And is there not also a time at which it assumes being and
relinquishes being-for how can it have and not have the same thing
unless it receives and also gives it up at; some time?
And the assuming of being is what you would call becoming?
And the relinquishing of being you would call destruction?
The one then, as would appear, becomes and is destroyed by taking
and giving up being.
And being one and many and in process of becoming and being
destroyed, when it becomes one it ceases to be many, and when many, it
ceases to be one?
And as it becomes one and many, must it not inevitably experience
separation and aggregation?
And whenever it becomes like and unlike it must be assimilated and
And when it becomes greater or less or equal it must grow or
diminish or be equalized?
And when being in motion it rests, and when being at rest it changes
to motion, it can surely be in no time at all?
How can it?
But that a thing which is previously at rest should be afterwards in
motion, or previously in motion and afterwards at rest, without
experiencing change, is impossible.