________________
( 203 )
if your latter statement is true, your primer stateppent is false. (saca furiman saccari, pacchimam te miccka, sace pacchimarts saccan purimam te miccha ).110
Another reference found in Pali literature helps us to understand the position of Syādvada. The Dighanahha of the Majjhima Nikaya mentions the three kinds of theories upheld by Dighanakha Paribbājaka. They are as follows :111
(i) Sabbarij me khamati ( I agree with all ( views ), (ii) Sobban me na khamati ( I agree with no ( views ). (iii) Ekhaccom me khamati, ekaccara me na khamati ( I agree
with some ( views ) and disagree with other ( views ). The Buddha criticises Dighanakha's views in various ways, and expresses his own views towards the problem. Dīghanakha's views are similar to the predications of Syādvada, and represent its first three bhangis as follows: (i) Sabbam me khamati
= Syādasti, (ü) Sabban me na khamati
= Syāpnāsti. (iii) E kaccam me khamati: ekaccam
me na khamati = Syādastināsti.. Now the problem is to consider to which school of the ught Digbanakha belonged. According to the commentary on the Majjhima Nikaya, he is said to be a holder of the view of Ucchedavāda,112 which is a part of Syādvāda school in tbe opinion of Buddhaghosa. He might have belonged to Sañjaya's. of Paribbājakas who were followere of Parsvanātha tradition converted later to Nātaputta's religion before he joined the Buddha's order. 118 Dighanakha was a nephew or Sanjaya. It seems, therefore, that he was a follower of Jainism, This. inference may be confirmed if Dighanakha can be identified with Dighatapassi of the Upalisutta of Majjhima Nikāya, who was a follower of Nigantha Nātaputta.
In the above propositions of Saccaka, Cibua wathapard and Dighanakha Paribbājaka, we can trace the first foor predications ( including Syadavaktadya) of Syādvada concoption of Jainism.
It is not impossible that the term Syat had been used by Jainas in the beginning of each predication justly correctly
