that at t[0] the point  is at a, and at t[1]=t[0]+1d,
　　   the point is at c, Now by the same argument  which we
　　   used on the first  reading  of II:3, for any point  b
　　   lying  between  a and  c, b is  never  passed  by the
　　   moving  point, since motion from a to b would involve
　　   a duration  less  than d, which  is impossible.  Thus
　　   what  we  must  suppose  is that  for  some  definite
　　   duration  d, the  point  rests  at a.  and  for  some
　　   definite duration d, the point rests at c.  The whole
　　   point of the supposition at II:2 was to introduce the
　　   notion  of activity, however.  Now it seems that this
　　   supposition leads to a consequential  nongoing, which
　　   is  not  only   counterintuitive   but  also  clearly
　　   contrary   to  what  the  opponent   sought  when  he
　　   presupposed an extended present. While the principles
　　   of cinematography  afford a good heuristic model of a
　　   world  in  which  time  is  discontinuous  and  space
　　   continuous,  we  do  not  recommend  them  to  anyone
　　   interested  in explaining  present  motion through  a
　　   spatial continuum.
　　　　  MMK II:4-6 continues  the  argument  against  the
　　   opponent  of  II.2.  Verse  4 is  a good  example  of
　　   Naagaarjuna's "conceptual" arguments against motion,

　　　　　　　　　　　　  p.292

　　   which frequently  exploit  the realistic  assumptions
　　   behind   the   Abhidharma   lak.sa.na   doctrine   of
　　   designation:

　　   Gamyamaanasya gamana^m yasya tasya prasajyate
　　   .rte gatergamyamana^m gamyamaana^m hi gamyate.

　　   If  there  is a going  of present-being-gone-to, from
　　   this it follows,
　　   That present-being-gone-to  is devoid of the activity
　　   of going (gati). since present-being-gone-to is being
　　   gone to.

　　   Candrakiirti's  commentary, with  its  use  of  terms
　　   borrowed   from  the  grammarians,  brings   out  the
　　   linguistic nature of the argument:

　　   The thesis  is that there  is going  (gamana) through
　　   the   designation   of  present-being-gone-to;   what
　　   obtains the action of going (gamikriyaa), which is an
　　   existent attribute, from present-being-gone-to, which
　　   is a non-existent term devoid of the action of going;
　　   of   that　　 there　　 follows　　 the   thesis　　 that
　　   present-being-gone-to  is  without  the  activity  of
　　   going (gati), [since]  going (gamana) would be devoid