Mimamsasutra 2.2.4.p2

2.2.4.p2

’vimataṃ karmānuṣṭheyam, phalapradadevatopetatvāt, rājasevādivat’ ityanumānaṃ yadyarthavāde vivakṣyate, tadānīmāgamapramāṇasya vidhivākyasya pramāṇāntarasāpekṣatvaṃ syāt | na tvevaṃ vivakṣitam | kiṃtu phalapradadevatātoṣakatvopanyāsamukhena karmaprāśastyamupalakṣyate | tathā sati ’praśastaṃ karmānuṣṭheyam’ ityasminnarthe sārthavādasya videḥ paryavasānādekavākyatā labhyate | tatra kutaḥ sāpekṣatvam | tasmāt vidhiḥ pramāṇam iti siddhāntaḥ |

If the inference, "The disputed ritual act is to be performed, because it is accompanied by a deity that grants fruit, like service to a king, etc.," were intended to be expressed in the corroborative statement, then the injunctive sentence, which is a verbal means of valid cognition, would depend on another means of valid cognition. But this is not intended. Rather, through the presentation of gratifying a deity that grants fruit, the praiseworthiness of the ritual act is metaphorically indicated. That being so, since the injunction along with the corroborative statement terminates in this sense, "A praiseworthy ritual act is to be performed," unified sentencehood is obtained. In that case, whence any dependence? Therefore, the injunction is a means of valid cognition: this is the conclusive view.