user-1: I thought id ask how you would explain what is commonly referred to as "Zeno' Paradox of Achillies racing the turtle" in Buddhist terms.
For those who aren't familiar the paradox is like this Youtube Animation;

Achillies is supposed to race a turtle.
Achillies gives the turtle a head start of say 10 meters.
Achillies runs at 10 meters per second.
The Turtle runs at 2 meters per second.
Achillies starts the race from the point A as the turtle starts the race from point B which is B=A+10meters.
By the time [+1 second] Achillies reaches the point B, the turtle will have moved from the point B at a speed of 2 meters/second and after 1 second will have reached the point C=B+2meters, moving B to C and remain ahead of Achillies by 2 meters.
By the time [+1.2 second] Achilies moves A to B and B to C, reaching the point C; the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.2 that it took Achilies to cover the 12meters going first from A to B then from B to C, the turtle will have moved from B to C and further from C to D wherein D=C+0.4meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.4 meters.
By the time [+1.24 seconds] Achillies reaches the point D, the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.24 seconds that it took Achilies to cover the 12.4 meters going first A to B, then B to C and furthermore from C to D; the turtle will have moved B to C, C to D and furthermore from D to E wherein E=D+0.08meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.08 meters.
This is then supposed to go on indefinitely with Achillies paradoxically never reaching the turtle due to infinite division of space & time into smaller intervals.

The reason i am asking is because i have not seen Buddhists do this before, am curious as to whether someone here can provide a comprehensible explaination and  want to develop an answer myself even tho i have an idea of how id answer this.
Let's just assume for simplicity sake that it's just a thought experiment and a ground for confusion rather than a "true paradox" of some sort.
I want substantiated answers based on texts know to be true such as the sutta-pitaka but it's not a requirement.

user254: I think that SN 51.15 is an example:

"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?

I think that Brahman Unnabha argues from the pespective of paradox -- that it's infinite i.e. "endless".
And Ananda replies something like, "When you arrived, that was the end of that" -- which is IMO more or less a description of how a real arrow behaves, without getting caught in the mentally-constructed paradox.

I notice I've changed the formulation of the paradox -- not "Achilles and the Tortoise" but just an arrow -- so I'm actually referring to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.
IMO they're about the same paradox: because you can simply subtract the tortoise's speed from Achilles's so that it's the description of the relative motion, between a moving object and a (relatively) stationary target.
Doing that, i.e. subtracting to transform one to the other, is a safe/valid transformation -- except at speeds approaching the speed of light.

-1: <p>I thought id ask how you would explain what is commonly referred to as &quot;Zeno' Paradox of Achillies racing the turtle&quot; in Buddhist terms.</p>
<p>For those who aren't familiar the paradox is like this <a href="https://youtu.be/NCtw5f6XPF4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Youtube Animation</a>;</p>
<ul>
<li>Achillies is supposed to race a turtle.</li>
<li>Achillies gives the turtle a head start of say 10 meters.</li>
<li>Achillies runs at 10 meters per second.</li>
<li>The Turtle runs at 2 meters per second.</li>
<li>Achillies starts the race from the point A as the turtle starts the race from point B which is B=A+10meters.</li>
<li>By the time [+1 second] Achillies reaches the point B, the turtle will have moved from the point B at a speed of 2 meters/second and after 1 second will have reached the point C=B+2meters, moving B to C and remain ahead of Achillies by 2 meters.</li>
<li>By the time [+1.2 second] Achilies moves A to B and B to C, reaching the point C; the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.2 that it took Achilies to cover the 12meters going first from A to B then from B to C, the turtle will have moved from B to C and further from C to D wherein D=C+0.4meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.4 meters.</li>
<li>By the time [+1.24 seconds] Achillies reaches the point D, the turtle will have moved from the point C at a speed of 2 meters per second and after 1.24 seconds that it took Achilies to cover the 12.4 meters going first A to B, then B to C and furthermore from C to D; the turtle will have moved B to C, C to D and furthermore from D to E wherein E=D+0.08meters, still ahead of Achilies by 0.08 meters.</li>
<li>This is then supposed to go on indefinitely with Achillies paradoxically never reaching the turtle due to infinite division of space &amp; time into smaller intervals.</li>
</ul>
<p>The reason i am asking is because i have not seen Buddhists do this before, am curious as to whether someone here can provide a comprehensible explaination and  want to develop an answer myself even tho i have an idea of how id answer this.</p>
<p>Let's just assume for simplicity sake that it's just a thought experiment and a ground for confusion rather than a &quot;true paradox&quot; of some sort.</p>
<p>I want substantiated answers based on texts know to be true such as the sutta-pitaka but it's not a requirement.</p>
 254: <p>I think that <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 51.15</a> is an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that Brahman Unnabha argues from the pespective of paradox -- that it's infinite i.e. &quot;endless&quot;.</p>
<p>And Ananda replies something like, &quot;When you arrived, that was the end of that&quot; -- which is IMO more or less a description of how a real arrow behaves, without getting caught in the mentally-constructed paradox.</p>
<hr />
<p>I notice I've changed the formulation of the paradox -- not &quot;Achilles and the Tortoise&quot; but just an arrow -- so I'm actually referring to Zeno's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Dichotomy_paradox" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dichotomy paradox</a>.</p>
<p>IMO they're about the same paradox: because you can simply subtract the tortoise's speed from Achilles's so that it's the description of the relative motion, between a moving object and a (relatively) stationary target.</p>
<p>Doing that, i.e. subtracting to transform one to the other, is a safe/valid transformation -- except at speeds approaching the speed of light.</p>
