Reviewed by: Jain Approaches to Plurality: Identity as Dialogue by Melanie Barbato Anne Vallely Melanie Barbato, Jain Approaches to Plurality: Identity as Dialogue. Currents of Encounter: Studies in Interreligious and Intercultural Relations 55. Leiden, and Boston, MA: Brill, 2018. Pp. 232. $57.00, paper. This volume is a remarkable exploration of Jainism's enduring philosophic teaching of plurality, called anekantavada (literally, the doctrine of [End Page 615] non-one-sidedness). According to the teaching, every object of the cosmos has an infinite number of attributes, yet can only be known from the finite place at which we stand. Human comprehension, therefore, is partial and limited, making a mockery of claims to total and absolute truth. Further, because our understandings must perforce always be from a particular perspective, our statements and conceptualizations should acknowledge this nonabsolutism. This is to act truthfully and in accordance with reality, and it paves the way for nonviolent dialogue with other distinctive perspectives on reality. If this sounds like philosophical relativism, one would be mistaken; anekantavada neither denies objectivity nor locates truth within the individual observer. The cosmos for Jains is real and knowable, existing independent of individual perception; truth, though not perceivable in its entirety, is accessible, if only "frame by frame." Far from a dry and arcane philosophical concept, Barbato reveals anekantavada to be at the heart of Jain tradition, since "the secret of Jainism's persistence is that a certain type of dialogue lies at the center of Jain identity" (p. 2). Though anekantavada is an enduring and perhaps essential feature of Jainism, its interpretation over the tradition's long history has been far from uniform. One of the major strengths of this study is Barbato's ability to work through a huge corpus, covering a vast time period, to elucidate the varied roles that this teaching has played in Jain history. In its earliest formulations, anekantavada served as a pedagogical tool for explaining fundamental teachings to, and for, the Jain community itself, such as the difference between ordinary human knowledge and omniscience. When Jains began to engage in philosophical dialogue with other schools of thought, this teaching became more systematic and rhetoric-oriented, serving as a tool in pan-Indian inter-school discourse. Thereby, Jainism made a major, often unrecognized, contribution to philosophical dialogue by providing a meta-philosophical position that has become its hallmark. Jains argued for the necessity of multiple perspectives. Anekantavada underwent further substantive changes from the colonial encounter, where its ethical implications (rather than its epistemological and ontological aspects) were conceived in terms similar to the European concept of tolerance. In the contemporary period, the ethical frame has become increasingly prevalent, with anekantavada now commonly presented by Jains as a concept of universal relevance for the global community so damaged by intolerant, dogmatic thinking. [End Page 616] The book is a rigorous yet sympathetic exploration of the Jain teaching of plurality, elucidating its ontological and epistemological aspects, and revealing its inseparability from Jain self-conceptions throughout history. It also offers a solid introduction to the Jain tradition itself, with an excellent overview of the major schools of Indian philosophy and Jainism's place therein. Of special interest is Barbato's discussion of the differing approaches to philosophical debate taken by the Buddha and Mahavira (a senior contemporary to the Buddha). The Buddha's method was withdrawal from philosophical dispute into silence due to the perceived futility of metaphysical speculation, while Mahavira's was intellectual engagement, "to give a more detailed reply that takes into account all the angles from which the subject could be seen" (p. 47). In the modern period, anekantavada continues to act as a meta-principle, encouraging Jains to engage actively in dialogue in the interest of knowledge—a worthwhile model for interreligious dialogue, which demands humility, compassion, and curiosity, but not the surrender of one's own claims to truth. Anne Vallely University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Copyright © 2019 Journal of Ecumenical Studies