PadmaVonSamba wrote:You know what is interesting? If you put two points (dots) on the hand of a clock, one at the outer tip of the clock hand, and one near the center of the clock, the point nearer to the outer tip of a hand moves much, much faster than a point near the center, even though they are both moving at the same rate.
Equivocation alert (sorry, it's my job). In a polar coordinate system concentric with the clock, the dot radii remain constant as does their angular velocity (motion), only their angle coordinate changes. In a Cartesian coordinate system, their velocities (motion) are different and both coordinates are changing. All of which proves that "motion" is empty. Let's just say concepts are empty and watch TV.
Tom wrote:Movement is change and so cannot be found in one instant.
Neither change nor no-change can be found in one instant, so his argument, Zeno's Arrow Paradox, is busted by his own four-point negation. So there.
Tom wrote:Nagarjuna asserts movement is just a construct of the mind, based upon two different position in two different times.
Of course, Tom, I think neither you nor I suffer from the unconditioned-motion klesha, we would just say motion is a relationship, not a "thing". Nagarjuna asserts "motion cannot be conceived" after he conceives it. This creates a metaphysical zinger that is insubstantial on closer investigation.
Namdrol wrote:MMK refutes moving movers, such as rolling balls. The minute you suggest that balls roll, then automatically the subroutine that refutes rolling rollers kicks in.
My smart phone knows my name.
Fruitzilla wrote:If a ball cannot roll, how does it get from one place to another?
Fruitzilla wrote:I'm always puzzled by Madhyamakan logic.. At first look it seems really profound, at second look I go hmmmm, at a third look it seems like a misuse of language.
It is pretty tricky, Fruitzilla. As cloud mentions elsewhere, folks don't always just admit this so it can seem even trickier. Namdrol explained earlier that Nagarjuna was addressing essentialism in Abhidharma, perhaps these guys wanted to reify everything they got their hands on -- properties, relationships -- things that may seem odd to us today, and Nagarjuna put a big wrench in that project. So it may not be a misuse
of language so much as admitting there are two language frameworks going on here, Nagarjuna's and ours, so it can be tricky.
Enjoy your days.