e been absorption into a Divine
essence. It was nothing but selfishness, in the metaphysical sense of
the word--a relapse into that being which is nothing but itself. This
is the most charitable view which we can take of the Nirva_n_a, even
as conceived by Buddha himself, and it is the view which Burnouf
derived from the canonical books of the Northern Buddhists. On the
other hand, Mr. Spence Hardy, who in his works follows exclusively the
authority of the Southern Buddhists, the Pali and Singhalese works of
Ceylon, arrives at the same result. We read in his work: 'The Rahat
(Arhat), who has reached Nirva_n_a, but is not yet a Pratyeka-buddha,
or a Supreme Buddha, says: "I await the appointed time for the
cessation of existence. I have no wish to live; I have no wish to die.
Desire is extinct."'

[Footnote 90: Burnouf, 'Introduction,' p. 520.]

* * * * *

In a very interesting dialogue between Milinda and Nagasena,
communicated by Mr. Spence Hardy, Nirva_n_a is represented as
something which has no antecedent cause, no qualities, no locality. It
is something of which the utmost we may assert is, that it is:

_Nagasena._ Can a man, by his natural strength, go from the
city of Sagal to the forest of Himala?

_Milinda._ Yes.

_Nagasena._ But could any man, by his natural strength,
bring the forest of Himala to this city of Sagal?

_Milinda._ No.

_Nagasena._ In like manner, though the fruition of the paths
may cause the accomplishment of Nirva_n_a, no cause by which
Nirva_n_a is produced can be declared. The path that leads
to Nirva_n_a may be pointed out, but not any cause for its
production. Why? because that which constitutes Nirva_n_a is
beyond all computation,--a mystery, not to be
understood.... It cannot be said that it is produced, nor
that it is not produced; that it is past or future or
present. Nor can it be said that it is the seeing of the
eye, or the hearing of the ear, or the smelling of the nose,
or the tasting of the tongue, or the feeling of the body.

_Milinda._ Then you speak of a thing that is not; you merely
say that Nirva_n_a is Nirva_n_a;--therefore there is no
Nirva_n_a.

_Nagasena._ Great king, Nirva_n_a is.

Another question also, whether Nirva_n_a is something different from
the beings that enter into it, has been asked by the Buddhists
themselve