Chandrakirti’s Chariot: Self in Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta
By Swami Sarvapriyananda
Summary
Chandrakirti’s *Chariot* examines the concept of the self in Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, focusing on their distinct yet strikingly similar approaches to overcoming suffering. Madhyamaka Buddhism, rooted in Nagarjuna’s *Mulamadhyamaka Karika* and refined by Tibetan thinkers like Tsongkhapa, deconstructs the self through the "seven-fold reasoning," using the metaphor of a chariot to demonstrate that the self cannot be inherently existent—neither identical to nor separate from the body-mind aggregates. This analysis aims to correct the false view of an intrinsic self, which is seen as the root of suffering. The Madhyamaka dialectic, driven by compassion, seeks to cultivate nondual knowledge, essential for enlightenment and higher Tantric practices. Tsongkhapa emphasizes that while the conventional person (imputed on the aggregates) is acknowledged, the metaphysical self is the primary target of negation to avoid moral and epistemological nihilism. Advaita Vedanta, in contrast, posits the *Atman* (self) as permanent, indivisible, and unitary, distinct from the changing aggregates. Madhyamaka critiques this view, arguing that such an intrinsic self is untenable—neither existing independently nor as a mere collection of aggregates. The paper contrasts reductionist (e.g., Abhidharma) and non-reductionist (e.g., Atman theories) approaches, highlighting Madhyamaka’s unique rejection of inherent existence while preserving conventional reality. Both systems converge in their soteriological goals, yet diverge sharply in their metaphysical conclusions about the self’s nature and its role in liberation from suffering.
Conclusion
Chandrakirti’s *Chariot* offers a profound comparative analysis of the self in Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, revealing striking parallels in their deconstruction of inherent existence despite differing frameworks. Both traditions converge on the absence of a permanent, independent self, yet diverge in their metaphysical commitments and soteriological emphasis. Madhyamaka’s seven-fold reasoning dismantles the self as a metaphysical necessity, while Advaita’s *Atman* is critiqued for reifying a false sense of permanence. The implications are transformative: by exposing the emptiness of self, both paths aim to eradicate suffering rooted in misconception. Chandrakirti’s compassion-driven dialectic underscores that enlightenment arises not from abstract negation but from correcting the fundamental error of self-view, enabling liberation through nondual wisdom. This synthesis highlights the enduring relevance of these traditions, challenging rigid ontological assumptions and guiding practitioners toward ethical and epistemological coherence in the pursuit of freedom.