________________ 534 JOHANNES BRONKHORST that we are entitled to discard what seems to be its implied conclusion ("nothing comes into being") without further ado. It would, however, be more generous toward Nagarjuna to consider the possibility that he (and many of his Indian readers) held one or more presuppositions which made the verse logically coherent to them. And there we are back at the "epistemological neopositivist approach". If our reviewer does not like this, he may be urged to explain how he makes sense of individual portions and arguments in Nagarjuna's works. So far he has given no hint that he has even tried to, except of course through global and unhelpful comparisons with some modern Western philosophers. I have had the sad experience of being forced into a (mental) box in which I do not fit. I fear that Nagarjuna, and perhaps other Indian thinkers with him, would be as bewildered as I am, if not more so, if they found out what our reviewer has made of their thought. All I can hope is that other researchers in the field will succeed in finding more time to read in depth the texts which they are supposed to study. The review article here considered seems to me a good example of how not to proceed. AS/EA LX 3.2006, S. 531-534
