Then if keval nyan cannot be completely comprehended and if only that is exempted of anektavda principle then in theory all the explanation does not hold 100% objectivity in reality
Answer
Yes — in Jain Dharma, verbal explanations do not hold 100% objective completeness in the absolute sense. Only keval jñān is पूर्ण, direct, and complete knowledge. But our words, concepts, and logic are always limited, so any explanation we give is necessarily partial.Explanation
Jain philosophy makes a very important distinction:- Keval jñān = complete omniscient knowledge
- Our speech and reasoning = limited, relative, and viewpoint-based
So when we speak about reality, we are not expressing the whole truth at once. We are expressing:
- one aspect
- one standpoint
- one condition
- one time-based truth
This is exactly why Jainism teaches:
- Anekāntavāda — reality has many aspects
- Syādvāda — any statement is conditionally true
- Naya — knowledge from a partial standpoint
So your point is correct in this sense: no ordinary explanation can claim total completeness like keval jñān.
But Jainism does not say that therefore all explanations are useless. It says:
- human explanation is provisional
- it is valid within its scope
- it becomes misleading only when it is treated as absolute
Spiritual Understanding
This is one of the deepest strengths of Jain thought.It teaches humility:
- I may be right from one angle
- another person may be right from another angle
- the whole truth is larger than any single sentence
So Jain Dharma avoids dogmatism. It protects us from saying, “My view alone is the whole truth.”
At the same time, it does not fall into confusion or relativism. It still accepts:
- truth exists
- reality is knowable
- keval jñān is complete
- our speech is incomplete
So the position is not “nothing is certain,” but rather:
certainty exists in omniscience; partial certainty exists in ordinary understanding.