single  atom   is being  considered.  This  does  not
　　   constitute  a serious  objection, however, since  the
　　   analysis may then be applied to any geometrical point
　　   along  the  length  of a real  foot--it  is for  this
　　   reason  that  Candrakiirti  begins  the  argument  by
　　   asserting  that  our  feet  are  just  aggregates  of
　　   paramaa.nu.  Once these two problem  are resolved, it
　　   becomes clear that Candrakiirti's  interpretation  of
　　   MMK  II:  I  involves  the  explicit  assumption   of
　　   infinitely   divisible   space   and   the   implicit
　　   assumption of infinitely divisible time.
　　　　  In MMK II:2 Naagaarjuna's opponent introduces the
　　   notion of activity or process:

　　   Ce.s.taa yatra gatistatra gamyamaane ca saa yata.h
　　   Na gate naagate ce.s.taa gamyamaane gatistata.h

　　   When  there  is movement  there  is the  activity  of
　　　　  going,  and  that  is  in  present-being-gone-to;
　　   The  movement   not  being  in  the  gone-to  nor  in
　　　　  the  not-yet-gone-to, the  activity  of going  is
　　　　  in the present-being-gone-to.

　　   This  notion  of an  activity  of going, which  takes
　　   place  in  present-being-gone-to, requires  minimally
　　   that we posit an extended  present.  This is required
　　   since only on the supposition of an extended or 'fat'
　　   present can we ascribe  activity  to a present moment
　　   of going.  Thus the opponent  is seeking  to overcome
　　   the objections  against  motion  which were raised in
　　   II:I, which  involved  the supposition  of infinitely
　　   divisible time.  The opponent's  thesis appears to be
　　   neutral with respect  to space however;  it seems  to
　　   be  reconcilable   with  either  a  continuous  or  a
　　   discontinuous theory of space.
　　　　  A  textual  ambiguity   in  II: 3  has  important
　　   consequences. Where Vaidya has dvigamanam(14) (double
　　   going) ,  Teramoto   has   hyagamanam(15)  (since   a
　　   nongoing) ,  and  May  has  vigamanam(16) (nongoing).
　　   Vaidya's  reading  seems somewhat  more likely, since
　　   "double  going"  is  supported  by  the  argument  of
　　   Candrakiirti's  commentary.   However  both  readings
　　   yield an interpretation  which is consistent with our
　　   assumption  that  in II:3 Naagaarjuna  will  seek  to
　　   refute the case of motion in discontinuous time. Thus
　　   on Vaidya's reading II:3 is:

　　   Gamyamaanasya gamana^m katha^m naamopapatsyate