There are also important similarities between the
　　   two  philosophers'  styles  of argument.  Both, as we
　　   have  seen, are given  to the use of indirect  proof.
　　   Both make use of a "mathematical"  style  of argument
　　   which   accepts   the   opponent's　　 premises　　 and
　　   demonstrates  that they entail either absurdities  or
　　   consequences  unacceptable to the opponent.  However,
　　   Naagaarjuna  also makes use of a very different  sort
　　   of argument--one  which  approaches  the  problem  in
　　   question  from a meta-level, showing  the problem  as
　　   one   of  reification, arising  from  the  opponent's
　　   attempt to project his analysis out onto some

　　　　　　　　　　　　  p.298

　　   extralinguistic  "reality,"  and to make the terms of
　　   this analysis correspond  to independent  entities in
　　   that "reality." There are other differences  as well.
　　   Zeno  is  far  more  formal  and  systematic  in  his
　　   arguments  than is Naagaarjuna  in his "mathematical"
　　   arguments;  Zeno constructs  Paradoxes  to cover  all
　　   four  possible  cases  of  spatiotemporal  continuity
　　   and/or  discontinuity, whereas  Naagaarjuna  has only
　　   three  arguments, and these  tend to overlap.  On the
　　   other hand, Naagaarjuna  seems more clearly  aware of
　　   the nature  of his opponents'  fallacy, the confusion
　　   of mathematical analysis with physical occurrence and
　　   of mathematical fictions or conventions with physical
　　   entities.
　　　　  By means of their  various  arguments  concerning
　　   motion,  both   Zeno   and  Naagaarjuna   reach   the
　　   conclusion that no intelligible  account of motion is
　　   possible. However, the two proceed from this point of
　　   agreement   in  quite  different   directions.   Zeno
　　   concludes  that  since  no  intelligible  account  of
　　   motion  can be given, and  since  the  unintelligible
　　   cannot  exist, therefore motion itself is impossible,
　　   and Being must be unmoving, This supports Parmenides'
　　   doctrine   that   Being   is  one   and   unchanging.
　　   Naagaarjuna  concludes  instead that it is impossible
　　   to give an intelligible  account of motion because to
　　   do so is to attempt to make a description or analysis
　　   designed  to cope  with a certain  limited  practical
　　   problem  apply far beyond  its sphere  of competence.
　　   This in turn supports the thesis that metaphysics  is
　　   a fundamentally  misguided  undertaking.  One   could