Mimamsasutra 3.2.7-2

3.2.7-2

sparśasarvaveṣṭanaviṣayayoḥ pratyakṣānumitaśrutyoḥ parasparavirodhādubhayorapyaprāmāṇyamiti pūrvapakṣaḥ |
anumānasya kālātyayāpadiṣṭatayā viruddhaśrutyabhāvena sparśaśrutiḥ svārthe pramāṇam | yadi puruṣāntarapratyakṣavedaḥ sarvaveṣṭanasmṛtermūlamityucyate, tarhi mā bhūttasyā aprāmāṇyam | tathā'pi parapratyakṣātsvapratyakṣasyābhyarhitatvena sparśa evātrānuṣṭheyo natu sarvaveṣṭanam || 6 ||

The prima facie view is that, because of mutual conflict between the direct and inferred Vedic statements regarding touching and complete wrapping, neither is a means of valid cognition. / Since the inference is contradicted by direct perception and there is no conflicting direct Vedic statement, the Vedic statement on touching is a means of valid cognition regarding its own meaning. If it is said that a Veda directly perceived by another person is the foundation of the tradition of complete wrapping, then let it not lack validity. Even so, because one's own direct perception is superior to direct perception by another, only touching is to be performed here, not complete wrapping. 6.