I’ll stay only with the Jain side of the questions and keep each point clear and brief.

---

1. “Relativism KO”: Is anekāntavāda self‑defeating?

What anekāntavāda actually says

Anekāntavāda does not say: “All views are equally true” or “Every claim is only partial, including this one.” It says, very specifically:

• Reality has infinitely many aspects.
• Any single statement about a complex thing is true only from a particular standpoint (naya).
• Some standpoints are closer to the real nature of things; some are wrong or harmful. ( jainknowledge.com)

So it is not pure relativism; it is non‑absolutism with a claim to be objectively correct about how language and knowledge work.

Is anekāntavāda itself “just partial”?

From a Jain view:

• Anekāntavāda is a description of how finite minds grasp complex reality.
• The doctrine itself is treated as closer to truth because:

- it accounts for change vs permanence (e.g., clay pot: substance vs modes), - it reduces dogmatic violence (verbal, mental, and physical), - it matches our experience that different descriptions can all be valid from different angles. ( jainknowledge.com)

So, yes, our understanding of anekāntavāda is limited; but the principle of many‑sidedness is held as objectively valid, just like “karma exists” or “souls exist” are held as valid. It is not “anything goes,” and it is not logically self‑destructive.

Why prefer it over a strict exclusivist claim? (Jain standpoint only)

From Jain Dharma:

• An absolutist claim that “only this one proposition / person / path is true and all others are simply false” is seen as ekānta (one‑sided) and as a source of himsā (violence of views).
• A view that:

- affirms moral absolutes like ahimsā, truthfulness, non‑stealing, restraint, and non‑attachment, and - allows multiple valid expressions of these principles through various enlightened beings and cultures is considered closer to the way reality actually is.

So a Jain does not “weigh” anekāntavāda against Christian historical arguments; they simply say: the structure of truth itself is many‑sided, and any doctrine that denies that is incomplete.

---

2. “Science Hammer”: Eternal universe vs Big Bang

What Jainism teaches

• The Jain universe (loka) is beginningless and endless; no creation event, no creator.
• Time is cyclical with rising (utsarpiṇī) and falling (avasarpiṇī) phases without first or last cycle. ( jainknowledge.com)

What modern physics says (very briefly)

• Our observable universe appears to have expanded from a hot dense state ~13.8 billion years ago (Big Bang model).
• This describes the history of our cosmic phase backward to a point where current physics breaks down.

How a Jain can relate them (without dismissing science)

From a Jain perspective:

1. Different levels of description

- Science describes empirical, measurable phenomena within a specific domain (this observable cosmos). - Jain cosmology describes an eternal framework of souls, matter, space, time, motion, rest, etc., which are beginningless by definition.

1. Possible reconciliation (Jain way of speaking)

A Jain might say, using anekāntavāda: - From the scientific standpoint: this observable expansion phase has a finite age (~13.8 billion years). - From the metaphysical standpoint: the underlying substances (soul, matter, space, time) have no absolute beginning; Big‑Bang‑like events are just one kind of transformation within an endless series. ( jainknowledge.com)

1. No need to reject data

Jains are not required to say “Big Bang is false.” They can say: - The measurements are correct for this cycle/region. - But they do not describe an absolute beginning of all existence; they describe the history of one stretch of changing modes in an eternal cosmos.

So Jain cosmology is more “Big Bang + something before and after and beyond,” rather than a hard denial of the observed expansion.

---

3. “Moksha Reality Check”: No recent moksha vs “millions liberated now”

What moksha means in Jainism

• Total destruction of all karmas.
• Kevala‑jñāna (omniscience) while embodied, then after death rising to Siddha‑śilā, never to return. ( jainknowledge.com)

This is an extremely strict standard: not just a moral conversion, but the soul’s final, perfect state.

Why no “verified” cases in 2,500 years?

From a Jain explanation:

1. Time‑cycle position

- According to Jain time‑cycles, we are in a spiritually declining half (avasarpiṇī). - The period in which Tirthankaras appear and many attain moksha has passed for our region of the cosmos. Now only rare, very advanced beings might attain it, and they would not be public figures. ( jainknowledge.com)

1. Evidential standard is very high

- To call someone a Siddha or Kevali is not based on social reputation or personal testimony alone, but on: - complete destruction of passions, - omniscience, - and conduct matching the highest vows. - Modern people’s inner states and karmic levels are not publicly testable in this way.

1. Inner change vs. final liberation

- Jainism fully accepts that many people change their lives for the better—less anger, less greed, more compassion. - But that is called spiritual progress, not moksha. - So Jains would say: many are improving; very, very few are finishing the journey in this dark era.

The “discrepancy” arises mainly from different definitions and proof‑standards of liberation, not from Jainism denying that hearts can be transformed.

---

4. “Evil Test”: Genocide and defensive force vs ahimsā

Basic principle

• Ahimsā is the highest dharma: avoid harm in thought, word, and deed as far as possible. ( jainknowledge.com)

In an extreme case like genocide

Jain ethics distinguishes:

• Ideal of the monk / nun (mahāvrata):

- Absolute non‑violence, even at cost of one’s own life. - They do not bear arms or use physical force.

• Householder (anuvrata):

- Bound by limited vows; expected to protect family and society as far as possible, while minimizing harm.

From a Jain standpoint for a householder:

1. Passive “trust in karma” alone is not the teaching

- Karma is not an excuse to watch violence silently. - Allowing preventable slaughter, out of laziness or indifference, itself binds heavy karma.

1. Least‑harm principle

- If there is a realistic way to stop a killer with very minimal physical force (holding, blocking, disarming, restraining) and thus save many lives, that is less himsā than letting mass murder continue. ( jainknowledge.com) - Any force should be: - purely defensive, - without hatred, - aimed at stopping harm, not punishing or taking revenge.

1. Afterward: repentance and purification

- Even necessary harm is treated seriously. - One should do pratikraman (repentance), cultivate forgiveness, and resolve to avoid violent situations where possible.

So, for a Jain householder, compassionate intervention with the least required force can be compatible with ahimsā. For a monk, the ideal remains complete non‑violence, accepting martyrdom rather than harming.

The episode of Jesus using a whip is outside Jain scripture; from a Jain view, the key test is always: Did this action reduce total violence and passions, or increase them?

---

5. “Evidence Gap”: Non‑Jain sources for Mahavira vs Roman sources for Jesus

From a strict Jain angle:

1. Historical vs spiritual validation

• Jain Dharma does not base Mahavira’s authority mainly on external historians, but on:

- the preserved Jain canon and commentaries, - the coherence of doctrine (karma, ahimsā, vows, cosmology), - and the spiritual fruits of practice (inner peace, reduced passions, ethical life). ( jainknowledge.com)

1. Ancient non‑Jain references

• Jainism is an Indian śramaṇa tradition.
• Mentions of Jains and Nigaṇṭhas appear in early Buddhist texts (e.g., “Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta,” generally identified with Mahavira), but these are not Jain texts themselves.
• Greek or Persian writers paid more attention to broader Indian groups (“gymnosophists,” etc.) than to individual teachers. Direct, detailed foreign biographies of Mahavira do not exist the way Roman texts later mention Jesus.

From a Jain perspective:

• The absence of rich Greco‑Roman style documentation in 6th–5th century BCE India is not surprising; the literary cultures and political contexts were very different from 1st‑century Roman Palestine.
• Spiritual truth is not equated with the volume of external documentary testimony. A doctrine can be well‑attested historically and still, in Jain eyes, be metaphysically one‑sided (e.g., insisting on eternal creator‑God, or single‑path exclusivism).

Thus, a Jain would say:

• Yes, our external, non‑Jain documentation for Mahavira is thinner than Roman records about Jesus.
• But historical record‑density is not the deciding test for the truth of teachings on karma, non‑violence, many‑sidedness, or liberation. The test is consistency with reality as understood through right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct.

---

For further simple reading (Jain side)

You can see short, clear explanations of:

• Anekāntavāda and basic principles of Jainism
• Meaning of anekāntavāda
• Eternal, uncreated universe in Jain cosmology
• Death, rebirth, and moksha
• Ahimsā and handling physical harm