01The elephant in the room
You probably know the parable. Six blind men meet an elephant. One grabs the trunk: 'it's a snake.' One touches a leg: 'a tree.' One feels an ear: 'a fan.' They argue furiously, and each is partly right.
That story is often attributed to Buddhism or to Indian wisdom in general, but it sits at the heart of Jain philosophy, where it illustrates a doctrine called anekantavada: 'non-one-sidedness'.
02What it actually claims
Reality is complex and has infinite aspects. Any single viewpoint, including yours and including expert views, grasps only some of them. So every claim is true from a certain standpoint (a naya), and should be held with that awareness.
Jain logicians built a whole formal system on this, called syadvada, the logic of 'in some respect'. Its sevenfold predication says any statement can be true, false, both, inexpressible, or a combination, depending on how you look at it. It was an early, sophisticated attempt at a logic that doesn't flatten complexity.
03Why it's not 'everyone's opinion is valid'
This is the part people get wrong. Anekantavada is not relativism. Jain thinkers held firm positions: non-violence is right, the soul is real, karma works a certain way. They argued hard against rival schools.
The doctrine is a method, not a shrug. Before you reject a claim, ask from which standpoint it's true. What is this person seeing that I'm not? You still get to conclude they're wrong. But you have to earn it.
Jain teachers also saw it as a form of non-violence, ahimsa of the mind. Insisting that only your view is true, and treating people who disagree as idiots or enemies, is a kind of intellectual aggression. Anekantavada is the antidote.
04Anekantavada on the timeline
Picture your feed with this installed. A hot take arrives. Instead of quote-tweeting, you ask: what experience would make someone believe this? What fear is underneath it? What's the 20% they're right about?
That's basically steelmanning, the practice of stating the strongest version of your opponent's argument before responding. Jainism formalised it about two millennia before the term existed.
Where the comparison breaks
- ✕Modern 'many truths' talk can slide into 'my truth vs your truth', where nothing can be checked. Anekantavada assumes there is one reality. It's just bigger than any viewpoint.
- ✕Critics, including ancient Buddhist and Hindu philosophers, asked a sharp question: is anekantavada itself only partly true? Jain philosophers had answers (it too is held from a standpoint), and the debate is still fun.
Next time you disagree with someone, write down one thing they're right about before you respond. Out loud or in your head, it counts either way.
What's a belief you hold so firmly that you've never tried to see it from the other side? What would happen if you did?