Mimamsasutra 2.2.7

Because the unpraised state of being made of udumbara wood is not enjoined, whose fruit would that be? / If there is duality of meaning, there would be a split of the sentence; hence, it is solely laudatory.

This is handed down in the sacred text: "The sacrificial post is made of udumbara wood; udumbara is vigor; animals are vigor; with vigor itself he obtains for him vigor, [namely] animals, for the securing of vigor." Vigor is said to be the extremely essential, subtle essence of food denoted by the word 'amṛta'. By means of vigor in the form of the udumbara, the Adhvaryu obtains for the sake of the sacrificer vigor in the form of animals. Therefore, the post's being made of udumbara wood serves to accomplish vigor—this is the meaning. Here, "for the securing" (avarudhyai) is in the dative case signifying purpose. By that, its being a fruit is understood, because that is seen in expressions like "service to a king for the attainment of wealth." And it is not proper that a statement aimed at a fruit should be laudatory; otherwise, in the case of "one desirous of heaven," even the word "heaven" would unacceptably be laudatory of the Jyotiṣṭoma—this having been arrived at,

we reply: Whose fruit would this securing of vigor be—of the state of being made of udumbara wood which is not enjoined, or which is enjoined? Not the first, because without performance,

a fruit cannot arise from a mere substance. In the second case, is the injunction here direct, or is it to be inferred? Not the first, because the optative suffix is not heard in "The sacrificial post is made of udumbara wood." In the second case, it would have to be inferred through praise; and you do not admit praise here. If it should be said: "The state of being made of udumbara wood is praised for the sake of being enjoined, and its fruit is made known," then there would be a split of the sentence. Hence, even though it is asserted like an injunction of a fruit, this sentence is solely laudatory.