________________
54 Anekāntavāda and Syādvāda
So apparently a complete knowledge of things and their qualities is an impossible feat for an ordinary enquirer. According to the Jaina, complete knowledge is possible only by a Jina or Kevalin who has attained perfection in knowledge, faith and character by long and arduous self-culture. The Jaina thinks that different philosophers claiming complete knowledge with the help of their different nayas have given us a semblance of naya and not a valid naya. They have however dispelled the despair of an ordinary intellect as against that of the Sarvajña or All-knower by insisting that if we have recourse to the following seven-fold judgment or saptabhangi by following each naya, then even we may hope to attain valid knowledge. But at the same time the Jainas point out that since no one judgment at best can give complete truth but only a partial one allowing for other partial truths, therefore they are in favour not of categorical but always of hypothetical judgments. And this they have provided for by adding syāt or 'may be' before every judgment. Following each naya, there will always be seven judgments and each of them will be prefixed with the term syāt. This is known as saptabhangi-naya or Syädvāda. It appears that Syadvāda is the epistemic counterpart of the Jaina metaphysical standpoint of Anekantavāda. This to my mind is the real picture of Syādvāda and Anekāntavāda. They are distinguishable but not separable. They go together but may not be indentical. But many jaina authorities identified the two.
Now the sevenfold judgment runs thus : (1) may be it is existent (2) may be it is non-existent (3) may be it is existent and non-existent
may be it is indefinable
may be it is existent and indefinable (6) may be it is non-existent and indefinable (7) may be it is existent, non-existent and indefinable.
In this sevenfold judgment of Syādvāda what we must specially note is the significance of existent, non-existent and indefinable. The Jainas maintain as we have already stated, that every real is an existent in its own nature and a non-existent when considered not in its own nature but in a nature other than its own. So when we predicate the existence of a real, it includes the possibility of its non-existence being predicated of it. Its position and negation become thus necessary alternative predications. Then again,