1. Thou shalt not kill any living creature. 2. Thou shalt not steal. 3. Thou shalt not break thy vow of chastity. 4. Thou shalt not lie. 5. Thou shalt not betray the secrets of others. 6. Thou shalt not wish for the death of thy enemies. 7. Thou shalt not desire the wealth of others. 8. Thou shalt not pronounce injurious and foul words. 9. Thou shalt not indulge in luxury (sleep on soft beds or be lazy). 10. Thou shalt not accept gold or silver.[281] “Good master, what shall I do that I may have eternal life?” asks a man of Jesus. “Keep the commandments.” “Which?” “Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,”[282] is the answer. “What shall I do to obtain possession of Bhodi? (knowledge of eternal truth)” asks a disciple of his Buddhist master. “What way is there to become an Upasaka?” “Keep the commandments.” “What are they?” “Thou shalt abstain all thy life from murder, theft, adultery, and lying,” answers the master.[283] Identical injunctions are they not? Divine injunctions, the living up to which would purify and exalt humanity. But are they more divine when uttered through one mouth than another? If it is god-like to return good for evil, does the enunciation of the precept by a Nazarene give it any greater force than its enunciation by an Indian, or Thibetan philosopher? We see that the Golden Rule was not original with Jesus; that its birth-place was India. Do what we may, we cannot deny Sakya-Muni Buddha a less remote antiquity than several centuries before the birth of Jesus. In seeking a model for his system of ethics why should Jesus have gone to the foot of the Himalayas rather than to the foot of Sinai, but that the doctrines of Manu and Gautama harmonized exactly with his own philosophy, while those of Jehovah were to him abhorrent and terrifying? The Hindus taught to return _good for evil_, but the Jehovistic command was: “An eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth.”