How do the arguments in commentaries differ from a rehash

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Post Reply
Mashell
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:57 am
Contact:

How do the arguments in commentaries differ from a rehash

Post by Mashell »

How do the arguments in commentaries differ from a rehash of Zeno's Paradox wrt Ch 2 on Going?
Michael_Dorfman
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:09 pm

Re: How do the arguments in commentaries differ from a rehas

Post by Michael_Dorfman »

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?
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”