The doctrine of non-injury found but modified approval among the Brahmans.  They limited its application in the case of sacrifice, and for this reason were bitterly taunted by the Jains as ‘murderers.’  “Viler than unbelievers,” says the Yogac[=a]stra, quoting a law of Manu to the effect that animals may be slain for sacrifice, “all those cruel ones who make the law that teaches killing."[17] For this reason the Jain is far more particular in his respect for life than is the Buddhist.  Lest animate things, even plants and animalculae, be destroyed, he sweeps the ground before him as he goes, walks veiled lest he inhale a living organism, strains water, and rejects not only meat but even honey, together with various fruits that are supposed to contain worms; not because of his distaste for worms but because of his regard for life.  Other arguments which, logically, should not be allowed to influence him are admitted, however, in order to terrify the hearer.  Thus the first argument against the use of honey is that it destroys life; then follows the argument that honey is ‘spit out by bees’ and therefore it is nasty.[18]

The Jain differs from the Buddhist still more in ascetic practices.  He is a forerunner, in fact, of the horrible modern devotee whose practices we shall describe below.  The older view of seven hells in opposition to the legal Brahmanic number of thrice seven is found (as it is in the M[=a]rkandeya Pur[=a]na), but whether this be the rule we cannot say.[19] It is interesting to see that hell is prescribed with metempsychosis exactly as it is among the Brahmans.[20] Reincarnation onearth and punishment in hells between reincarnation seems to be the usual belief.  The salvation which is attained by the practice of knowledge, faith, and five-fold virtue, is not immediate, but it will come after successive reincarnations; and this salvation is the freeing of the eternal spirit from the bonds of eternal matter; in other words, it is much more like the ‘release’ of the Brahman than it is like the Buddhistic Nirv[=a]na, though, of course, there is no ‘absorption,’ each spirit remaining single.  In the order of the Ratnatraya or ‘three gems’ Cankara appears to lay the greatest weight on faith, but in Hemacandra’s schedule knowledge[21] holds the first place.  This is part of that Yoga, asceticism, which is the most important element in attaining salvation.[22]

Another division of right practices is cited by the Yogac[=a]stra (I. 33 ff.):  Some saints say that virtue is divided into five kinds of care and three kinds of control, to wit, proper care in walking, talking, begging for food, sitting, and performing natural functions of the body—­these constitute the five kinds of care, and the kinds of control are those of thought, speech, and act.  This teaching it is stated, is for the monks.  The practice of the laity is to accord with the custom of their country.

The chief general rules for the laity consist in vows of obedience to the true god, to the law, and to the (present) Teacher; which are somewhat like the vows of the Buddhist.  God here is the Arhat, the ‘venerable’ founder of the sect.  The laic has also five lesser vows:  not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, not to commit adultery or fornication, to be content with little.