________________
Actually he follows the very same view, as found in canons regarding the nature of a Reality. From the standpoint of its specific modes, it is not permanent, from the substantial point of view, it is permanent. Hence there is no contradiction. These two, the general and the particular somehow, are different as well as identical. Thus, these form the cause of worldly intercourse. Till the date of Umāsvāti, while dealing with the doctrine of nayas, no explicit reference to non-Jaina school of philosophy is made, nor can it be said that a reference is implicitly present. The viewpoints are not studied with their supporting arguments, nor are they examined and criticized. With Umāsvāti ends the age of agamās..
In the Jain canon, Sūtrakrtaānga Sūtra, Lord Mahāvīra reflected on the monk way of speech to be in 'vibhajyavāda' technique or syādvāda method. The very same word vibhajyavāda is found in Buddhist text named 'Mazhim Nikāya' Sutra 99, in the context of dialogue between the Subhamanavaka and Lord Buddha. Subhamanavaka asked Lord Buddha, that I have heard that only householder is ārādhaka and houseless monk is not ārādhaka .Let me know your view in this regard. Lord Buddha adopted vibhajyavāda method in answering this question. Buddha said, if a householder possesses wrong view, he is virādhaka and even houseless monk with the wrong view, is also not ārādhaka. If Buddha had replied, only houseless monk is ārādhaka, not the householder, then his answer might be one-sided. But he used wrong and right view as the criteria of ārādhaka and virādhaka kind of householder and houseless monks. So he considered himself as vibhajyavādi.
But one point to be noticed here is that Buddha didn't apply vibhajyavāda method everywhere, but only in few dialogues as found in Dīganikāya of Sangiti Pariyāya Sutta. But
Sūtrakrtānga Sūtra. Ed. Mishrimalji Maharaj. Trans. Shrichand Surana. Beawar: Āgam Prakāshan Samiti, 1991, 1.4.22.
