________________
instruction even from a ç[=u]dra if he can 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, liquordealers, 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(=als 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] 'smijl=a]g[r.]mi (I am 'awakened' to a sense of sin and knowledge of
