluating the role of Integral Yoga in the triple transformation process, it is essential to note that it is a challenging and demanding practice that requires dedication and discipline. It is not a quick fix or a simple solution to individual evolution. However, for those who are committed to the practice, Integral Yoga offers a transformative path towards personal growth and spiritual realization.






8.b How does the concept of Liberation (Moksa) of Madhvacarya differ from that of Rarndnujacarya ? Explain?


Answer- Madhvacarya and Ramanujacarya were two important philosophers and theologians of the Bhakti movement in medieval India. Both of them belonged to the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy and contributed significantly to the development of Vaishnavism, one of the major traditions of Hinduism. While both philosophers believed in the concept of liberation (Moksha), their understanding of it differed significantly.

Madhvacarya's concept of liberation, also known as "Suddha-Mukti," emphasizes the importance of complete surrender to Lord Vishnu and the attainment of a pure spiritual body. According to Madhvacarya, the ultimate goal of human life is to attain Moksha, which is achieved through the grace of God. Madhvacarya believed that liberation is only possible for those who have the blessings of God and who have performed good deeds in their lives. He also believed that liberation is not just the liberation of the soul from the cycle of birth and death but also the attainment of a pure spiritual body that can reside eternally in the spiritual realm of Lord Vishnu.

On the other hand, Ramanujacarya's concept of liberation, also known as "Visishtadvaita," emphasizes the idea of unity in diversity. According to Ramanujacarya, the ultimate goal of human life is to attain oneness with Lord Vishnu, but this oneness does not mean the loss of individual identity. Ramanujacarya believed that liberation is achieved through a combination of knowledge, devotion, and good deeds. He believed that the soul is eternally connected to God and that the realization of this connection is essential for attaining liberation.

In summary, while both Madhvacarya and Ramanujacarya believed in the concept of liberation, their understanding of it differed significantly. Madhvacarya emphasized the importance of surrender and the attainment of a pure spiritual body, while Ramanujacarya emphasized the idea of unity in diversity and the realization of the eternal connection between the soul and God.




Ask your question

  • Yes, i will enroll

  • I will think about it


37 views

Comments


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page