thereby attain to salvation"; and again: "Putting
the Brahman first, let the four castes hear (the Veda); for this
(giving first place to the priest) is (the rule in) reading the
Veda."[56] And in many places are found instructions given by
low-caste men. It may be claimed that every case which resembles
Buddhistic teaching is drawn from Buddhism, but this would be to claim
more than could be established. Moreover, just as the non-injury
doctrine is prior to Buddhism and yet is a mark of Buddhistic
teaching, so between the two religions there are many points of
similarity which may be admitted without compromising the genuineness
of the Brahmanic teaching. For Buddhism in its morality is anything
but original.[57]

Another bit of instruction from the Book of Peace illustrates the
attitude of the slave just referred to. In sharp contrast to what one
would expect from a Buddhist, this slave, who is a hunter, claims that
he is justified in keeping on with his murderous occupation because it
is his caste-occupation; whereas, as a Buddhist he ought to have
renounced it if he thought it sinful, without regard to the
caste-rule. The Book of Peace lays it down as a rule that the giving
up of caste-occupation is meritorious if the occupation in itself is
iniquitous, but it hedges on the question to the extent of saying
that, no matter whether the occupation be sinful or not, if it is an
inherited occupation a man does not do wrong to adhere to it. This is
liberal Brahmanism. The rule reads as follows: "Actors,
liquor-dealers, butchers, and other such sinners are not justified in
following such occupations, _if they are not born to the profession
(i.e_., if they are born to it they are justified in following their
inherited occupation). Yet if one has inherited such a profession it
is a noble thing to renounce it."[58]

The marks of Buddhistic influence on which we would lay greater stress
are found not in the fact that Mudgala refuses heaven (iii. 261. 43),
or other incidents that may be due as well to Brahmanism as to
Buddhism, but in such passages of the pseudo-epical Book of Peace as
for example the _dharmyas panth[=a]s_ of xii. 322. 10-13; the
conversation of the female beggar, _bhikshuk[=i]_, with the king in
321. 7, 168; the _buddha_ of 289. 45; the Buddhistic phraseology of
167. 46; the remark of the harlot Pingal[=a] in 174. 60:
_pratibuddh[=a] 'smi j[=a]g[r.]mi_ (I am 'awakened' to a sense of sin
and knowledge of ho