 However , many believe that Sankara fails to address genuine anekāntavāda . By identifying syādavāda with sansayavāda , he instead addresses " agnosticism " , which was argued by Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta . Many authors like Pandya believe that Sankara overlooked that , the affirmation of the existence of an object is in respect to the object itself , and its negation is in respect to what the object is not . Genuine anekāntavāda thus considers positive and negative attributes of an object , at the same time , and without any contradictions . 
 However , many believe that Sankara <a href='uninflect' title='1'><mark>fails</mark></a> to address genuine anekāntavāda . By identifying syādavāda with sansayavāda , he instead <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>addresses</mark></a> " agnosticism " , which was argued by Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta . Many authors like Pandya believe that Sankara overlooked that , the affirmation of the existence of an object is in respect to the object itself , and its negation is in respect to what the object <a href='negative_concord' title='3'><mark>is</mark></a> <a href='negative_concord' title='4'><mark>not</mark></a>. Genuine anekāntavāda thus <a href='uninflect' title='5'><mark>considers</mark></a> positive and negative attributes of an object , at the same time , and without any contradictions . 
However , many believe dat Sankara fail to address genuine anekāntavāda . By identifying syādavāda with sansayavāda , he instead address " agnosticism " , which was argued by Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta . Many authors like Pandya believe tdatSankara overlooked that , the affirmation of the existence of an object is in respect to the object itself , and its negation is in respect to wat the object ain't . Genuine anekāntavāda thus consider positive and negative attributes of an object , at the same time , and without any contradictions .