Sarvadarshanasangraha 12.25

12.25

maivaṃ vocaḥ/ dṛṣṭāntadārṣṭāntikayor vaiṣamyasaṃbhavāt/ viṣabhojanavākyasyāptapraṇītatvena mukhyārthaparigrahe bādhaḥ syād iti vivakṣā nāśrīyate/ apauruṣeye tu vede pratīyamāno 'rthaḥ kuto na vivakṣyate/ vivakṣite ca vedārthe yatra yatra puruṣasya saṃdehaḥ sa sarvo 'pi vicāraśāstrasya viṣayo bhaviṣyati/ tan nirṇayasya prayojanam/ tasmād adhyāpanavidhiprayuktenādhyayanenāvagamyamānasyārthasya vicārārhatvād vicāraśāstrasya vaidhatvena vicāraśāstram ārambhaṇīyam iti rādhāntasaṃgrahaḥ/

We grant, in reply, that the injunction to teach does not imply a corresponding necessity that the student must understand the meaning; still when a man has read the Veda with its subsidiary aṅgas, and has comprehended the general connection of the words with their respective meanings, this will imply an understanding of the meaning of the Veda, just as it would in any ordinary human compositions. "But may we not say that, just as in the case of the mother who said to her son, 'Eat poison,' the meaning literally expressed by the words was not what she wished to convey, since she really intended to forbid his eating anything at all in such and such a house; so if the literal meaning of the Veda does not express its real purport, the old objection will recur with full force that the study of Mīmāṃsā will have neither subject nor end [as there will be no use in understanding the literal meaning, since, as in the mother's case, it may only lead astray, and so common sense must be the ultimate judge"]. We reply, that your supposed illustration and the case in question are not really parallel. In the supposed illustration the primary meaning of the words would be obviously precluded, because a direction to eat poison would be inconceivable in the mouth of an authoritative and trustworthy speaker like a mother, and you would know at once that this could not be what she wished to say; but in the case of the Veda, which is underived from any personal author, why should not the literal meaning be the one actually intended? And it is just the doubts that arise, as they occasionally will do, in reference to this intended meaning, which will be the proper "subject" of Mīmāṃsā discussion; and the settlement of these doubts will be its proper "end." Therefore, whenever the true meaning of the Veda is not obtained[14] by that reading which is virtually prescribed by the authoritative injunction to a Brahman to teach, it will be a proper subject for systematic discussion; and hence we hold that the study of Mīmāṃsā is enjoined, and should be commenced.