1)  ‘Asato ma sad-gamaya;

Tamaso ma jyotir-gamaya;

Mrtyor-ma amrutam gamaya.’

This universal prayer for enlightenment is from:

A) Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

B) Bhagavad Gita

C) Ramayana

D) Rig Veda

This three-line prayer is a well-known Upanishadic invocation asking for spiritual guidance. A common English translation is:

“Lead me from the unreal to the real;

Lead me from darkness to light;

Lead me from death to immortality.”

It appears in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the principal (major) Upanishads that focus on philosophical and spiritual knowledge. The other options are incorrect because the Bhagavad Gita is a dialogic scripture focused on duty and yoga, the Ramayana is an epic narrative, and the Rig Veda is a collection of hymns—none of these are the original source of this particular prayer. The verse’s theme of moving from ignorance to knowledge and from mortality to immortality is characteristic of Upanishadic teaching, which is why the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is the correct source.

Ans)   A) Brihadaranyaka Upanishad


2)   Which of the following statements are correct?

i) In India, high denomination notes account for the major chunk of the total value of notes circulated.

ii) The number of Rs. 500 notes was pretty higher than that of Rs. 1000 notes.

iii) The total value of Rs. 500 notes in circulation in 2015–16 was less than that of Rs. 1000 notes.

iv) There is a difference of 1.6 crore between the value of Rs. 500 notes and Rs. 1000 notes.

A) iii and iv only

B) i and iii only

C) i and ii only

D) ii and iii only

Statement (i) — True.

High-denomination notes (like Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000) contribute a disproportionately large share of the total value of currency in circulation because each single high-denomination note represents a large monetary value. Even if lower-denomination notes are far more numerous, the aggregate value is dominated by the high-value notes. Hence (i) is correct.

Statement (ii) — Not necessarily true / treated as false for this question.

Saying the number of Rs. 500 notes was “pretty higher” than Rs. 1000 notes is a numeric claim about counts. It might be true in some datasets, but the statement in the question is framed strongly (“pretty higher”) and cannot be accepted without the actual count-data. For the usual interpretation behind this kind of DI question, the intended point is that although there may be more Rs. 500 notes by count, the difference in count is not large enough to make their total value exceed that of Rs.1000 notes — so (ii) is not taken as a correct standalone assertion here.

Statement (iii) — True.

Total value = (number of notes) × (denomination). Even if the number of Rs. 500 notes is greater than that of Rs. 1000 notes, the total value of Rs. 1000 notes can still be larger because each Rs. 1000 note is worth twice a Rs. 500 note. Algebraically: let number of Rs.500 notes = x and number of Rs.1000 notes = y.

The value of 500-notes is 500x and of 1000-notes is 1000y.

500x < 1000y ⇔ x < 2y.

So if the count x is greater than y but less than 2y (i.e., y < x < 2y), then the number of 500s is larger while the value of 1000s remains larger. That makes (iii) a plausible and correct statement in the intended context.

Statement (iv) — False.

This is a specific numeric claim (“difference of 1.6 crore”) about the value gap between the two categories. Without the precise dataset one cannot accept a specific crore-figure. Moreover, the total values involved for high-denomination notes are typically very large (many hundreds or thousands of crores), so a statement that the difference equals exactly 1.6 crore is unlikely to be correct in the typical DI context. Therefore (iv) is not correct.

Ans ) B) i and iii only