Why ancient Prasangika buddhist Chandrakirti claimed "There is no chariot which depends on its parts"?

Question

Today during reference checking I arrived at this wiki page, where the famous ancient Prasangika buddhist Chandrakirti claimed "There is no chariot which depends on its parts"?

But per the firmly established "dependent origination" Buddhism's key doctrine, every external phenomenon is conditioned and dependent on other dharmas. So we cannot say the arising of a composite is dependent on its parts? This sounds a little confusing and uncommon. For example, my car's battery is broken, until I fix it or change a new one, I cannot use the car any more as car. So for the car to have any relevance to me, I have to address even a very small part (battery), otherwise that car is essentially non-existent even at car's "conventional level". I certainly feel and experience a strong necessary karmic dependency here.

Are there any historical accounts or conventional explanation for Chandrakirti's above claim or are there any special deep meanings here from Prasangika school of thought which emphasizes to establish a position of emptiness through showing the logical consequences of the incorrect position that the questioner already accepts as a common starting ground?

Answer 1

I wonder if this might be helpful...

Words superimpose a vaneer-like structure over our reality and this becomes the haze of naming and forming. It is a major component of ignorance and becomes the structure from which guides the superficiality of our existence. It can be very tricky to peer outside of this structure.

When we call the chariot a 'chariot', and believe that to be so, we have essentially bastardised a part of reality. We've segmented the chariot from its surroundings, merged all its parts into a single idea and given it the name chariot.

A chariot and its function is nothing without its surroundings. It can only be defined by the ground it moves along, the passengers it accepts, the horses that pull it, the space it moves through... - in other words, to truly define the chariot the entire universe would need to be taken into consideration and this is where name and form fall apart because naming and forming have strict parameters which are heavily challenged by the truth of reality. At a push one could say the chariot is everything such that it is incomprehensible. This makes the chariot empty and therefore nothing. The word 'chariot' is a convenient placeholder to help reference objects from one another. The problem occurs when one believes the chariot to be a chariot.

Now that we've neutralized the existence of chariot, it should be much easier to apply this to the chariot's components. Let's say you began removing those components one by one. At what point do you decide it is no longer a chariot?

“What do you think, Subhuti? Are there many particles of dust in this vast universe?”

Subhuti replied: “Yes, many, Most Honored One!”

“Subhuti, when the Buddha speaks of particles of dust, it does not mean I am thinking of any definite or arbitrary thought, I am merely using these words as a figure of speech. They are not real, only illusion. It is just the same with the word universe; these words do not assert any definite or arbitrary idea, I am only using the words as words.”

Answer 2

This wiki page link is not a great translation and it is easy to be confused if you don't understand what is being negated/refuted by this line of reasoning: the inherent existence of a chariot. If you understand what is being negated, then the fourth point becomes: "There is no inherently existing chariot which depends on its parts" and the simile often given is of a lion in the forest.

Answer 3

The dependent origination is about phenomenon. One leads to other and not that one is made up of other. Example feelings lead to craving. Cessation of feeling is cessation of craving. Whereas while talking about chariot the simile applies to the idea of self. When you talk about chariot which part of chariot do you call chariot ? In modern terms we can apply it to a car. What is car ? Is it the doors ? Is it the tyres? Is it engine ? Is it the brakes ? Is the gear ? Is it the accelerator ? Question is how do you define car ? You will find you can’t ... what you have is a pointer to an undefinable idea. Similarly when you call Gautam what you have is a pointer to an undefinable idea ....