 Some <unk> like Professor John <unk> have cautioned against giving undue importance to " intellectual ahiṃsā " as the basis of anekāntavāda . He points out that Jain monks have also used anekāntavāda and syādvāda as debating weapons to silence their critics and prove the validity of the Jain doctrine over others . According to <unk> , in Jain hands , this method of analysis became a <unk> weapon of philosophical <unk> with which the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism could be <unk> down to their ideological bases of simple permanence and impermanence , respectively , and thus could be shown to be one @-@ pointed and inadequate as the overall interpretations of reality they purported to be . On the other hand , the many @-@ sided approach was claimed by the Jains to be immune from criticism since it did not present itself as a philosophical or <unk> view . 
