 The age of Mahāvīra and Buddha was one of intense intellectual debates , especially on the nature of reality and self . Upanishadic thought postulated the absolute unchanging reality of Brahman and Ātman and claimed that change was mere illusion . The theory advanced by Buddhists denied the reality of permanence of conditioned phenomena , asserting only interdependence and impermanence . According to the vedāntin ( Upanishadic ) conceptual scheme , the Buddhists were wrong in denying permanence and absolutism , and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme , the vedāntins were wrong in denying the reality of impermanence . The two positions were contradictory and mutually exclusive from each other 's point of view . The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda . From the perspective of a higher , inclusive level made possible by the ontology and epistemology of anekāntavāda and syādvāda , Jains do not see such claims as contradictory or mutually exclusive ; instead , they are seen as ekantika or only partially true . The Jain breadth of vision embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which , according to Jainism , " recognises substances but not process " , and Buddhism , which " recognises process but not substance " . Jainism , on the other hand , pays equal attention to both substance ( dravya ) and process ( paryaya ) . 
 The age of Mahāvīra and Buddha was one of intense intellectual debates , especially on the nature of reality and self . Upanishadic thought postulated the absolute unchanging reality of Brahman and Ātman and claimed that change was mere illusion . The theory advanced by Buddhists denied the reality of permanence of conditioned phenomena , asserting only interdependence and impermanence . According to the vedāntin ( Upanishadic ) conceptual scheme , the Buddhists <a href='uninflect' title='1'><mark>were</mark></a> wrong in denying permanence and absolutism , and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme , the vedāntins <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>were</mark></a> wrong in denying the reality of impermanence . The two positions <a href='uninflect' title='3'><mark>were</mark></a> contradictory and mutually exclusive from each other <a href='null_genetive' title='4'><mark>'s</mark></a>point of view . The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda . From <a href='None' title='5'><mark>the</mark></a><a href='negative_concord' title='6'><mark>perspective</mark></a> of a higher , inclusive level made possible by the ontology and epistemology of anekāntavāda and syādvāda , Jains do not see such claims as contradictory or mutually exclusive ; instead , they are seen as ekantika or only partially true . The Jain breadth of vision <a href='uninflect' title='7'><mark>embraces</mark></a> the perspectives of both Vedānta which , according to Jainism , " <a href='uninflect' title='8'><mark>recognises</mark></a> substances but not process " , and Buddhism , which " <a href='uninflect' title='9'><mark>recognises</mark></a> process but not substance " . Jainism , on the other hand , <a href='uninflect' title='10'><mark>pays</mark></a> equal attention to both substance ( dravya ) and process ( paryaya ) . 
The age of Mahāvīra and Buddha was one of intense intellectual debates , especially on the nature of reality and self . Upanishadic thought postulated da absolute unchanging reality of Brahman and Ātman and claimed that change was mere illusion . The theory advanced by Buddhists denied the reality of permanence of conditioned phenomena , asserting only interdependence and impermanence . According to tdavedāntin ( Upanishadic ) conceptual scheme , the Buddhists was wrong in denying permanence and absolutism , and within thdauddhist conceptual scheme , the vedāntins was wrong in denying the reality of impermanence . The two positions was contradictory and mutually exclusive from each other  point of view . The Jains managed a synthesis of the 2 uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda . From no perspective of a higher , inclusive level made possible by the ontology and epistemology of anekāntavāda and syādvāda , Jains do not see such claims as contradictory or mutually exclusive ; instead , they r seen as ekantika or only partially true . The Jain breadth of vision embrace thedarspectives of both Vedānta which , according to Jainism , " recognise substances but not process " , and Buddhism , which " recognise process but not substance " . Jainism , on the other hand , pay equal attention to both substance ( dravya ) and process ( paryaya ) .