I’ll take your five points one by one, only from a Jain perspective.

---

1. “Relativism trap” – Is anekāntavāda itself partial?

What anekāntavāda really says

• Anekāntavāda = “non‑one‑sidedness.”

It does not say “every view is equally true.” It says: - Reality has infinite aspects. - Our human statements capture only some aspects. - So every statement must be qualified: “from this standpoint,” “in this respect.”

In Jainism, only a kevalī (omniscient) knows the whole, absolutely. All others (you, me, philosophers, scientists, Acharyas) know partially. ( jainknowledge.com)

You can read a simple explanation of anekāntavāda here

Is anekāntavāda itself relative?

• Anekāntavāda is a rule about our limited knowing and speaking.
• From the Jain side:

- At the ultimate level (niscaya naya), the nature of soul, karma, liberation, etc. is fixed, not “maybe yes, maybe no.” - At the practical level (vyavahāra naya), every statement we make about those truths is partial and needs conditions.

So:

• The truth itself (tattva) is not many-sided or relative.
• Our descriptions are many-sided and limited.

That is not self‑contradiction; it is humility about human knowledge.

Why trust this over an absolute “I alone am the way”?

Jain Dharma does not ask blind faith in a sentence. It suggests:

1. Use reason:

- One‑sided absolutism (“only my prophet, only my book, only my church”) easily creates violence and intolerance. - Anekāntavāda directly guards against that mental violence.

1. Use experience:

- Practice ahimsā, aparigraha, self‑discipline, meditation. - See whether anger, fear and greed actually reduce; whether inner peace, compassion and clarity actually increase.

1. Use gradual trust (śraddhā):

- Begin with respectful openness, not total surrender. - As practice works, trust in the Jain path naturally deepens.

Jainism allows that others (including Jesus) can be great spiritual teachers. What it does not accept is the exclusive claim: “only this one person, only through this one door.” That, for Jain thinkers, is an example of ekāntavāda (one‑sidedness) which anekāntavāda warns against.

---

2. “Science clash” – Eternal cosmos vs. Big Bang

What Jain cosmology actually says

• World (loka), matter (pudgala), souls (jīva), space (ākāśa), time (kāla), dharma/adharma (motion‑rest media) are beginningless and endless.
• There is no first creation event, no creator God.
• Within this eternal framework, there are endless cycles of rise and fall (utsarpiṇī / avasarpiṇī). ( jainknowledge.com)

How does this relate to the Big Bang?

• Big Bang theory says:

- Our current observable universe has been expanding for ~13.8 billion years. - It describes what happens from a hot dense state onward. - It does not (in strict physics) explain “why anything exists at all,” nor an absolute first beginning of being itself.

Jain view fits like this:

1. Different levels:

- Physics describes measurable events and structures. - Jain cosmology describes an eternal “stage” (loka), with repeated cosmic phases, known (according to Jain belief) by omniscient beings.

1. Not special pleading, but different domain:

- A Jain will accept current cosmology as the best scientific model for this phase of the universe. - At the same time, they hold—on scriptural/omniscient testimony—that this is one cycle in an endless series and that the basic substances never began.

1. Science itself is not fixed:

- Scientific models change with new data. - There are also scientific cyclic/eternal‑type models. - Jainism simply says: whatever pattern science finds now is still inside a much vaster, beginningless process.

So for a Jain, there is no fight with data like “13.8B years”: that just marks one chapter, not the whole book.

You can see a short discussion of Jain universe vs science here

---

3. “Moksha fail” – No modern verified moksha

From a Jain angle, this mixes two things:

1. Spiritual fact (moksha really attained or not)
2. Public verification (modern, third‑party, historical proof)

Traditional Jain position

• In this current time‑cycle and region:

- The last Tīrthaṅkara was Mahāvīra. - After Mahāvīra, many Ganadharas and Acharyas attained very high states. - The last embodied omniscient (kevalī) is said to be Jambu‑svāmī. ( jainknowledge.com)

• A liberated soul (siddha) never takes birth again, never returns to “prove” things.

Therefore, by definition, you will not get a modern laboratory‑style verification of moksha.

Why follow such a path then?

Because Jain Dharma asks you to verify what can be verified:

1. Check the “lower fruits”:

- Live with more ahimsā, less greed and ego. - Do regular pratikramaṇa, meditation, fasting, svādhyāya. - Notice: Is anger actually less? Is mind clearer? Is compassion deeper? These are real, testable inner changes.

1. Understand the limit of external proof:

- No spiritual path (Jain, Christian, Buddhist, any) can show you moksha as an object in a test tube. - Historical claims (miracles, resurrection, omniscience, heaven visions) are all based on testimonies, not repeatable experiments.

1. Jain honesty about this:

- Jain texts openly say that until you gain higher direct knowledge (e.g. avadhi jñāna, manaḥparyāya, finally kevala jñāna), you are relying on scripture, reasoning, and the guidance of the wise. ( jainknowledge.com) - You are not asked for blind surrender; you are asked for disciplined experiment on yourself.

So the “success rate” of the path is not measured by a modern list of officially certified siddhas, but by whether the methods actually purify passions and lead step‑by‑step toward the gunasthānas (stages of spiritual development).

---

4. “Evil test” – Can a Jain householder kill one attacker to save 1,000?

Let’s be very clear on principle vs human dilemma.

Principle in Jain Dharma

• Any intentional killing of a living being is himsā, and binds bad karma.

- For monks: absolutely forbidden. - For householders: they take smaller vows but still accept that killing is sinful.

• Karma depends heavily on intention (bhāva) and inner state:

- Hatred, cruelty, enjoyment of violence = very heavy karma. - Deep reluctance, compassion, sorrow even while causing harm = lighter karma, but still karma. ( jainknowledge.com)

Householder in an extreme case (like your Nazi example)

From a Jain point of view:

1. Ideal:

- Try every non‑violent means: - Restraining, blocking, disarming, escape, calling help, creating obstacles. - If you can stop the attacker without killing, that is your clear duty.

1. If every non‑lethal option really fails and the only live options seem to be:

- (A) Do nothing: 1,000 are massacred. - (B) Use force that you know will almost certainly kill the attacker and save the 1,000.

Then: - Deliberately choosing (B) is still himsā, a sin in Jain eyes. - But the inner state matters: - If done with pure intent to protect, with no hatred, and with deep inner remorse and repentance, the karmic load is much less than the mass murder. - It is a tragic lesser evil, not ahimsā.

1. Can we call that “ahimsā”?

No. Jain Dharma does not have a “just killing = non‑violence” doctrine. - Even “necessary” or “defensive” killing is not re‑labeled as ahimsā. - It is recognized as sin, but sometimes an unavoidable one for a householder in a horrible situation; he must do strong pratikramaṇa, austerities, and accept karmic consequences.

1. Why this strictness?

Because the core Jain aim is not to optimize worldly outcomes at any cost, but to minimize violence in one’s own soul and steadily move toward total non‑violence. - Monks and nuns therefore completely renounce such roles. - Householders accept that their life involves some unavoidable himsā, but they keep reducing it and never glorify it.

So:

• Killing one to save 1,000 is not ahimsā in Jainism.
• It may be the “lesser himsā” in a nightmare scenario, but still himsā.

---

5. “Evidence gap” – Non‑Jain confirmation of Mahāvīra’s omniscience

Historically speaking:

• Non‑Jain ancient sources (Buddhist, etc.) mention:

- The Nigaṇṭhas (Jains) as a community. - Leaders like Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta, identified with Mahāvīra. ( jainknowledge.com)

• These texts do not say:

- “We independently verified that Mahāvīra is omniscient in the Jain sense.”

So:

• From a strict historian’s angle, there is no neutral, external document from 5th century BCE that proves Jain kevala‑jñāna claims.
• But the same is true for all religious omniscience/divinity claims: they rest on the tradition’s own testimonies plus indirect impressions of the teacher’s character and influence.

How does Jain tradition justify Mahāvīra’s omniscience?

Within Jain Dharma, the reasoning is:

1. Character and teaching

- A life of total renunciation, non‑violence, perfect equanimity. - A very deep and precise philosophical and ethical system (karma, anekānta, vows, etc.). - A strong transformative effect on disciples (Ganadharas, large saṅgha).

1. Scriptural lineage

- The teachings were preserved through an unbroken line of disciples and Acharyas. - Both Digambar and Śvetāmbara accept Mahāvīra as kevalī, even though they differ on some textual details.

1. Epistemology

- Jainism recognizes scriptural testimony from a kevalī as a valid means of knowledge (āgama pramāṇa), alongside perception and inference. ( jainknowledge.com)

So, a Jain does not pretend there is a Roman‑style report saying “we, neutral officials, certify Mahāvīra’s omniscience.” Instead, the path is:

• Start with modest trust in a very elevated teacher.
• Test the teachings in your own life (ahimsā, aparigraha, meditation).
• As your own inner clarity grows, your conviction in the teacher’s realization naturally increases.

---

In summary

• Anekāntavāda is not “anything goes” relativism; it is disciplined non‑one‑sidedness about our limited knowing, while affirming fixed ultimate truths.
• Jain cosmology sees Big Bang as one phase in an eternal, beginningless universe; science and Jain Dharma operate at different but not conflicting levels.
• Moksha is not lab‑verifiable; Jainism honestly says you must start with reasoning and mild faith, then verify the path through your own inner transformation.
• Ahimsā never turns killing into non‑violence; even defensive killing is admitted only as a lesser himsā for householders, never as a virtue.
• Evidence for Mahāvīra’s omniscience is internal to Jain tradition and your own practice‑based conviction, not external neutral documents.

You can explore some of these topics in simple language here:

• Anekāntavāda and syādvāda:
• Jain epistemology (how we know):
• Jain universe and science: