The Buddhist Chariot Simile refers to a Milindapañha’s passage composed of questions that king Menander I of Bactria is asking Nagasena, a Buddhist monk. Using the chariot simile, the king gets explanations from the monk regarding the non-self-concept. The Buddhists mainly use the chariot in their allegories, although this particular is the most known among the other allegories. The non-self or the Anatta subject is among the primary Buddhism precepts. It’s among the doctrines that allow the suffering cessation whenever the self isn’t available, and the attachment desire cannot occur. The passage is extremely effective as it explains what the non-self is indicative of while allowing the readers to develop their non-self’s interpretations.
On the contrary, Plato’s allegory of the chariot compared the soul to an individual driving a two-flying horse-pulled chariot with different horses. One was a beautiful white, noble horse yearning to soar into the heavens, while the other was bad and ugly. Plato uses this analogy to share his understanding regarding the psyche of the soul of humans (Brett & McKay, 2013). People have been asking who men are, what kind of men they should be, how they can lead a good life attaining excellence, what they are for, and what practices and training they must have to achieve these objectives. All these questions have been running in people’s minds for several thousands of years, with very few of them having to grapple with them, providing more insightful answers than the ancient Greece philosophers (Brett & McKay, 2013). Generally, the vision of Plato concerning the tripartite psyche or soul’s nature is explained in the chariot allegory. The allegory provides an unmatched representation of who men are, how they can be, and the ways of bridging both points to attain manliness (andreia), excellence (arete), and the full flourishing of humans (eudemonia) (Brett & McKay, 2013). The Buddha and the Plate allegories have several things in common, like the use of chariot analogies and the horses in describing their respective philosophies. Although the two, in several ways, are similar, they also have many primary differences.
Firstly, the two metaphors depict different unseen aspects of human life. Their main difference is that as the analogy chariot by Plato bases its idea on the Greek philosophies, Buddhism is the central idea of the Buddhist simile of the chariot. The metaphor of the Buddhist allegory compares human bodies to horse pulled chariot, which is driven by the senses of humans. The immortal and mortal winged horses pull Plato’s chariot. The mortal horse looks obstinate and deformed. He describes this mortal as an animal that is crooked and lumbering anyhow put together. It’s dark colored with a blood-red complexion and grey eyes, and it is a pride and insolence mate, deaf, shag-eared, and hardly yielding to spur and whip (Brett & McKay, 2013). The other immortal horse is game and noble, cleanly and upright made. The color of this horse is white, with dark eyes, a modesty and honor lover, temperance, and true glory’s follower who doesn’t need any whip touch but is guided by admonition and word. We can interpret the allegory of Plato as a path that leads to becoming godlike, personal progress, spiritual transcendence, and attaining psychological health or superhuman status (Brett & McKay, 2013). The Tripartite soul is encompassed by the charioteer, the chariot, and the dark and white horses symbolizing the soul and its key components that are the primary ones and are three in number.
The charioteer symbolizes the ‘reason’ of man, and his appetites are represented by the dark horse, while the white one is the man’s thumos or the spiritedness. We can as well label these three soul elements as follows. The charioteer is the wisdom lover, the dark horse is the gain lover, and the white horse is the victory lover. According to Aristotle, the three were hedonistic, contemplative, honor, knowledge, political, and pleasure (Brett & McKay, 2013). Greeks viewed them as physical entities that were almost independent and did not have much relationship with bodies but like electricity force that could propel men to think and act differently in certain manners. Every element contains its desires and motivations: Reason looks for knowledge and truth, the appetites look for sex, food, material wealth, drink, and sex, while thumos look for recognition, honor, and glory. Plato had a belief that the highest aims are on reason, thumos follows, and appetites. However, if harnessed properly and employed well, every soul force can assist men in becoming eudaimon (Brett & McKay, 2013). The job of the reason assisted by thumos is to determine the aims that are best pursued and train the ‘horses’ concerning uniting to work as a team towards achieving those objectives. As the charioteer, purpose and vision are significant aspects that he should have to know where he is ending to and understand his two horses’ nature and desires if he desires to appropriately join their energies. When the Forms fail to provide suitable nourishments or rebellion arises from the horses and the charioteer isn’t in a good position to redirect them, the chariot falls from heaven. They are forced to stay on the earth after losing their wings.
Additionally, the description of Plato’s chariot is very concrete compared to the description of the Buddhist chariot. This is because using chariots and horses that are actual objects explains how people’s minds work more than mere words used in Buddhist allegory, arguing that people are influenced by the things they feel or see in some ways (Saxena, 2020). We get to know the importance of objects like the man’s dark horse, which aren’t hard things to comprehend since one may have felt its primal towards drinks, food, sex, and money severally in life. However, apart from having intimate acquittance with people’s appetites (Uebersax, 2014). It’s very difficult to appropriately use or train the dark horse unless you achieve moderation or look for the ‘golden mean,’ as Aristotle put it (Brett & McKay, 2013). An individual who allows his appetite to completely run wild is an unabashed hedonist. His aim isn’t reining in the dark horse, allowing him to twitch the chariot after any pleasure that passes over the road. These men live for nothing except to eat good foods, have sex, make money, and get drunk. He is always after luxury; effeminizing with the left and will ensure they do their best to get it. Without minding how they behave, it may result in pickled brains, giant guts, corruption-related prison sentences, and massive debts.
Furthermore, the Buddhist simile chariot is more concerned with the conventional self with skandhas that consist of five aggregates. It uses questions in the quest to understand what a chariot existence is made of, but it’s aimed at knowing what a man is made of in the process of answering the questions. These five aggregates are composed of four mental constituents and a single physical section. The other aggregate is the perception that explains how everything is happening in the conventional self through evaluation (Saxena, 2020). The sensation is the third aggregate that covers every physical sensation that comes from the body, unpleasant and pleasant responses. Mental formations are other skandhas covering the mental attitudes, dispositions, and circumstances that sum up the reality (Saxena, 2020). The consciousness aggregate is the last; through these, we understand that an individual is determined by their looks, thoughts, actions, beliefs, and feelings. According to the Buddhist philosophy, away from these significant self-aspects coinciding with each other, there is no substance in other things and is beyond identity. The chariot simile represents the question that asks whether the individuals still exist, act, and think since it. Therefore, it does. But having every element, including thought, actions, boards, and nails, doesn’t make an individual a chariot or alive, but all the pieces are required in the appropriate spot. People grow and change since the self is never permanent because the experience, time, and trials in life can remold and change an individual’s life.
In addition, Nagasena, the monk’s mode of asking King Milinda questions, takes the dependent arising Buddhist core, which involves understanding the reality and how things in their true form are so that he can know them from a Buddhist perspective. The dependent origination teaches that everything is intertwined with each other and affects them since everything that exists is because of others that are already in existence. Whatever happens at this time is a section of things that took place before, and it’s a section of future happenings that will take place. It may tend to bring some confusion, but it’s an essential Buddhism teaching and can also be referred to as the interdependent arising (O’Brien, 2019). The Buddhist chariot is concerned with the Self-illusion; through it, we know that no phenomena or beings exist independently of other phenomena or beings. Nagasena asked whether it’s a or B and asked whether it’s a nor B, and by posing these questions of existing or not existing, it brings the idea that it’s improbable it’s very difficult to one of the two or not. The monk also inquired whether the chariot was just an axle which happened after questioning the individual chariot pieces and parts, and the answer to all these remains a big no (O’Brien, 2019). Nagasena had another question for the king whereby he asked whether all the parts were assembled, which made the king comprehend that the chariot represented the label with similar premises and comes under the word chariot due to specific conditions and causes.
Finally, instead of making us understand the cause and beginnings of man, like how the metaphors in Plato’s chariot brought understanding regarding the existence and life of man, the Buddhist chariot is slightly not concrete. The reason behind this is the fact that Buddhism is not like other religious philosophies. Beings and other things perpetually cease after arising in one huge beingness nexus or field, and there we’re. The Buddhists never teach on first and cause (O’Brien, 2019). The beginning of these arising and ceasing are never explained, discussed, or contemplated. According to the Buddha, his emphasis was on ensuring that his people understood nature rather than speculating about what had happened before or what the future held or might happen.
References
Brett, & McKay, K. (2013, March 4). What Is a Man? The Allegory of the Chariot. The Art of Manliness. https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/manly-lessons/what-is-a-man-the-allegory-of-the-chariot/
O’Brien, B. (2019). What Does “Dependent Origination” Mean to Buddhists? Learn Religions. https://www.learnreligions.com/dependent-origination-meaning-449723
Saxena, V. (2020). Understanding No-self (anatman): The Chariot Simile. Thinkly.me. https://thinkly.me/thinkly/Post/Index/121551
Uebersax, J. (2014). Plato’s Chariot Allegory. John-Uebersax.com. https://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato3.htm
write