Mashell wrote:How do the arguments in commentaries differ from a rehash of Zeno's Paradox wrt Ch 2 on Going?
I assume that you are speaking here of Chapter 2 of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
. Is that correct?
If so, which commentaries are you speaking of? The Indian commentaries (such as the Akutobhaya, or the commentaries by Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, or Pingala)? Or the Tibetan sub-commentaries (such as Tsongkhapa and Mabja)? Or the contemporary commentaries (such as Murti, Kalupahana, Garfield, or Siderits and Katsura?)
To the best of my recollection, the only work that I can think of on parallels to Zeno is an article by O'Brien and Siderits in Philosophy East and West
from 1976, and a critique of that by Mabbett in 1984 in the same journal.
Does that start to answer your question?