In what way[s] does Buddhist doctrine agree with or contradict Anekāntavāda?

What do Buddhists - modern day and historical - think of Anekāntavāda ? There is this cryptic remark by Dharmakirti: > With the differentiation removed, all things have dual nature. Then, > if somebody is implored to eat curd, then why he does not eat camel?" > The insinuation is obvious; if curd exists from the nature of curd and > does not exist from the nature of a camel, then one is justified in > eating camel, as by eating camel, he is merely eating the negation of > curd. I could summarize it at such: *the truth/reality is complex and many-sided.* How does the quote apply to the subject matter? The truth/reality being complex and many-sided doesn't seem to end suffering, but at least it gives individuals some solace. Am I wrong?