There is no chariot.

Is there such a thing as collective karma? Part VI: Intro to Chandrakirti's Chariot

Note: These next few articles will be devoted to answering questions asked by readers. If you have questions, please submit them by clicking the button below.

---

Is there such a thing as group karma or collective karma, not just the individual?

For example, the karma of a nation?

As an example, in the 1920s we went through the Great Depression. People said it felt like "getting the rug swept up under them."

Right after, the US experienced a polio wave, and the president that got us out of the Depression was FDR, who had...polio.

I feel this for a lot that is going on in the world right now…

Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah. Salutations to all the teachers.

Over the past several weeks, we have been discussing the answer to this question in some detail.

We initially began an investigation into the various aspects of karma - the decision, the action, and the consequence, alongside the resultant tendencies in the mind. We then looked into collective tendencies from various angles, followed by a discussion on shared experiences, collective action, repetitive patterns of people in our lives. Then, last time, we went over the ways in which the teaching of karma - whether individual or collective - can be correctly applied.

You can find the articles here:

Q&A: Is there such a thing as collective karma?: Part I

Q&A: Is there such a thing as collective karma?: Part II

Q&A: Is there such a thing as collective karma?: Part III

Why does this keep happening to me?

How to apply the teaching of karma.

This week, we will begin an investigation into collective karma from first principles, taking a deeper look into whether at all such a thing as a “collection” exists at all. Then, next time, we will look into whether all karma is, in fact, collective karma.

Before we begin, let us briefly¹ look into a thought experiment from the 7th-century philosopher, Chandrakirti:

स्वाङ्गेभ्यः इष्टो न रथो यथान्यो 

न चापि अनन्यो न च नाम तद्वान् । 

नाङ्गेषु नाङ्गानि अपि तत्र नापि 

संघातमात्रं न च सन्निवेशः ।।

SvaAngebhyah ishto na ratho yathaAnyo

Na chaApi ananyo na cha naam tadvaan

NaAngeshu naAngaani api tatra naApi

SanghaataMaatram na cha sanNiveshah

We do not accept that a chariot is other than its parts,

Nor not other [than its parts], nor does it possess them;

Neither is it in its parts, nor are its parts in it

Nor is it simply their collection, nor their configuration.

- Chandrakirti, Madhyamakaavataara 6.151

Fundamentally, the idea here is that what we call a “chariot” exists only in a relative, or conventional sense.

Image Credit: BK Mitra

In reality, the “chariot” is like an apparition - a rainbow, or a mirage.² There is no such thing as a “chariot” with an independent existence.

P: What? Of course the chariot exists!

Jogi: Is there such a thing as the chariot apart from its parts, such as the wheel, the axle, the chassis, and so on? That is, if we removed all the parts, would the chariot still exist?

P: No, the chariot would cease to exist.

Jogi: Exactly so. The chariot would not exist without its parts. Yet, if the parts were all placed in a heap, would the chariot exist?

P: No, I guess not.

Jogi: Exactly. The parts do not contain the chariot. Now, do the parts exist independently of the chariot?

P: Yes.

Jogi: So the parts can exist without the chariot. That is, the chariot is not in the collection of the parts, but it still seems to exist when the parts are put together. Perhaps the "chariot" in hiding in one of the parts?

P: Well no. It’s not like there is one part that is more “chariot” than any other part, and looking inside each part we don’t see a chariot hiding in any of them.

Jogi: That is true. Then perhaps it is in the particular configuration of the parts?

P: Yes that seems right. When the parts are heaped together there is no chariot, but when they are placed in that particular configuration, then we can say “the chariot exists.”

Jogi: Great. Now let us consider this. Imagine the chariot in that particular configuration wherein you can call it a "chariot."

P: Ok.

Jogi: Now let us remove one wheel. Is it still a chariot?

P: Yes, it is still a chariot, just missing a wheel, and if you replace the wheel it is still the same chariot. Even if you replace all the parts one by one, it is still the same chariot. How strange!

Jogi: Exactly so. The "chariot" seems to persist even though the configuration has changed. Therefore, the chariot is not in the particular configuration of the parts, or in the configuration of those particular parts.

P: So then what is the chariot?

Through this analysis, we can see that the “chariot” is, in fact, nothing more than a conceptual creation. There is no “chariot” as such, outside of thought.

When we don’t look too closely, we know what we mean by the word “chariot”, and can therefore use it in communication with others. However, if we dig deeper, the “chariot” itself quickly disappears.

The chariot can be said to exist conventionally, but in reality, there is not really any such thing.

This same analysis can be applied to any collection. For clarity, let us use the example of a football team. Consider the following sentence.

“Arsenal is an English football team. It was founded in 1886, and has existed ever since.”

Now let us dig in. What is “Arsenal”? Is it independent of its players?

P: Well, not exactly. If there were no players, there would be no team.

Jogi: Ok, then is it its players?

P: Not exactly. When the current players were children, if you put them together on a playground, it would not be called “Arsenal.”

Jogi: Is the team in one or more key players?

P: No - you need to have the whole group, and it’s not like “Arsenal” exists hiding inside one of the players.

Jogi: So then is the “team” in the entire group?

P: Not exactly. If we remove one player, it is still “Arsenal.” If we add different players, it is still “Arsenal”. And yet, if you have all the players from all time standing together, it is still not “Arsenal.”

Jogi: So then what is “Arsenal”?

Using the same line of reasoning as the chariot, we see that there is really no such thing as “Arsenal” which we can clearly define in terms of its parts, or independently of its parts.

Yet, we can speak about a team called Arsenal, and it has such a feeling of reality ascribed to it that millions of people around the world are die-hard fans of the team, loyal to it, cheering for it, and so on.

P: But what are the fans cheering for, if there is no such thing as Arsenal?

Jogi: It is not that Arsenal doesn’t exist at all. It is simply that Arsenal only has a conventional reality. If we dig in, we don’t find it, but this doesn’t mean that the concept of “Arsenal” does not have utility.

It is similar to a rainbow. When we try to hold on to a rainbow with our fingers, it as if dissolves in our fingers. But just because we can’t hold on to it doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it or appreciate its beauty.

P: What does this have to do with collective karma?

Collective karma - the karma of a collective group - depends on whether or not such a thing as a collective group exists at all. Through this analysis, we can see that there is, in fact, no fundamental reality to any collection, and so, fundamentally, there can be no such thing as collective karma.

Next time, we will use this reasoning to investigate whether all karma is, in fact, collective karma. This will lead us into the question of whether there is even such a thing as karma at all, and the topic of Karma Yoga, wherein the Yogi uses karma to break free from karma.

Until then, please reach out with any questions, objections, or clarifications by clicking the button below:

1. We will dive deeper into Chandrakirti’s Chariot and a similar analogy - the Ship of Theseus - when we discuss Maya in more detail in a future article.

2. The “chariot” is a similar level of reality as a mirage or a dream, but it is not entirely non-existent either, like the horns of a rabbit or a castle in the sky.