form.  Of all the sects the Jains are the most colorless, the most insipid.  They have no literature worthy of the name.  They were not original enough to give up many orthodox features, so that they seem like a weakened rill of Brahmanism, cut off from the source, yet devoid of all independent character.  A religion in which the chief points insisted upon are that one should deny God, worship man, and nourish vermin, has indeed no right to exist; nor has it had as a system much influence on the history of thought.  As in the case of Buddhism, the refined Jain metaphysics are probably a late growth.  Historically these sectaries served a purpose as early protestants against ritualistic and polytheistic Brahmanism; but their real affinity with the latter faith is so great that at heart they soon became Brahmanic again.  Their position geographically would make it seem probable that they, and not the Buddhists, had a hand in the making of the ethics of the later epic.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote 1:  We retain here and in Buddhism the usual terminology.  Strictly speaking, Jainism is to Jina (the reformer’s title) as is Bauddhism to Buddha, so that one should say Jinism, Buddhism, or Jainism, Bauddhism.  Both titles, Jina and Buddha (’victor’ and ’awakened’), were given to each leader; as in general many other mutual titles of honor were applied by each sect to its own head, Jina, Arhat (’venerable’), Mah[=a]v[=i]ra (’great hero’), Buddha, etc.  One of these titles was used, however, as a title of honor by the Jains, but to designate heretics by the Buddhists, viz., T[=i]rthankara (T[=i]rthakara in the original), ‘prophet’ (see Jacobi, SBE. xxii.  Introd. p. xx).]

[Footnote 2:  It is possible, however, on the other hand, that both Vishnuite and Civaite sects (or, less anglicized, Vaishnavas, Caivas, if one will also say Vaidic for Vedic), were formed before the end of the sixth century B.C.  Not long after this the divinities Civa and Vishnu receive especial honor.]

     [Footnote 3:  The Beggar (Cramana, Bhikshu), the Renunciator
     (Sanny[=a]s[=i]n), the Ascetic (Yati), are Brahmanic terms
     as well as sectarian.]

[Footnote 4:  The three great reformers of this period are Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, Buddha, and Gos[=a]la.  The last was first a pupil and then a rival of Mah[=a]v[=i]ra.  The latter’s nephew, Jam[=a]li, also founded a distinct sect and became his uncle’s opponent, the speculative sectarian tendency being as pronounced as it was about the same time in Hellas.  Gos[=a]la appears to have had quite a following, and his sect existed for a long time, but now it is utterly perished.  An account of this reformer and of Jam[=a]li will be found in Leumann’s essay, Indische Studien, xvii. p. 98 ff. and in the appendix to Rockhill’s Life of Buddha.]