The objection rests on a misunderstanding of Jain epistemology.

In Jainism, Anekantavada does not mean “all knowledge is equally unreliable” or that the path itself is self-defeating. It means that ordinary knowledge is partial, because a soul under karma does not see all aspects of reality at once. But partial does not mean false. It means context-bound, limited, and usable. Jain logic therefore distinguishes between:

• Naya: a limited standpoint,
• Syadvada: qualified predication,
• Kevala Jnana: complete, unobstructed knowledge.

So Jainism does not reject the roadmap to liberation as “mere opinion.” It says that the roadmap is valid within the realm of conditioned beings, even if it is not identical to omniscient cognition. A medicine need not be omniscient to be effective.

1. Why the path is not “self-refuting”

Jain scriptures and teachers are not treated as arbitrary human guesses. They are accepted as authoritative because they preserve the guidance of the Tirthankars and the liberated order, even though the listener’s own understanding remains partial. In Jainism, a statement can be:

• conventionally true from a limited standpoint,
• while still not being the total truth.

That is not a paradox; it is the core of the Jain method.

2. Karma as Pudgala is not a crude materialism

Jainism does not imagine karma as “sticky mud” in a gross physical sense. Pudgala is subtle matter, and bondage occurs through the soul’s conditioned activity—especially the vibration of soul activity associated with passions, influx, and bondage. The jiva is not a physical body, but it is the substratum of consciousness that becomes bound in association with karmic matter.

The objection “a non-spatial soul cannot have matter attach to it” assumes that attachment must be like a physical object adhering to a surface. Jainism does not require that picture. It teaches a subtle causal bondage, not a gross mechanical one.

3. The vows and asceticism are not empty ritual

In Jainism, charitra is not valued as mere external austerity. External restraint has meaning because it supports:

• stopping new influx,
• weakening passions,
• destroying old karmic bondage,
• stabilizing right conduct.

So the discipline is not “ritual for its own sake.” It is a systematic training of the soul away from violence, attachment, and delusion.

4. Kevala Jnana does not make the path impossible

Jainism does say that full omniscience is attained only after complete karmic destruction. But that does not mean the pre-liberation path lacks authority. It means that the path is soteriological, not speculative. You do not need to be liberated to know that poison harms and discipline heals.

Likewise, the 14 Gunasthanas are not arbitrary inventions; they are a mapped description of spiritual progression within Jain doctrine.

5. Pancham Kaal and liberation

The idea that liberation is not presently attainable in this era is not fatal to Jainism; it is part of its cosmology. It serves to explain why intense spiritual effort is still necessary even when final moksha is not immediately available. The path still has value because it:

• reduces bondage now,
• improves future spiritual conditions,
• prevents further degradation,
• preserves the ideal of liberation.

6. No blind ritualism in Jainism

Jainism repeatedly warns against mithyatva and empty formalism. It does not praise blind ritual. It insists on:

• right faith,
• right knowledge,
• right conduct.

So the tradition’s own self-understanding is not “perform acts and hope for a reward after death,” but “purify cognition and conduct until bondage ends.”

Conclusion

From the Jain standpoint, there is no fatal paradox here. Anekantavada limits absolutist claims; it does not destroy the validity of the path. Karma is subtle matter-bound bondage, not a crude physical absurdity. Asceticism is a disciplined means of liberation, not meaningless ritual. And partial knowledge can still guide a soul toward freedom, even if only Kevala Jnana is complete.

If you want, I can also give a point-by-point Jain rebuttal to each sentence of your argument in a strict philosophical format.