________________
It is clear from the above dialogue that when Mahāvīra tried to answer the so-called avyākhyāta questions through the vibhajya method, he had analyzed that from four different ways and thereby clarified the ambiguity contained in, such predicate. expressions, "infinite" and "finite". "Infinite" may mean 'limitless in number of measurement' or 'everlasting'. Similarly, "finite" may mean 'limited in number or measurement' or 'ol limited duration'. Notice that all these perspectives have beer. taken into account in Mahāvīra's method of analysis. One car thus agree with the principle of Mahāvīra, without necessarily agreeing with the Jain mythological account of the universe and man. It is also to be noticed that Mahāvīra's analysis is differen
from that of Buddha, 'as Buddha maintained his doctrine of the Middle path, by rejecting the two alternative questions, positive and negative, while Mahāvīra came closer to the anekāntavādı by accepting both extreme alternatives with prope: qualifications and conditionalization.
To the fifth and the sixth questions also, Mahāvīra gavi positive answers. For the last four questions too, Mahāvīra' answer would be very definite, for he would say, following the Jaina religious faith, that the Tathāgata or the saint exists and reaches the end of the universe after death.
The above sketch shows how the vibhājya method in the hands of Mahāvīra was transformed into the anekānta philosophy of the Jains. If the vibhajya method is interpreted only as a method of analysis and classification, then the Jaina anekānta method may be regarded as the opposite of it, i.e., synthesis. But, in fact, the vibhajya method was a generic name for any non-dogmatic and exploratory approach to philosophic and metaphysical questions. It included analysis and synthesis, differentiation and integration.
Mahāvīra thus developed a philosophy of synthesis and toleration, which later came to be designated as the anekāntavāda.
