dom. Bodhāyana is quoted in support of this interpretation, and on his authority the two Mīmāmsās are declared to form parts of one science (page 5). Since every Indian Ārya is enjoined to learn the Karmakāṇḍa as well as the Jńānakāṇḍa of the Vedas, it may be argued that the study of the Karma-mīmāmsā is quite superfluous. In answer to this view it is pointed out that, in that injunction, learning the Vedas means nothing more than merely learning them by heart, and that such learning is efficacious in making them serve better whatever purpose they are intended to. serve, and also in giving rise to a prima facie impression that ritualistic works yield insignificant and impermanent results while there is a mention made in the Upanishads of the attainment of everlasting immortality (pp. 6 to 8). Then Vedāntic texts are quoted to show the destructibility of the results of mere ritualistic works and the indestructible character of the results arising from the knowledge of the Brahman, and it is concluded that the study of the Karma-mīmāmsā must precede the study of the Brahma-mīmāmsā (pp. 8 to 10).
Having thus stated his view of what meaning the word then conveys in this first aphorism, Rāmānuja states the objections against his view with the object of meeting them so as to justify his own interpretation. A statement of objections that is given with an intention to meet them is called a Pūrvapaksha; and the objection against Rāmānuja's interpretation of the word then here is known as the Laghu-pūrvapaksha or the 'small objection', in as much as there is a 'great objection' coming later on as against his interpretation of the word therefore. In this 'small objection ' the opinions of Ṡańkara and Bhāskara are shown to contradict each other, and Sankara's opinion regarding the meaning of the wordthen is summarised thus : —
