USA: +1 508 290 1604 
Sign in
Compare the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot with Plato’s Chariot Analogy. Discuss their similarities and differences.
The chariot analogy is a powerful metaphor used by both the Buddhist and Platonic traditions to describe the human condition. In both traditions, the chariot is a symbol for the human soul, and its journey through life. However, while the overall message of both analogies is similar, there are significant differences in how the two traditions understand the nature of the soul and its journey. The Buddhist Simile of the Chariot is found in the Sutta Nipata, a collection of early Buddhist texts. In this analogy, the chariot represents the human body, while the horses represent the senses, and the driver represents the mind. The chariot moves through life driven by the mind, which directs the senses like a skilled driver directing horses. However, if the mind is not well-trained, it can be overcome by the senses, causing the chariot to veer off course and crash. The Platonic Chariot Analogy appears in Plato’s Phaedrus. In this analogy, the chariot represents the human soul, while the horses represent the passions and desires that drive us. There are two horses, one representing our noble passions, such as love and honor, and the other representing our base desires, such as lust and greed. The charioteer represents the rational part of the soul, which must guide the two horses in order to achieve balance and harmony.
The Buddhist Simile of the Chariot, like many other works from its time, has murky origins. Although though the Simile of the Chariot may be found in a number of different Buddhist texts, the Milinda Panha is the most cited and discussed of them. By likening the Buddha to a beachgoer watching a chariot race, the Buddhist metaphor for the Chariot hopes to bring this historical person to mind. This metaphor symbolizes a state of mind achieved via intensive mental exercise and training (Goodman, 2014). In order to explain this comprehension, the Buddhist concept of enlightenment is used. In order to fully understand the Buddha’s tranquil understanding and perceive the clean mind, one must overcome the difficulty of eradicating the four primary impurities. Yet when eyes are enlightened to the truth, enlightenment may feel quite uplifting. When destructive activity is all that is contemplated, enlightenment is powerful and discouraging.
As enlightenment is the means by which life reclaims its original freedom and creativity, the Buddhist metaphor states that degradation and the number of deaths should be eradicated rather than life itself. The Buddhist’s passive, uninspiring grin in the mirror, for instance, is indicative of this worldview. The critic of Buddha’s private life, which he or she claims was spent promoting the spiritual well-being of the public throughout the forty-nine years of peace, is obviously ignorant. The critic also failed to take into account the significant missionary activities and intellectual interests of the Buddha’s students, both of which contributed to the development of the Mahayana school of Buddhism. A Buddhist’s grin is meant to convey the idea that nirvana is a state of simple seeming passivity. Enlightenment is a state of exceptional mental health that contains a wealth of latent potential, and it is typically the outcome of intense spiritual endeavor. It is a singularity within which the universe’s infinite variety is contained. Wherever there is enlightenment, there is oneness, so says the Buddhist metaphor.
Similarities
One of the main similarities between the two analogies is that both depict the human soul as being in motion, on a journey through life. In both cases, the journey is fraught with danger and difficulty, and success depends on the ability to navigate through these challenges. In addition, both analogies suggest that the soul is multi-partite, with different aspects or faculties that must work together in order to achieve success.
The parallels and differences between the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot and Plato’s Analogy of the Chariot show that both are powerful metaphors for the human ego, despite the fact that they were developed at different eras and in different locations. The fact that chariots play a role in both metaphors isn’t the only way they’re similar (Schlieter, 2014). The Buddhist Chariot analogy shows how challenging labels and other practical categories may be, while Plato’s example shows how important it is to achieve harmony inside. These two concerns should not be ignored. In many ways, Plato’s comparison may be seen as a Buddhist metaphor, and vice versa. These are two metaphors with specific goals. To borrow Plato’s metaphor, the charioteer always has the final goal in mind and drives the chariot in that direction. These metaphors compare many parts of life to easily available animals and other objects. This is made abundantly evident by the Buddhist’s analogy of his life to a walk on the beach.
The Greeks believed in the existence of discrete elements inside the soul, but they discounted the influence of things like electricity on the human body. Inquisitiveness and a thirst for knowledge characterize the rational mind. Appetite desires to be well-fed, well-lubricated, and well-off. This appetite for glory, renown, and honor is at the heart of spiritedness. According to Plato, one’s desires and soul come in third and fourth place, respectively, after one’s aims. It is possible for a man to become a eudemon by the cultivation of any one of his soul forces. He relies heavily on his horses’ spiritedness to help him select the most effective goals and motivate them to work together to achieve those goals. To harness the might of one’s steeds, one must, like the charioteer, have a plan, a destination in mind, know what the steeds require, and understand how everything functions together. If the charioteer loses track of one of his horses or forgets to halter one of the others, the chariot will not move. According to Plato, man’s finest reason is weak, thus he has no power over or mastery over the animal blood that flows through his veins. What he can do, instead, is serve them and figure out what makes them happy.
Differences
However, there are also significant differences between the two analogies. One of the most significant differences is in how the two traditions understand the nature of the soul. In the Buddhist tradition, the soul is understood as impermanent and devoid of any inherent essence. Rather than a substance, it is seen as a series of mental and physical processes that arise and pass away in response to causes and conditions. By contrast, in the Platonic tradition, the soul is understood as a permanent and unchanging entity, existing before birth and continuing after death.
Another important difference is in the role of desire in the two analogies. In the Buddhist Simile of the Chariot, desire is seen as a potential source of danger, since it can lead the senses and the mind off course (Schlieter, 2014). Therefore, the ideal state is one of detachment, in which desire has been subdued and the mind can be directed towards the attainment of liberation. By contrast, in the Platonic Chariot Analogy, desire is seen as an essential part of the human condition. The challenge is not to eliminate desire, but rather to direct it in the right way, so that it supports the pursuit of wisdom and virtue.
The mortal soul’s regenerative wings are sped up by its relationships with other creatures, as well as through experiences including religious touching and a sense of the truth in the preexistence. According to Plato, such times hasten the soul’s return to heaven and are analogous to peering through a smudged glass. Plato’s chariot analogy may be seen as a metaphor for many different things: one’s journey to godhood, the development of mankind, the breaking down of barriers between the spiritual and the material, and even one’s own personal progress and happiness (Zaborowski, 2016). The chariot, the rider, and the red and white horses represent the soul. It is said that the charioteer symbolizes the rational aspect of man, while the white horse represents his ardor and the black horse represents his desires. To further illustrate the several personalities that make up the soul, we may say that the charioteer is a lover of knowledge, the black horse is a lover of material gain, and the white horse is a lover of personal triumph. Aristotle divides them into three distinct camps: the hedonistic, the contemplative, and the political, which might be rendered respectively as honor, knowledge, and pleasure.
In other words, a good charioteer takes into account both horses’ individual needs and wants, such as their level of enthusiasm and appetite, yet doesn’t allow them go uncontrolled. He typically lets reason win, takes stock of his wishes, prioritizes the ones that will bring him to truth and morality, and then steers the horses in that direction. He does not give in to or ignore them; rather, he puts them to good use. The guy may be fooled by any of the horses because each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. But, if the charioteer has been properly trained, their ferocity might prove to be an asset. By working together with logic and energy, it is possible to establish a state of synchronized hunger. The astute charioteer knows which parts of his soul are accountable for particular tasks, and then helps those parts fulfill those tasks without fully adopting them or allowing them to interfere with his own. The charioteer, instead of focusing on doing harm, focuses on his own goals. Plato, on the other hand, thought that success in any endeavor in life depended on the individual’s ability to achieve inner harmony.
A final difference between the two analogies is in the ultimate goal of the journey. In the Buddhist tradition, the ultimate goal is the attainment of nirvana, which is a state of liberation from suffering and rebirth. The journey is seen as a process of gradually freeing oneself from the cycle of birth and death, and achieving a state of peace and happiness that is beyond the reach of ordinary human experience. By contrast, in the Platonic tradition, the ultimate goal is the attainment of wisdom and knowledge, which allows us to participate in the divine realm of Forms. The journey is seen as a process of becoming increasingly attuned to the eternal and unchanging principles that underlie the visible world.
References
Schlieter, J. (2014). From Similes to Allegory: The Deconstruction of Chariot Imagery in Early Buddhist Texts, Analyzed with Cognitive Metaphor Theory.
Zaborowski, R. (2016). Two Neglected Details in Plato’s Chariot Allegory in. Organon, 48, 191-224.
To get your original copy of this paper, please Order Now
Related Questions
Plato vs. Aristotle (ANSWERED)
