Mimamsasutra 3.2.11

Sipping water and so on is a substantive rite here; sequence is a property residing in substantive rites. / Because a property depends on the property-bearer, validity exists, since there is no sublation.

Sipping water enjoined by "Having sneezed, he should sip water" serves the purpose of the person. But when an occasion such as sneezing occurs in the middle of a sacrifice, then occasional sipping of water as a subsidiary element to the sacrifice is enjoined by tradition: "It must be done by one who has sipped water." This tradition is not a means of valid cognition. Why? Because it is in conflict. In the direct Vedic statement, "Having made the veda, he prepares the vedi," sequence is understood by the suffix -tvā, which expresses an earlier time. A veda is an instrument of sweeping made of darbha grass. The vedi is the ground between the Āhavanīya and Gārhapatya fires, dug four fingers deep. If in between them he should perform sipping of water occasioned by sneezing and the like, then the uninterrupted sequence stated by the direct Vedic statement would be contradicted. Therefore, like the tradition of wrapping, the tradition of sipping water is not a means of valid cognition. When this is obtained—

We reply: Just like the things to be performed mentioned in direct Vedic statements such as the knowledge of the Veda, sipping water and the like mentioned in tradition are things to be performed. But sequence is a property residing in things to be performed, and it depends upon those things. Therefore, through conflict with that upon which it depends, sequence alone is sublated, but sipping water is not sublated by sequence. Therefore, this tradition is a means of valid cognition.

In this very [topic], the author of the Vārtika formulated two inquiries in a different manner. There, he presents the first inquiry: