fuller discussion of _tantra_[249] [where several acts are combined into one], and _ávápa_ [or the performing an act more than once]. In the twelfth, a discussion on _prasaṅga_ [where the rite is performed for one chief purpose, but with an incidental further reference], _tantra_, cumulation of concurrent rites (_samuchchaya_) and option. Now the first topic which introduces the discussions of the Púrva-Mímáṃsá arises from the aphorism, "Now therefore a desire to know duty [is to be entertained by thee"]. Now the learned describe a "topic" as consisting of five members, and these are (_a._) the subject, (_b._) the doubt, (_c._) the _primâ facie_ argument, (_d._) the demonstrated conclusion, and (_e._) the connection (_saṅgati_). The topic is discussed according to the doctrines held by the great teachers of the system. Thus the "subject" to be discussed is the sentence, "The Veda is to be read." Now the "doubt" which arises is whether the study of Jaimini's _śástra_ concerning duty, beginning with the aphorism, "Duty is a thing which is to be recognised by an instigatory passage," and ending with "and from seeing it in the _anváhárya_," is to be commenced or not. The _primâ facie_ argument is that it is not to be commenced, whether the injunction to read the Veda be held to have a visible and present or an invisible and future fruit. (_a._) If you say that this injunction must have a visible fruit, and this can be no other[250] than the knowledge of the meaning of what is read, we must next ask you whether this said reading is enjoined as something which otherwise would not have been thought of, or whether as something which otherwise would have been optional, as we see in the rule for shelling rice.[251] It cannot be the former, for the reading of the Veda is a means of knowing the sense thereof from its very nature as reading, just as in the parallel instance of reading the Mahábhárata; and we see by this argument that it would present itself as an obvious means quite independently of the injunction. Well, then, let it be the latter alternative; just as the baked flour cake called _puroḍása_ is made only of rice prepared by being unhusked in a mortar, when, but for the injunction, it might have been unhusked by the finger-nails. There, however, the new moon and full moon sacrifices only produce their unseen effect, which is the principal _apúrva_, by means of the various minor effects or subordinate _apúrvas_, produced by the various subordinate parts of the whole ceremony; and consequently the minor _apúrva_ of the unhusking is the reason there for the restricting injunction. But in the case which we are discussing, there is no such reason for any such restriction, as the rites can be equally well performed by gaining the knowledge of the Veda's meaning by reading a written book, or by studying under an authorised teacher. Hence we conclude that there is no injunction to study the Púrva Mímáṃsá as a means of knowing the sense of the Veda.