opponent, not at a straw  man, seen  in the light  of
　　   this historical  context, the argument seems somewhat
　　   less  specious.  The  thesis  that  there  is a 'fat'
　　   temporal  present  within  which  motion  to an other
　　   takes  place  was  held  by at least  one  Abhidharma
　　   school,  the  Pudgalavaadins.(19) And  the  lak.sa.na
　　   criterion, whereby  only  that is a real (that  is, a
　　   dharma) which  bears  its own  lak.sa.na  or defining
　　   characteristic,  was  held  in  common   by  all  the
　　   Abhidharma schools.  This latter doctrine, when taken
　　   in conjunction with the strict correspondence  theory
　　   of truth  which  was  the  common  position  of early
　　   Buddhism, yields precisely the excessively  realistic
　　   attitude   toward  language   which  Naagaarjuna   so
　　   consistently exploits throughout MMK.  In particular,
　　   Naagaarjuna  is here  taking  to task  the opponent's
　　   assumption of the possibility of real definition--the
　　   proper manipulation  of linguistic  symbols  gives us
　　   insight:  into   the   constitutive   structures   of
　　   extralinguistic  reality--and  with it the assumption
　　   of language-reality isomorphism.
　　　　  Seen  in  this  light,  however,  the  opponent's
　　   presuppositions are neither as

　　　　　　　　　　　　  p.294

　　   farfetched  nor  as alien  to our  own  philosophical
　　   concerns  as they might have seemed.  And this brings
　　   us to the second  point we should  like to make about
　　   Naagaarjuna's line of argument in II:4-6:  The attack
　　   is not against  motion  per se but against  a certain
　　   attitude toward language, and so its basic point will
　　   have  effect  wherever  noncritical  metaphysics   is
　　   practiced.  The argument  relies on the fact that the
　　   outcome  of an analysis  depends, among other things.
　　   on the purpose  behind doing the analysis.  Thus  the
　　   notion  of  a  definitive   analysis   of  motion  is
　　   inherently  self-contradictory.   Any  account  which
　　   purports  to be such an analysis  can be shown  to be
　　   guilty  of hypostatization.  When  the  terms  of the
　　   analysis--here,　　 in　　 particular　　 gati　　 and
　　   gamyamaana--are   taken   to  refer  to  reals,  they
　　   immediately  become reified, frozen out of the series
　　   of  systematic  interrelationships  which  originally
　　   gave them, as linguistic items, meaningfulness.  This