I’ll take your points one by one from a Jain-darshan (philosophical) standpoint, keeping it as clear and non-technical as possible.

---

1. Plants, microbes, ahimsa and “where to draw the line”

a) Jain view: every living being has jīva, but not all harm is equal

Jainism says:

• Microbes, plants, insects, animals, humans – all have jīva (soul).
• But they differ in sense capacity and inner development:

- 1-sensed (plants), - up to 5-sensed (animals, humans) with mind.

Violence (hiṁsā) is graded by:

1. How many senses are harmed (more senses = heavier karma).
2. Intention – hatred, greed, cruelty make karma far heavier.
3. Necessity – violence for survival vs. violence for pleasure, greed, etc.

So:

• Deliberate, cruel killing of a cow or a chicken is far heavier karma than carefully plucking a few leaves to eat.
• Crushing microbes while breathing or even walking is inevitable; karmically lighter again.

b) Why Jains still eat plants

For monks:

• They minimize even plant violence: no root vegetables, no cutting plants from the ground, food taken once a day, only what is given, etc.

For laypeople:

• You cannot live without harming some beings (microbes, plants).
• So Jain ethics says: choose the path of minimum necessary violence.

- Vegetarian (ideally vegan) instead of meat. - Avoid roots (onion, garlic, potato) if possible. - Cook/consume with care, not waste. - Avoid professions that cause mass killing.

So eating plants is hiṁsā, but:

• It is lesser, necessary hiṁsā for survival,
• Practiced with awareness, restraint, and repentance (pratikraman).

This is not hypocrisy; it’s an honest admission that embodied life involves some harm, and the dharma is to reduce and refine it step by step.

You can read more on how Jains handle violence in livelihood here

---

2. If attacked: self-defense, family defense, calling police

Core principle: ahimsa never says, “Offer yourself or your family to be slaughtered.” It says, “Avoid unnecessary and hate-driven violence; use the least violence needed, and prefer nonviolent means whenever genuinely possible.”

Jain distinction:

• Dravya-hiṁsā: the physical act of harm.
• Bhāva-hiṁsā: the inner state – anger, hate, revenge.

Bhāva-hiṁsā is more binding karmically.

a) Can a Jain defend themselves?

For monks (ideal renouncers):

• The ideal is complete non-resistance – they accept death if it comes.
• They do not carry weapons, do not call for violent help; they rely on inner purity and acceptance.
• This is an extremely high ideal, not demanded of ordinary people.

For lay Jains (householders):

• Preserving life (their own and others’) is also a duty.
• Ethic: if you must use force:

- Use minimum force required to stop the attack, - With no revenge, no hatred, - Better: escape, call others, call police, restrain non-lethally, etc.

Calling police is not considered a sin in itself; society needs some protective structure. The Jain concern is:

• Not to relish punishment or cruelty,
• To favor rehabilitation, fairness, and minimal harm.

You can see a related discussion here

b) “What if the attacker is about to slaughter your family?”

For a householder, Jains would say roughly:

• You have a responsibility to protect them.
• Use every nonviolent / less violent option first (escape, alarm, restraint, many-vs-one overpowering without killing if possible).
• If absolutely nothing else is possible and lethal force is the only way to stop mass killing, then from a Jain perspective:

- The act still generates karma, - But it is less than a cold-blooded, intentional murder for gain. - You accept responsibility, do pratikraman (repentance), and try to purify yourself.

Jainism does not offer a Hollywood-style heroic justification; it keeps the moral cost honest: even “necessary” killing is still killing and binds karma, but motivation and restraint matter greatly.

---

3. Anekāntavāda: Is “genocide good” ever partially true?

Anekāntavāda (many-sidedness) is often misunderstood as “truth is relative” or “every opinion is partly right.” That is not the Jain position.

What it really says:

• Reality is complex; any one statement usually captures only a part of it.
• We must speak with humility: “From this standpoint (syāt), it is like this.”
• We avoid dogmatism and anger toward others’ views.

But:

• Jainism still holds there is objective moral order.
• Violence driven by hatred, greed, domination is intrinsically pāpa (sinful, demerit).
• Compassion, restraint, and self-control are intrinsically puṇya (merit) and steps toward liberation.

So for your example:

> Nazis: “Genocide is good.” > Victims: “Genocide is evil.”

From a Jain view:

• The proposition “Genocide is good” is false as dharma, because:

- It is massive intentional hiṁsā, - Driven by passions (krodha, māna, māyā, lobha – anger, pride, deceit, greed), - It heavily binds soul in darkness.

Anekāntavāda would only say:

• “From the Nazi’s deluded perspective, soaked in hatred and ignorance, they believe it is good, but their standpoint is mithyādṛṣṭi (wrong vision).”
• We can understand how they see, without accepting it as valid or partly true morally.

So yes, within Jainism you can absolutely condemn child rape, genocide, torture, etc., as heavy hiṁsā and grave bondage of karma. Anekāntavāda is about intellectual humility and avoiding fanaticism, not about moral nihilism.

---

4. Eternal universe vs. thermodynamics and “heat death”

Jain cosmology is very old and stands on its own frame:

• Universe (lokākāśa) is beginningless and endless.
• Matter, souls, space, time, motion and rest: all are eternal substances with changing modes.
• No creator, no first moment.

Cycles:

• The universe goes through endless cycles of utsarpiṇī (ascending – happiness, strength increasing) and avasarpiṇī (descending – decline, more sorrow).
• No final “end state”; cycles repeat forever.

How does this relate to modern thermodynamic heat death?

• Classical Jain texts don’t use entropy language at all.
• They describe a cyclic dynamic balance: in some eras, beings are stronger, more mentally and physically powerful; in others, weaker.
• There is no one-time run-down to a permanent “frozen” state.

From a purely Jain standpoint:

• Science describes one level of reality (observable physical processes),
• Jain cosmology describes another, larger cyclic framework.
• Where there is conflict, a traditional Jain stays with śruta-jñāna (scriptural knowledge) as higher authority and reads current science as partial, revisable understanding of one era and one region.

So Jainism does accept “no first cause, infinite regress of cycles,” and considers that not a problem but a fundamental nature of reality. The link with modern entropy is not solved within the tradition; they are two different explanatory lenses.

---

5. “Jain nation”: meat, leather, cars, borders, ISIS-type threats

This is partly speculative, but we can still use Jain principles.

a) Meat, leather, etc.

If a state were explicitly guided by Jain ethics:

• It would strongly discourage or legally restrict:

- Slaughterhouses, hunting, meat trade. - Highly exploitative animal industries (fur, some leather, etc.).

• It would encourage:

- Vegetarian / vegan diets, - Alternatives to leather (fabric, synthetic, plant-based), - Animal shelters and protection.

But Jainism also recognizes gradualism and capacity (deśa-virati for laypeople – partial restraint). A realistic Jain-influenced society would likely:

• Move stepwise: education → social pressure → legal constraints.
• Focus first on gross, large-scale violence (meat industry), then finer issues.

Cars and insect deaths:

• Jainism already knows that even walking kills microbes.
• A Jain state would emphasize:

- Reducing unnecessary travel, fossil fuel use, pollution (which indirectly kills many beings). - Better public transport, safer driving.

• It is unlikely to outright ban all cars; rather, it would see them as a necessary but regrettable source of hiṁsā, to be minimized and used mindfully (a bit like plants for food).

b) Defense, borders, invaders

Scripturally, the monk ideal is non-violence even if killed. But a state run by householders cannot function on pure monastic rules.

Traditional Jain approach:

• Jains historically have:

- Served as merchants, administrators, even occasionally in armies, - While personally avoiding direct killing where possible.

• The rule for householders and kings (as seen in Jain narratives) is:

- Maintain order and protection, - Avoid aggression and expansionism, - Use least violence needed to protect innocents.

So against something like ISIS:

• A Jain-inspired state cannot simply say, “Let them kill us all.”
• It would:

- Try all diplomatic, economic, educational means first. - If these fail and mass slaughter is occurring, defensive force may be used: - As a sad duty, not a source of pride, - Under strict rules: no unnecessary cruelty, protect non-combatants, seek peace quickly.

From a karmic angle:

• Even defensive war binds karma, especially if done with hatred.
• But karma is graded; defending innocents with reluctance and compassion is seen as far less harmful than aggressive war for power.

“Pure pacifism” in the monastic sense is sustainable only for monks, not for a complex state. Jainism quietly accepts this difference between ideal (sādhu-dharma) and practical lay conduct (śrāvaka-dharma / rāja-dharma), while still urging everyone to move closer to ahimsa over time.

---

In summary

• Jainism does not pretend we can live with zero violence; it asks for minimum necessary violence, with awareness and remorse, and total non-violence only for those who renounce the world fully.
• Anekāntavāda is about intellectual humility, not moral relativism; extreme cruelty is clearly condemned.
• The cosmology is explicitly eternal and cyclical; it does not try to match modern entropy theory.
• In personal and political life, there is a constant tension between protection and non-violence; Jainism resolves it not by perfection, but by grading, limiting, and purifying whatever violence still occurs.

For a concise overview of Jain vows and ahimsa you may find this helpful