ve no second self behind to suffer again, this is
Buddha's doctrine.

We have avoided thus far to define Nirv[=a]na. It has three distinct
meanings, eternal blissful repose (such was the Nirv[=a]na of the
Jains and in part of Buddhism), extinction and absolute annihilation
(such was the Nirv[=a]na of some Buddhists), and the Nirv[=a]na of
Buddha himself. Nirv[=a]na meant to Buddha the extinction of lust,
anger, and ignorance. He adopted the term, he did not invent it. He
was often questioned, but persistently refused to say whether he
believed that Nirv[=a]na implied extinction of being or not. We
believe that in this refusal to speak on so vital a point lies the
evidence that he himself regarded the 'extinction' or 'blowing out'
(this is what the word means literally) as resulting in annihilation.
Had he believed otherwise we think he would not have hesitated to say
so, for it would have strengthened his influence among them to whom
annihilation was not a pleasing thought.

But one has no right to 'go behind the returns' as these are given by
Buddha. The later church says distinctly that Buddha himself did not
teach whether he himself, his ego, was to live after death or not; or
whether a permanent ego exists. It is useless, therefore, to inquire
whether Buddha's Nirv[=a]na be a completion, as Mueller defines it, or
annihilation. To one Buddhistic party it was the one; to the other,
the other; to Buddha himself it was what may be inferred from his
refusal to make any declaration in regard to it.

The second point of interest is not more easily disposed of. What to
the Buddhist is the spirit, the soul of man? It certainly is not an
eternal spirit, such as was the spirit of Brahmanic philosophy, or
that of the Jain. But, on the other hand, it is clear that something
survived after death till one was reborn for the last time, and then
entered Nirv[=a]na. The part that animates the material complex is to
the Buddhist an individuality which depends on the nature of its
former complex, home, and is destined to project itself upon futurity
till the house which it has built ceases to exist, a home rebuilt no
more to be its tabernacle. When a man dies the component parts of his
material personality fall apart, and a new complex is formed, of which
the individuality is the effect of the _karma_ of the preceding
complex. The new person is one's karmic self, but it is not one's
identical ego. There appears, therefore, even in t