"'The Sáṅkhyas hold that both authoritativeness and non-authoritativeness are self-proved; the followers of the Nyáya hold that both are proved by something else [as inference, &c.]; the Buddhists hold that the latter is self-proved and the former proved by something else; the teachers of the Veda maintain that authoritativeness is self-proved and non-authoritativeness proved by something else.' Now we ask, amidst all this discussion, how do the Mímáṃsakas accept as established their tenet that the authoritativeness of duty is self-proved? And what is the meaning of this so-called self-proved authoritativeness? Is it (_a._) that authoritativeness springs from itself? or (_b._) that it springs from the right knowledge in which it resides? or (_c._) that it springs from the instrumental causes [as the eye, &c.] which produced the right knowledge in which it resides? or (_d._) that it resides in a particular knowledge produced by the instrumental causes which produced the right knowledge?[284] or (_e._) that it resides in a particular knowledge produced by the instrumental causes _only_ which produced the right knowledge? "(_a._) It cannot be the _first_, because wherever the relation of cause and effect is found there must be a difference, and therefore these two cannot reside in the same subject [_i.e._, authoritativeness cannot cause itself]. (_b._) It cannot be the _second_, because if knowledge, which is a quality, were the cause of authoritativeness, it would have to be a substance, as being an intimate cause.[285] (_c._) It cannot be the _third_, because 'authoritativeness' cannot properly be 'produced' at all,[286] whether we call it a general characteristic (_upádhi_) or a species (_játi_);[287] for if we call it an _upádhi_, it is defined as the absolute non-existence of any contradiction to a certain kind of knowledge which does not possess the nature of recollection;[288] and this cannot be produced, for we all allow that absolute non-existence is eternal; and still less can we speak of its being produced, if we regard it as a species. (_d._) Nor can it be the _fourth_, for wrong knowledge [as well as right knowledge] is a particular kind of knowledge, and the instrumental causes which produce the general are included in those which produce the particular,[289] just as the general idea 'seed,' as applied to 'tree,' is included in the particular seed of any special tree, as, _e.g._, the Dalbergia Sisu; otherwise we might suppose that the particular had no instrumental cause at all. Your definition would therefore extend too far [and include erroneous as well as true knowledge]; for non-authoritativeness, which Vedantists and most Mímáṃsakas allow to be produced by something external, must also be considered as residing in a particular knowledge [_i.e._, a wrong knowledge] produced [in part] by the instrumental causes which produced the right knowledge. (_e._) As for your _fifth_ view, we ask