II, 2, 14

14. And on account of the permanent existence (of activity or non-activity).

Moreover, the atoms would have to be assumed as either essentially active (moving) or essentially non-active, or both or neither; there being no fifth alternative. But none of the four alternatives stated is possible. If they were essentially active, their activity would be permanent so that no pralaya could take place. If they were essentially non-active, their non-activity would be permanent, and no creation could take place. Their being both is impossible because self-contradictory. If they were neither, their activity and non-activity would have to depend on an operative cause, and then the operative causes such as the adṛṣṭa being in permanent proximity to the atoms, permanent activity would result; or else the adṛṣṭa and so on not being taken as operative causes, the consequence would be permanent non-activity on the part of the atoms.--For this reason also the atomic doctrine is untenable.