 = <unk> = 
 
 Anekāntavāda ( Sanskrit : <unk> ् <unk> , " many @-@ <unk> " ) refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints , or <unk> points , the notion that reality is perceived differently from diverse points of view , and that no single point of view is the complete truth , yet taken together they comprise the complete truth . It is one of the most important and fundamental doctrines of Jainism . 
 Jains contrast all attempts to proclaim the sole monopoly on truth with <unk> , which can be illustrated through the parable of the " blind men and an elephant " . In this story , each blind man felt a different part of an elephant ( trunk , leg , ear , etc . ) . All the men claimed to understand and explain the true appearance of the elephant , but could only partly succeed , due to their limited perspectives . This principle is more formally stated by observing that objects are infinite in their qualities and modes of existence , so they cannot be completely grasped in all aspects and manifestations by finite human perception . ( This is the <unk> Truth . ) According to the Jains , only the <unk> — <unk> beings — can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations ; others are only capable of partial knowledge . Consequently , no single , specific , human view can claim to represent absolute truth . 
 The origins of anekāntavāda can be traced back to the teachings of Mahāvīra ( <unk> – 527 BCE ) , the 24th Jain <unk> . The <unk> concepts of syādvāda " conditioned viewpoints " and nayavāda " partial viewpoints " arose from anekāntavāda , providing it with more detailed logical structure and expression . The Sanskrit compound an @-@ eka @-@ anta @-@ vāda literally means " doctrine of uncertainty " ( <unk> " not " , ekānta " certainty " or " single @-@ natured " , vāda ( " school of thought " or " thesis " ) ; it is roughly translated into English as " non @-@ absolutism " . An @-@ ekānta " uncertainty , non @-@ exclusivity " is the opposite of ekānta ( eka + anta ) " <unk> , <unk> , necessity " ( or also " monotheistic doctrine " ) . 
 Anekāntavāda encourages its adherents to consider the views and beliefs of their rivals and opposing parties . Proponents of anekāntavāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy , reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy — even Jainism — which clings too <unk> to its own tenets , is committing an error based on its limited point of view . The principle of anekāntavāda also influenced Mahatma Gandhi to adopt principles of religious tolerance , ahiṃsā and <unk> . 
 
 = = Philosophical overview = = 
 
 The etymological root of anekāntavāda lies in the compound of two Sanskrit words : anekānta ( " <unk> " ) and vāda ( " school of thought " ) . The word anekānta is a compound of the Sanskrit negative prefix an , eka ( " one " ) , and anta ( " attribute " ) . Hence , anekānta means " not of solitary attribute " . 
 The Jain doctrine lays a strong emphasis on <unk> , that is , rationality and logic . According to Jains , the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason . Thus , the Jain texts contain <unk> <unk> on every subject , whether they are constructive or <unk> , <unk> or analytical , enlightening or destructive . 
 
 = = = Jain doctrines of relativity = = = 
 
 Anekāntavāda is one of the three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning . The other two are : 
 syādvāda — the theory of conditioned predication and ; 
 nayavāda — the theory of partial standpoints . 
 These Jain philosophical concepts made important contributions to ancient Indian philosophy , especially in the areas of skepticism and relativity . 
 
 = = = = Syādvāda = = = = 
 
 Syādvāda ( Sanskrit : <unk> ् <unk> ् <unk> ) is the theory of conditioned predication , which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that every phrase or statement be expressed in the <unk> mood ( the equivalent of the <unk> mood in Latin and other Indo @-@ European languages ) , i.e. generally by <unk> each sentence with the verb syāt , the third person singular <unk> of the Sanskrit verb as , " to be " . ( In Sanskrit , syāt becomes syān when followed by an " n " , and syād when followed by a non @-@ nasal voiced <unk> or vowel . ) According to Jain texts , a thing or object of knowledge has infinite characters ( i.e. , it is <unk> ) ; each character can be analysed and grasped individually . Each individual character is called a naya . Jains asserts that a naya reveals only a part of the <unk> , and should not be mistaken for the whole . A synthesis of different viewpoints is said to be achieved by the doctrine of conditional predications ( syādvāda ) wherein every viewpoint is able to retain its relative importance . Highlighting the <unk> of syādvāda , <unk> Samantabhadra asserts : 
 <unk> , when not in conflict with negation , yields the desired result of describing truly an object of knowledge . Only when affirmation and negation are juxtaposed in mutually non @-@ conflicting situation , one is able to decide whether to accept or reject the assertion . This is how the doctrine of conditional predications ( syādvāda ) establishes the truth . ” 
 Syādvāda is not only an extension of anekānta <unk> , but a separate system of logic capable of standing on its own . As reality is complex , no single proposition can express the nature of reality fully . Thus " syāt " should be <unk> before each proposition giving it a conditional point of view and thus removing any <unk> in the statement . Since it ensures that each statement is expressed from seven different conditional and relative viewpoints or propositions , syādvāda is known as <unk> or " the theory of seven conditioned predications " . These saptibhaṅgī are : 
 syād @-@ asti — in some ways , it is , 
 syān @-@ nāsti — in some ways , it is not , 
 syād @-@ asti @-@ nāsti — in some ways , it is , and it is not , 
 syād @-@ asti @-@ avaktavyaḥ — in some ways , it is , and it is indescribable , 
 syān @-@ nāsti @-@ avaktavyaḥ — in some ways , it is not , and it is indescribable , 
 syād @-@ asti @-@ nāsti @-@ avaktavyaḥ — in some ways , it is , it is not , and it is indescribable , 
 syād @-@ avaktavyaḥ — in some ways , it is indescribable . 
 Each of these seven propositions examines the complex and <unk> nature of reality from a relative point of view of time , space , substance and mode . To ignore the complexity of reality is to commit the <unk> of <unk> . 
 The phrase ‘ in a way ’ ( syāt ) declares the standpoint of expression – affirmation with regard to own substance ( dravya ) , place ( kṣetra ) , time ( kāla ) , and being ( bhāva ) , and negation with regard to other substance ( dravya ) , place ( kṣetra ) , time ( kāla ) , and being ( bhāva ) . Thus , for a ‘ jar ’ , in regard to substance ( dravya ) – earthen , it simply is ; wooden , it simply is not . In regard to place ( kṣetra ) – room , it simply is ; terrace , it simply is not . In regard to time ( kāla ) – summer , it simply is ; winter , it simply is not . In regard to being ( bhāva ) – brown , it simply is ; white , it simply is not . And the word ‘ simply ’ has been inserted for the purpose of excluding a sense not approved by the ‘ nuance ’ ; for avoidance of a meaning not intended . The phrase ‘ in a way ’ is used to declare that the ‘ jar ’ exists in regard to its own substance <unk> and not also in regard to other substance etc . 
 According to the Jains , Syādvāda and kevalajñāna ( omniscience ) are the <unk> facts of knowledge . In this regard , <unk> Samantabhadra writes : 
 Syādvāda , the doctrine of conditional predications , and kevalajñāna ( omniscience ) , are both <unk> of the substances of reality . The difference between the two is that while kevalajñāna <unk> directly , syādvāda <unk> indirectly . Anything which is not illuminated or expressed by the two is not a substance of reality and hence a non @-@ substance ( <unk> ) . 
 
 = = = = Nayavāda = = = = 
 
 Nayavāda is the theory of partial standpoints or viewpoints . Nayavāda is a compound of two Sanskrit words — naya ( " reason " or " method " ) and vāda ( " school of thought or thesis " ) . It is used to arrive at a certain inference from a point of view . An object has infinite aspects to it , but when we describe an object in practice , we speak of only relevant aspects and ignore irrelevant ones . This does not deny the other attributes , qualities , modes and other aspects ; they are just irrelevant from a particular perspective . Authors like <unk> Shah explain nayavāda with the example of a car ; for instance , when we talk of a " blue BMW " we are simply considering the color and make of the car . However , our statement does not imply that the car is devoid of other attributes like engine type , cylinders , speed , price and the like . This particular viewpoint is called a naya or a partial viewpoint . As a type of critical philosophy , nayavāda holds that all philosophical disputes arise out of confusion of standpoints , and the standpoints we adopt are , although we may not realise it , " the outcome of purposes that we may pursue " . While operating within the limits of language and seeing the complex nature of reality , Mahāvīra used the language of nayas . <unk> , being a partial expression of truth , enables us to comprehend reality part by part . 
 
 = = = <unk> of changing and unchanging reality = = = 
 
 The age of Mahāvīra and Buddha was one of intense intellectual debates , especially on the nature of reality and self . <unk> thought postulated the absolute unchanging reality of <unk> and <unk> and claimed that change was mere illusion . The theory advanced by Buddhists denied the reality of permanence of conditioned phenomena , asserting only <unk> and impermanence . According to the <unk> ( <unk> ) conceptual scheme , the Buddhists were wrong in denying permanence and absolutism , and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme , the <unk> 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 <unk> and epistemology of anekāntavāda and syādvāda , Jains do not see such claims as contradictory or mutually exclusive ; instead , they are seen as <unk> or only partially true . The Jain breadth of vision <unk> the perspectives of both <unk> 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 ( <unk> ) . 
 This philosophical <unk> of paradox of change through anekānta has been acknowledged by modern scholars such as <unk> Sharma , who wrote : 
 Our experience of the world presents a profound paradox which we can ignore <unk> , but not philosophically . This paradox is the paradox of change . Something – A changes and therefore it cannot be permanent . On the other hand , if A is not permanent , then what changes ? In this debate between the " permanence " and " change " , Hinduism seems more inclined to grasp the first horn of the dilemma and Buddhism the second . It is Jainism that has the philosophical courage to grasp both horns <unk> and simultaneously , and the philosophical skill not to be <unk> by either . 
 However , anekāntavāda is not simply about <unk> or compromise between competing ideas , as it is <unk> about finding the hidden elements of shared truth between such ideas ( such as naturalism — relative to <unk> and sanctuary — although its basis in simplicity may be described with the scientific principle of <unk> 's razor — whereas science is likewise paradoxical in nature — relative to <unk> ) . Anekāntavāda is not about denying the truth ; rather truth is acknowledged as an ultimate spiritual goal . For ordinary humans , it is an elusive goal , but they are still obliged to work towards its attainment . Anekāntavāda also does not mean <unk> or <unk> ones own values and principles . On the contrary , it allows us to understand and be tolerant of conflicting and opposing views , while <unk> maintaining the validity of ones own view @-@ point . Hence , John Koller calls anekāntavāda as – " epistemological respect for view of others " . Anekāntavāda , thus , did not prevent the Jain thinkers from defending the truth and validity of their own doctrine while simultaneously <unk> and understanding the rival doctrines . Anne <unk> notes that the epistemological respect for other viewpoints was put to practice when she was invited by Ācārya Tulsi , the head of the <unk> order , to teach <unk> the tenets of Christianity . Commenting on their adherence to ahiṃsā and anekāntavāda , she says : 
 The Jain <unk> of <unk> <unk> maintain ahiṃsā to be an eternal and <unk> moral law . Other views and beliefs that contradict this belief would certainly be challenged , and ultimately rejected . But what is significant , is that both the rejection and retention of views is tempered by the belief that our perception conveys only a partial reality , that reality itself is <unk> , and that to assume one particular viewpoint is final , is to hold a limited picture of reality . 
 Anekāntavāda is also different from moral relativism . It does not mean <unk> that all arguments and all views are equal , but rather logic and evidence determine which views are true , in what respect and to what extent ( as truth in relativism , itself ) . While employing anekāntavāda , the 17th century philosopher monk , <unk> <unk> also <unk> against <unk> ( indiscriminate attachment to all views as being true ) , which is effectively a kind of <unk> relativism . Jains thus consider anekāntavāda as a positive concept corresponding to religious pluralism that <unk> monism and dualism , implying a sophisticated conception of a complex reality . It does not merely involve rejection of <unk> , but reflects a positive spirit of reconciliation of opposite views . However , it is argued that pluralism often <unk> to some form of moral relativism or religious <unk> . According to Anne <unk> , anekānta is a way out of this epistemological <unk> , as it makes a genuinely <unk> view possible without <unk> into extreme moral relativism or exclusivity . 
 
 = = = Parable of the blind men and elephant = = = 
 
 The ancient Jain texts often explain the concepts of <unk> and syādvāda with the parable of the blind men and an elephant ( <unk> ) , which addresses the <unk> nature of truth . 
 A group of blind men heard that a strange animal , called an elephant , had been brought to the town , but none of them were aware of its shape and form . Out of curiosity , they said : " We must inspect and know it by touch , of which we are capable " . So , they sought it out , and when they found it they <unk> about it . In the case of the first person , whose hand landed on the trunk , said " This being is like a drain pipe " . For another one whose hand reached its ear , it seemed like a kind of fan . As for another person , whose hand was upon its leg , said , " I perceive the shape of the elephant to be like a pillar " . And in the case of the one who placed his hand upon its back said , " Indeed , this elephant is like a throne " . Now , each of these presented a true aspect when he related what he had gained from experiencing the elephant . None of them had <unk> from the true description of the elephant . Yet they fell short of <unk> the true appearance of the elephant . 
 Two of the many references to this parable are found in <unk> of <unk> ( 9th century ) and <unk> of Ācārya Mallisena ( 13th century ) . Mallisena uses the parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth ; <unk> by the aspects they do understand , they deny the aspects they don 't understand . " Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint , the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another . This is the <unk> of the blind ( men ) and the elephant . " Mallisena also cites the parable when noting the importance of considering all viewpoints in obtaining a full picture of reality . " It is impossible to properly understand an entity consisting of infinite properties without the method of modal description consisting of all viewpoints , since it will otherwise lead to a situation of seizing mere <unk> ( i.e. , a superficial , inadequate cognition ) , on the <unk> of the blind ( men ) and the elephant . " 
 
 = = History and development = = 
 
 The principle of anekāntavāda is the foundation of many Jain philosophical concepts . The development of anekāntavāda also encouraged the development of the <unk> of syādvāda ( conditioned viewpoints ) , saptibhaṅgī ( the seven conditioned predication ) , and nayavāda ( partial viewpoints ) . 
 
 = = = Origins = = = 
 
 The origins of anekāntavāda lie in the teachings of Mahāvīra , who used it effectively to show the relativity of truth and reality . Taking a <unk> viewpoint , Mahāvīra is said to have explained the nature of the soul as both permanent , from the point of view of underlying substance , and temporary , from the point of view of its modes and modification . The importance and antiquity of anekāntavāda are also demonstrated by the fact that it formed the subject matter of <unk> <unk> , the fourth part of the lost <unk> that contained teachings of the <unk> prior to Mahāvīra . German <unk> Hermann Jacobi believes Mahāvīra effectively employed the <unk> of anekāntavāda to refute the <unk> of Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta . <unk> , the second oldest canon of Jainism , contains the first references to syādvāda and saptibhaṅgī . According to <unk> , Mahāvīra advised his disciples to use syādvāda to preach his teachings : 
 A monk living single should not <unk> <unk> doctrines , and should avoid hard words though they be true ; he should not be vain , nor <unk> , but he should without embarrassment and passion preach the Law . A monk should be modest , though he be of a fearless mind ; he should expound the syādvāda , he should use the two permitted kinds of speech , living among <unk> men , impartial and wise . 
 
 = = = Early history = = = 
 
 The early Jain canons and teachings contained <unk> of references to anekāntavāda and syādvāda in rudimentary form without giving it proper structure or establishing it as a separate doctrine . <unk> text , <unk> contains references to <unk> , which , according to Hermann Jacobi , is the same as syādvāda and saptibhaṅgī . <unk> mentions only three primary predications of the <unk> . After Mahāvīra , <unk> ( 1st century CE ) was the first author – saint to expound on the doctrine of syādvāda and saptibhaṅgī and give it a proper structure in his famous works <unk> and <unk> . <unk> also used nayas to discuss the essence of the self in <unk> . <unk> classification of the nayas was provided by the philosopher monk , <unk> ( 2nd century CE ) in <unk> . Samantabhadra ( 2nd century CE ) and <unk> Divākara ( 3rd century CE ) further fine @-@ tuned Jain epistemology and logic by <unk> on the concepts of anekāntavāda in proper form and structure . 
 Ācārya <unk> Divākara <unk> on the nature of truth in the court of King Vikramāditya : 
 Vikramāditya : What is ' truth ' ? That which is said repeatedly , that which is said loudly , that which is said with authority or that which is agreed by the majority ? 
 Divākara : None of the above . Every one has his own definition of ' truth ' and that it is conditional . 
 Vikramāditya : How about traditions ? They have been established by our ancestors and have passed the test of time ? 
 Divākara : Would the system established by ancestors hold true on examination ? In case it does not , I am not here to justify it for the sake of saving the traditional grace of the dead , irrespective of the wrath I may have to face . 
 In <unk> , Divākara further adds : " All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres — but if they <unk> upon the province of other doctrines and try to refute their view , they are wrong . A man who holds the view of the cumulative character of truth never says that a particular view is right or that a particular view is wrong . " 
 
 = = = Age of logic = = = 
 
 The period beginning with the start of common era , up to the modern period is often referred to as the age of logic in the history of Jain philosophy . By the time of <unk> ( 5th century CE ) , whose works are a landmark in Jain logic , anekāntavāda was firmly entrenched in Jain texts , as is evident from the various teachings of the Jain scriptures . 
 Ācārya <unk> ( 8th century CE ) was one of the leading proponents of anekāntavāda . He was the first classical author to write a <unk> , a compendium of a variety of intellectual views . This attempted to <unk> Jain thoughts within the broad framework , rather than <unk> narrow partisan views . It interacted with the many possible intellectual orientations available to Indian thinkers around the 8th century . 
 Ācārya <unk> starts his famous 10th century CE work <unk> with strong praise for anekāntavāda : " I bow down to the principle of anekānta , the source and foundation of the highest scriptures , the <unk> of wrong one @-@ sided notions , that which takes into account all aspects of truth , <unk> diverse and even contradictory traits of all objects or entity . " 
 Ācārya <unk> ( 11th century CE ) provides the analogy of the ocean to explain the nature of truth in <unk> , 116 : " Water from the ocean contained in a pot can neither be called an ocean nor a non @-@ ocean , but simply a part of ocean . Similarly , a doctrine , though arising from absolute truth can neither be called a whole truth nor a non @-@ truth . " 
 <unk> <unk> , a 17th @-@ century Jain monk , went beyond anekāntavāda by advocating <unk> , meaning " standing in the middle " or " <unk> " . This position allowed him to praise qualities in others even though the people were non @-@ Jain and belonged to other faiths . There was a period of stagnation after <unk> , as there were no new contributions to the development of Jain philosophy . 
 
 = = = Role in ensuring the survival of Jainism = = = 
 
 Anekāntavāda played a pivotal role in the growth as well as the survival of Jainism in ancient India , especially against <unk> from <unk> , <unk> , Buddhists , Muslims , and Christians at various times . According to Hermann Jacobi , Mahāvīra used such concepts as syādvāda and <unk> to silence some of his opponents . The discussions of the <unk> led by Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta had probably influenced many of their contemporaries and consequently syādvāda may have seemed to them a way out of <unk> . Jacobi further speculates that many of their followers would have gone over to Mahāvīra 's <unk> , convinced of the truth of the <unk> . According to Professor Christopher Key <unk> , anekāntavāda allowed Jains to survive during the most hostile and <unk> moments in history . According to John Koller , professor of Asian studies , anekāntavāda allowed Jain thinkers to maintain the validity of their doctrine , while at the same time <unk> criticizing the views of their opponents . 
 Anekāntavāda was often used by Jain monks to obtain royal patronage from Hindu Kings . Ācārya Hemacandra used anekāntavāda to gain the confidence and respect of the <unk> Emperor <unk> <unk> . According to the Jain text <unk> , Emperor <unk> desired enlightenment and liberation and he questioned teachers from various traditions . He remained in a quandary when he discovered that they all promoted their own teachings while disparaging other teachings . Among the teachers he questioned was Hemacandra , who , rather than promote Jainism , told him a story with a different message . According to his story , a sick man was cured of his disease after eating all the herbs available , as he was not aware which herb was <unk> . The moral of the tale , according to Hemacandra , was that just as the man was restored by the herb , even though no one knew which particular herb did the trick , so in the <unk> ( " age of vice " ) the wise should obtain salvation by supporting all religious traditions , even though no @-@ one can say with absolute certainty which tradition it is that provides that salvation . 
 
 = = Influence = = 
 
 Jain religious tolerance fits well with the ecumenical disposition typical of Indian religions . It can be traced to the analogous Jain principles of anekāntavāda and ahiṃsā . The epistemology of anekāntavāda and syādvāda also had a profound impact on the development of ancient Indian logic and philosophy . In recent times , Jainism influenced Gandhi , who advocated ahiṃsā and <unk> . 
 
 = = = <unk> <unk> and religious tolerance = = = 
 
 The concepts of anekāntavāda and syādvāda allow Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their own perspective and thus <unk> tolerance for other viewpoints . Anekāntavāda is non @-@ absolutist and stands firmly against all <unk> , including any assertion that Jainism is the only correct religious path . It is thus an intellectual ahiṃsā , or ahiṃsā of the mind . <unk> writes , " Jain logic is intellectual ahiṃsā . Just as a right @-@ acting person respects the life of all beings , so a right @-@ thinking person acknowledges the validity of all <unk> . This means recognizing all aspects of reality , not merely one or some aspects , as is done in non @-@ Jain philosophies . " 
 Mahāvīra encouraged his followers to study and understand rival traditions in his <unk> Sutra : " <unk> one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one . " 
 In anekāntavāda , there is no " battle of ideas " , because this is considered to be a form of intellectual <unk> or violence , leading quite <unk> to physical violence and war . In today 's world , the limitations of the <unk> , " either with us or against us " form of argument are increasingly apparent by the fact that the argument leads to political , religious and social conflicts . <unk> , the second oldest canon of Jainism , provides a solution by stating : " Those who praise their own doctrines and ideology and <unk> the doctrine of others <unk> the truth and will be confined to the cycle of birth and death . " 
 This ecumenical and <unk> attitude , engendered by anekāntavāda , allowed modern Jain monks such as <unk> to declare : " I am neither a Jain nor a Buddhist , a <unk> nor a <unk> , a Hindu nor a Muslim , but a traveler on the path of peace shown by the supreme soul , the God who is free from passion . " 
 
 = = = = Contemporary role and influence = = = = 
 
 Some modern authors believe that Jain philosophy in general and anekāntavāda in particular can provide a solution to many problems facing the world . They claim that even the mounting ecological crisis is linked to <unk> , because it arises from a false division between humanity and " the rest " of nature . Modern judicial systems , democracy , freedom of speech , and <unk> all implicitly reflect an attitude of anekāntavāda . Many authors , such as <unk> Jain , have claimed that the Jain tradition , with its emphasis on <unk> and anekāntavāda , is capable of solving religious intolerance , terrorism , wars , the depletion of natural resources , environmental degradation and many other problems . Referring to the September 11 attacks , John Koller believes that violence in society mainly exists due to faulty epistemology and <unk> as well as faulty ethics . A failure to respect the life and views of others , rooted in <unk> and mistaken knowledge and refusal to acknowledge the legitimate claims of different perspectives , leads to violent and destructive behaviour . Koller suggests that anekāntavāda has a larger role to play in the world peace . According to Koller , because anekāntavāda is designed to avoid one @-@ sided errors , reconcile contradictory viewpoints , and accept the multiplicity and relativity of truth , the Jain philosophy is in a unique position to support dialogue and negotiations amongst various nations and peoples . 
 Some <unk> like Professor John <unk> have cautioned against giving undue importance to " intellectual ahiṃsā " as the basis of anekāntavāda . He points out that Jain monks have also used anekāntavāda and syādvāda as debating weapons to silence their critics and prove the validity of the Jain doctrine over others . According to <unk> , in Jain hands , this method of analysis became a <unk> weapon of philosophical <unk> with which the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism could be <unk> down to their ideological bases of simple permanence and impermanence , respectively , and thus could be shown to be one @-@ pointed and inadequate as the overall interpretations of reality they purported to be . On the other hand , the many @-@ sided approach was claimed by the Jains to be immune from criticism since it did not present itself as a philosophical or <unk> view . 
 
 = = = Influence on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi = = = 
 
 Since childhood , Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was exposed to the actual practice of non @-@ violence , non @-@ possession and anekāntavāda by his mother . According to biographers like <unk> <unk> , <unk> Gandhi , and Stephen Hay , these early childhood impressions and experiences contributed to the formation of Gandhi 's character and his further moral and spiritual development . In his writings , Mahatma Gandhi attributed his seemingly contradictory positions over a period of time to the learning process , experiments with truth and his belief in anekāntavāda . He proclaimed that the duty of every individual is to determine what is personally true and act on that relative perception of truth . According to Gandhi , a <unk> is duty bound to act according to his relative truth , but at the same time , he is also equally bound to learn from truth held by his opponent . In response to a friend 's query on religious tolerance , he responded in the journal " Young India – 21 Jan 1926 " : 
 I am an <unk> and yet I can support <unk> ( dualism ) . The world is changing every moment , and is therefore <unk> , it has no permanent existence . But though it is constantly changing , it has a something about it which persists and it is therefore to that extent real . I have therefore no <unk> to calling it real and <unk> , and thus being called an <unk> or a <unk> . But my Syādvāda is not the Syādvāda of the learned , it is <unk> my own . I cannot engage in a debate with them . It has been my experience that I am always true from my point of view , and am often wrong from the point of view of my honest critics . I know that we are both right from our respective points of view . And this knowledge saves me from attributing motives to my opponents or critics . The seven blind men who gave seven different descriptions of the elephant were all right from their respective points of view , and wrong from the point of view of one another , and right and wrong from the point of view of the man who knew the elephant . I very much like this doctrine of the <unk> of reality . It is this doctrine that has taught me to judge a <unk> from his standpoint and a Christian from his . <unk> I used to resent the ignorance of my opponents . Today I can love them because I am gifted with the eye to see myself as others see me and vice versa . I want to take the whole world in the embrace of my love . My Anekāntavāda is the result of the twin doctrine of <unk> and ahiṃsā . 
 
 = = Criticism = = 
 
 The doctrines of anekāntavāda and <unk> are often criticised on the grounds that they engender a degree of <unk> and uncertainty , and may compound problems rather than solve them . It is also pointed out that Jain epistemology asserts its own doctrines , but at the cost of being unable to deny contradictory doctrines . Furthermore , it is also argued that this doctrine could be self @-@ defeating . It is argued that if reality is so complex that no single doctrine can describe it adequately , then anekāntavāda itself , being a single doctrine , must be inadequate . This criticism seems to have been anticipated by Ācārya Samantabhadra who said : " From the point of view of <unk> ( means of knowledge ) it is anekānta ( multi @-@ sided ) , but from a point of view of naya ( partial view ) it is <unk> ( one @-@ sided ) . " 
 In defense of the doctrine , Jains point out that anekāntavāda seeks to reconcile apparently opposing viewpoints rather than <unk> them . 
 Anekāntavāda received much criticism from the <unk> , notably Adi <unk> ( 9th century <unk> ) . Sankara argued against some tenets of Jainism in his <unk> on <unk> ( 2 : 2 : 33 – 36 ) . His main arguments centre on anekāntavāda : 
 It is impossible that contradictory attributes such as being and non @-@ being should at the same time belong to one and the same thing ; just as observation teaches us that a thing cannot be hot and cold at the same moment . The third alternative expressed in the words — they either are such or not such — results in cognition of indefinite nature , which is no more a source of true knowledge than doubt is . Thus the means of knowledge , the object of knowledge , the knowing subject , and the act of knowledge become all alike indefinite . How can his followers act on a doctrine , the matter of which is altogether indeterminate ? The result of your efforts is perfect knowledge and is not perfect knowledge . Observation shows that , only when a course of action is known to have a definite result , people set about it without <unk> . Hence a man who <unk> a doctrine of altogether indefinite contents does not deserve to be listened any more than a drunken or a mad man . 
 However , many believe that Sankara fails to address genuine anekāntavāda . By identifying <unk> with <unk> , he instead addresses " <unk> " , which was argued by Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta . Many authors like <unk> 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 . 
 Another Buddhist <unk> <unk> ridiculed anekāntavāda in <unk> : " With the differentiation removed , all things have dual nature . Then , if somebody is <unk> to eat curd , then why he does not eat camel ? " The <unk> is obvious ; if curd exists from the nature of curd and does not exist from the nature of a camel , then one is justified in eating camel , as by eating camel , he is merely eating the negation of curd . Ācārya <unk> , while agreeing that <unk> may be right from one viewpoint , took it upon himself to issue a <unk> : 
 The person who <unk> without understanding the <unk> <unk> view is acting like a <unk> and not a critic . The Buddha was born a deer and the deer was born as Buddha ; but Buddha is adorable and deer is only a food . Similarly , due to the strength of an entity , with its differences and similarities specified , nobody would eat camel if <unk> to eat curd . 
 
 