Mimamsasutra 3.2.12-2

3.2.12-2

’ brahmacaryamahiṃsāṃ cāparigrahaṃ ca satyaṃ ca yatnena rakṣet ’ iti śrutāvahiṃsādirdharmatvenoktaḥ | sa eva dharmaḥ śākyenāpyuktaḥ | tasmācchākyasmṛtirdharme pramāṇamiti cet |
na | svarūpeṇa dharmasyāpi gokṣīranyāyena śākyasaṃbandhe satyadharmatvaprasaṅgāt | tadīyagranthenāhiṃsādirnāvagantavyaḥ | tasmānna sā smutirdharme pramāṇam ||

In the direct Vedic statement, ‘One should scrupulously observe student-celibacy, non-injury, non-possession, and truth,’ non-injury and the like are stated as dharma. That very dharma has also been stated by the Śākya. Therefore, tradition of the Śākya is a means of valid cognition with respect to dharma—if this is argued: / No. Even though in its own nature it is dharma, when there is connection with the Śākya, it would become non-dharma by the principle of the cow's milk. Non-injury and the rest are not to be understood through his text. Therefore, that tradition is not a means of valid cognition regarding dharma.