Lexington weekly intelligencer., 1885-10-31
WHAT Is NIRVANA?

pondent. F. T. Before we turn to the
discussion of the question at issue let
US endeavor to eliminate from it, as
briefly as his long digressions will per-
> nit, those matters that do not belong
to it.
F. T. accuses US of having made a
"personal drive at him." Granted !;
but if we did, we did it directly, and
not under cover of impersouality. We
regret that we drew any inference from
our conclusion that his pleasantly re-
garding the name of heaven was irrev-
erent. We had the right to deem the
remark hippant, but it was not proper
or courteous to make the personal ap-
plication. We did not observe it at
the time; we did afterward; and we
are sorry that it found its way into
print. Our correspondent gets even
with US by indirectly, but plainly
enough, speaking of us as Pnarisaical
and bigoted. This is, probably, the
fate of every man who stands up even
for what is clean and decent, or as in
this case who stands by the plain teach
ings of scripture as against latitude
narianism, which, while perhaps
agreeable, is contrary to the language
and intent of the Gospels.
We deny that ws have any pride in
our own goodness; no one knows our
shortcomings better than we do our
selves. We concede to our opponent
as honest sentiments; as high love
for his fellow-men, and even for his
God, as we entertain ourselves; indeed
we have no means of kno wing that he
does not possess these feelings in a
higher degree than do we; but this can
| he no reason why we should not find
fault with an expression of his regard |
ing the abode OF the Deity if it seems
to US irreverent. Our friend circum-
soribes our belief as t0who are to be |
saved, to those who are known as
Christians. We did not do SO, but plain
ly said, that Gas believers in revelation |
we must hold that heaven Is reserved |
for those human souls only which are
saved by the blood of the Lord Jesus
Christ, whether before or after his i'm
notation upon the cross" We stand by
that proposition. We repudiate the
idea that it can be brought to mean
that only the members OF the peculiar
"church" to which we belong can at
tain salvation, as it goes beyond the
pale OF the universal Christian church
to include the covenant people Of Goa
before the cross.
But we must tear up our Bible if we
are to believe, with F. T., that "God
who is the father of all people, has ar
ranged but one heaven, and that it a0ill
be common to the pure-hearted Of all
races and creeds, no matter how erron-
eous their ideas of the place may have
been." This is a pleasant fancy it
must appeal to every tender heart; and
ours goes out as warmly to the heathen,
perhaps, as does that of our critic; but
Gods word contradicts the italicized
words above. "Jesus saith unto him,
am the way, the truth and the life:
no man cometh unto the father, but By
me; John 14:6. "Neither is there sal
vation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among
men, whereby we must be saved;'l
Acts 4:12. "He that believeth on Him
is not condemned: but he that believeth
not is condemned already" John 3:lS.
"He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned" Mark 1916.
Here is one way to walk in, and one
creed to save. 1t is not for US to ques-
ton the justice of God, whose ways
are past finding out. "rhe Master"
taught these things. 1t is true that he
was merciful and good. He healed the
servant of the Roman officer, but he
who asked the service believed. He
cast out the devil from the daughter OF
the Syrophenician woman, but she
called him Lord, not wizard. The
question is one of faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ. We have no warrant for
anything less. II
F. T. accuses US of splitting hairs.
We have looked over our article and it
seems to US plain, straightforward
argument of the matter at issue. The
question is first stated; our opponents
posi'i ion is to the best of our ability re-
futed, and our own sustained, and both
in tolerable order; but here comes our
correspondent with distinction most
exceeding fine. Forgetting that cour-
tesy Of debate which he inculcates for
US, he "plainly and fatty" contradicts
us because we ascribed to him all allu.
sion to "nirvana as the Christians 1
hope," instead of "the nirvana of the
Christians hope.' We see the differ
as = # course, but either will answer
our purpose; lis as tweediedum to
Heedledee. But he said in his article [
III this paper, go and at lat
lead up, quietly and peacefully, to
'nirvana,' the final goal of every faith
full, hoping heart" Christian hearts
are faithful and hoping; so where's the I
difference? Is nirvana the final goal,
every faithful, hoping hearth We simp-
ly stated, in three or four line criti-
cism, that "nirvana is not heaven"
and that it ia careless use of words
to say it is. To this our correspondent
demurred and wrote long communi.
cation to prove that the terms are
synonymous, which led to this discus
sion, which, while positive, need not =.
at all degenerate into wrangle.
F. T. finds fault with us for stating,
"that 1 seek to elevate the Buddhist
of the future state to level
with the Christian conception" He &
could not have put the case better.
Were we not justified by his own Ian
guage? Ho said in. his communica-
ton :-"You say 'nirvana is not heaven
by great deal.' Then what is it2" He
then goes on at some length to prove
that it is just that very thing. He I
says :-"Buddhists use the word mir q
vana in the many senses in which we
use the word heaven" and concludes &