5

But observation of Jainism as it exists to-day produces a quite different impression.  The Jains are well-to-do, industrious and practical:  their schools and religious establishments are well ordered:  their temples have a beauty, cleanliness, and cheerfulness unusual in India and due to the large use made of white marble and brilliant colours.  The tenderness for animal life may degenerate into superstition (though surely it is a fault on the right side) and some observances of the ascetics (such as pulling out the hair instead of shaving the head) are severe, but as a community the Jains lead sane and serious lives, hardly practising and certainly not parading the extravagances of self-torture which they theoretically commend.  Mahavira is said to have taught that place, time and occasion should be taken into consideration and his successors adapted their precepts to the age in which they lived.  Such monks as I have met[285] maintained that extreme forms of tapas were good for the nerves of ancient saints but not for the weaker natures of to-day.  But in avoiding rigorous severity, they have not fallen into sloth or luxury.

The beauty of Jainism finds its best expression in architecture.  This reached its zenith both in style and quantity during the eleventh and twelfth centuries which accords with what we know of the growth of the sect.  After this period the Mohammedan invasions were unfavourable to all forms of Hindu architecture.  But the taste for building remained and somewhat later pious Jains again began to construct large edifices which are generally less degenerate than modern Hindu temples, though they often show traces of Mohammedan influence.  Hathi Singh’s temple at Ahmadabad completed in 1848 is a fine example of this modern style.

There is a considerable difference between Jain and Buddhist architecture both in intention and effect.  Jain monks did not live together in large communities and there was no worship of relics.  Hence the vihara and the stupa—­the two principal types of Buddhist buildings—­are both absent.  Yet there is some resemblance between Jain temples (for instance those at Palitana) and the larger Burmese sanctuaries, such as the Shwe Dagon Pagoda.  It is partly due to the same conviction, namely that the most meritorious work which a layman can perform is to multiply shrines and images.  In both localities the general plan is similar.  On the top of a hill or mound is a central building round which are grouped a multitude of other shrines.  The repetition of chapels and images is very remarkable:  in Burma they all represent Gotama, in Jain temples the figures of Tirthankaras are nominally different personalities but so alike in presentment that the laity rarely know them apart.  In both styles of art white and jewelled images are common as well as groups of four sitting figures set back to back and facing the four quarters[286]:  in both we meet with veritable