Within the vision of Anekantavada, truth is understood as intrinsically many-sided and resistant to capture by any single, isolated statement. Reality is affirmed as real and stable, yet it possesses infinitely manifold aspects, so that each description grasps only one facet of a much larger whole. Every judgment is therefore recognized as partial, never exhaustive, and this partiality is not a defect but a structural feature of how reality appears to limited knowers. What is rejected is the claim that any one standpoint can exhaust the nature of what is real.

From this perspective, truth is always standpoint-dependent and conditional. Each assertion is made from a particular naya, a specific angle of approach, and is valid only “in some respect.” Thus, a thing may be truthfully described as permanent when viewed as substance, and also truthfully described as impermanent when viewed in terms of its changing modes. Such statements are not treated as mutually exclusive; rather, they are conditionally true, each revealing a different dimension of the same reality.

This doctrine cultivates a disciplined, non-dogmatic way of speaking about truth. Because every perspective is limited, truth-claims are to be expressed with an awareness of their conditional character, often framed tentatively to acknowledge the limits of language and standpoint. Dogmatic, one-sided assertions are seen as errors, not because they are wholly false, but because they ignore other equally valid perspectives that complete the picture. In this sense, apparently conflicting views can be understood as complementary, each contributing a fragment of a more comprehensive understanding.

Ethically, this many-sided view of truth supports a form of intellectual non-violence. Recognizing that one’s own grasp of reality is partial encourages humility and a willingness to acknowledge the partial validity of others’ views. By seeing truth as complex, multidimensional, and accessible only through multiple perspectives, Anekantavada avoids both crude relativism and rigid absolutism, inviting a more spacious and compassionate engagement with differing standpoints.