is whether the two employ similar strategies.  On our
　　   understanding  of the Paradoxes a sympathetic account
　　   of   Naagaarjuna   is   no  longer   in   danger   of
　　   "contamination" from specious Eleatic reasoning. Thus
　　   the principal aim of the following will be to exhibit
　　   what seem to us to be some striking parallels between
　　   certain  of Zeno's and Naagaarjuna's  arguments, both
　　   in methodologies and in targets.
　　　　  Eleatic  philosophy, of which Parmenides  was the
　　   principal exponent and Zeno the staunch defender, was
　　   in  part  an  attack  on  Pythagorean  science, which
　　   explained  the world  in terms  of a multiplicity  of
　　   opposing  principles.  The Eleatics  maintained  that
　　   Being   was  fundamentally   one  and  unchanging-and
　　   therefore,　　 of　　 course,   immovable.　　 Such　　 a
　　   counterintuitive   position   required  exceptionally
　　   strong  arguments  to support  it, the best  of which
　　   were supplied
　　   _____________________________________________________
　　   Mark  Siderits  and J.  Dervin  O'Brien  are graduate
　　   students in the Dept. of Philosophy, Yale University.

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.282

　　   by Zeno.  The rigor of his arguments overwhelmed  his
　　   contemporaries,  and   the  most   famous   of  these
　　   arguments,  the  Paradoxes,  continues  to  fascinate
　　   laymen and philosophers alike.
　　　　  Many  attempts  have been made  to explain  these
　　   Paradoxes.   Taken   as  separate   and   independent
　　   arguments, they range from the peculiar to the silly;
　　   yet in the ancient  world  they  enjoyed  an enormous
　　   reputation.  The best resolution  of this problem  is
　　   that offered by Robert Brumbaugh  in The Philosophers
　　   of Greece:　　 The Paradoxes should be viewed.  not as
　　   separate  arguments, but  as four  parts  of a single
　　   argument, each part designed  to refute  one possible
　　   interpretation of Pythagorean philosophy of nature.
　　　　  Because  for  many  years  the Pythagorean  order
　　   imposed  a rigid code of secrecy upon its members, it
　　   is  impossible   to  determine   with  any  certainty
　　   precisely what its official doctrine was at any given
　　   time, However  it seems  fair to say that Pythagorean
　　   science was basically  atomistic, the universe  being
　　   conceived  of as additive, that is, composed of atoms
　　   or minims, indivisible "smallest-possible''  units of