Mimamsasutra 3.2.18.p5

3.2.18.p5

na ca smṛtyācārayormūlavaidānumāpakasāmyātsamabalatvamiti śaṅkanīyam | holākādisadācārasya manvādismṛtivadvedānumāpakatvāyogāt | nahīdānīṃtanāḥ śiṣṭā manvādivaddeśakālaviprakṛṣṭaṃ vedaṃ divyajñānena sākṣātkartu śaknuvanti | yena śiṣṭacāro mūlavedamanumāpayet | śaknoti ca yaḥ kopi śiṣṭo yatra kvāpi deśaviśeṣe kālaviśeṣe ca yaṃ kaṃcanāpi holākādyācarasya mūlabhūtaṃ smṛtigranthamavalokayitum | tasmācchiṣṭācāreṇa smṛtirevānumātuṃ śakyate, natu śrutiḥ | anumitā ca smṛtirvirūddhayā pratyakṣayā smṛtyā bādhyate | ata evā''huḥ-

And one should not suspect that tradition and conduct are of equal force on the ground that they are equal in inferring the Vedic source. For righteous conduct like the Holākā festival and the like cannot infer a Vedic source in the manner of the tradition of Manu and others. For cultured persons of the present time cannot, like Manu and others, directly perceive with divine knowledge the Veda that is remote in space and time, by which conduct of the cultured could infer a Vedic source. And any cultured person anywhere, in a specific country and at a specific time, is able to see some traditional text that is the source of conduct like the Holākā and the like. Therefore, by the conduct of the cultured only a traditional text can be inferred, not a direct Vedic statement. And an inferred traditional text is sublated by a conflicting, directly perceived traditional text. Hence they say: