 The doctrines of anekāntavāda and syādavāda are often criticised on the grounds that they engender a degree of hesitancy and uncertainty , and may compound problems rather than solve them . It is also pointed out that Jain epistemology asserts its own doctrines , but at the cost of being unable to deny contradictory doctrines . Furthermore , it is also argued that this doctrine could be self @-@ defeating . It is argued that if reality is so complex that no single doctrine can describe it adequately , then anekāntavāda itself , being a single doctrine , must be inadequate . This criticism seems to have been anticipated by Ācārya Samantabhadra who said : " From the point of view of pramana ( means of knowledge ) it is anekānta ( multi @-@ sided ) , but from a point of view of naya ( partial view ) it is ekanta ( one @-@ sided ) . " 
 The doctrines of anekāntavāda and syādavāda are often criticised on the grounds <a href='null_relcl' title='1'><mark>that</mark></a>they engender a degree of hesitancy and uncertainty , and may compound problems rather than solve them . It is also pointed out that Jain epistemology <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>asserts</mark></a> its own doctrines , but at the cost of being unable to deny contradictory doctrines . Furthermore , it is also argued that this doctrine could be self @-@ defeating . It is argued that if reality <a href='drop_aux' title='3'><mark>is</mark></a>so complex that no single doctrine can describe it adequately , then anekāntavāda itself , being a single doctrine , must be inadequate . This criticism <a href='uninflect' title='4'><mark>seems</mark></a> to <a href='been_done' title='5'><mark>have</mark></a> been anticipated by Ācārya Samantabhadra <a href='null_relcl' title='6'><mark>who</mark></a>said : " From the point of view of pramana ( means of knowledge ) it <a href='drop_aux' title='7'><mark>is</mark></a>anekānta ( multi @-@ sided ) , but from a point of view of naya ( partial view ) it <a href='drop_aux' title='8'><mark>is</mark></a>ekanta ( one @-@ sided ) . " 
The doctrines of anekāntavāda and syādavāda are often criticised on the grounds they engender a degree of hesitancy and uncertainty , and may compound problems rather than solve em . It is also pointed outt that Jain epistemology assert its own doctrines , but at the cost of bein unable to deny contradictory doctrines . Furthermore , it is also argued dat this doctrine could be self @-@ defeating . It is argued that if reality soo complex tdatno single doctrine can describe it adequately , then anekāntavāda itself , being a single doctrine , must be inadequate . dis criticism seem to done been anticipated by Ācārya Samantabhadra said : " From da point of view of pramana ( means of knowledge ) it anekānta ( multi @-@ sided ) , but from a point of view of naya ( partial view ) it ekanta ( one @-@ sided ) . "