I shall not give way to sensuality (etc).
The clauses here forbid the Niggantha to discuss topics relating to women, to contemplate the forms of women, to recall the pleasures and amusements he used to have with women, to eat and drink too highly seasoned viands, to lie near women.
The Fifth Vow: I renounce all attachments, whether little or much, small or great, living or lifeless; neither shall I myself form such attachments, nor cause others to do so, nor consent to their doing so (etc.).
The five clauses particularize the dangerous attachments formed by ears, eyes, smell, taste, touch.
It has been shown above (following Jacobi's telling comparison of the heretical vows with those of the early Brahman ascetic) that these vows are taken not from Buddhism but from Brahmanism.

Jacobi opines that the Jains took the four first and that the reformer Mah[=a]v[=i]ra added the fifth as an offset to the Brahmanical vow of liberality.[30] The same writer shows that certain minor rules of the Jain sect are derived from the same Brahmanical source.
The main differences between the two Jain sects have been catalogued in an interesting sketch by Williams,[31] who mentions as the chief Jain stations of the north Delhi (where there is an annual gathering), Jeypur, and [=A]jm[=i]r.

To these Mathur[=a] on the Jumna should be added.[32] The Cvet[=a]mbaras had forty-five or forty-six [=A]gamas, eleven or twelve Angas, twelve Up[=a]ngas, and other scriptures of the third or fourth century B.C., as they claim.

They do not go naked (even their idols are clothed), and they admit women into the order.
The Digambaras do not admit women, go naked, and have for sacred texts later works of the fifth century A.D.The latter of course assert that the scriptures of the former sect are spurious.[33] In distinction from the Buddhists the Jains of to-day keep up caste.
Some of them are Brahmans.

They have, of course, a different prayer-formula, and have no St[=u]pas or D[=a]gobas (to hold relics); and, besides the metaphysical difference spoken of above, they differ from the Buddhists in assuming that metempsychosis does not stop at animal existence, but includes inanimate things (as these are regarded by others).