---- , , । , । । । । ॥६॥ , । । ॥ §०§
In plain words
Nor should this be said: “Since solid things cannot be in one place, and since in conjunction their being in different places is not removed, there is a produced substance called the dyad, resting in them, of atomic size; and from three of these comes a large effect.” For this is the doctrine of the whole, and that has already been cancelled above. And what is said, that conjunction occurs without pervading its substrate: how could that fit in what has no parts? For if it inheres in its own substrate, what else of that substrate is left that it would not pervade? And since this is an additional argument that cancels, we have not laid weight on it here. It has been shown at length in the by the master .
But surely what is called a cancelling argument can do nothing against a real thing established by a , since that same firm shows that what is taken to cancel it is itself cancelled and is no . And the that proves it has been shown here, a reason from the effect, by the “If this and that , coming by chance”. With this doubt in view, he says:
For the , the that is and nothing else, would, like a , by the power of will make the host of objects that stand within shine outside, with no material cause.