III, 4, 33

33. And through the co-operativeness (of the works towards the origination of knowledge).

Those works are also co-operative with knowledge just because they are enjoined as such, viz. in passages such as 'Him the Brāhmaṇas seek to know by the study of the Veda,' &c. This has been explained under Sūtra 26. Nor must you think that the texts stating the co-operation of the works of the āśramas towards knowledge refer to the fruit of knowledge, as e.g. the offerings called prayājas co-operate towards the fruit of the darśapūrṇamāsa of which they are auxiliary members; for knowledge is not characterised by injunction, and the fruit of knowledge is not to be effected by means. Means characterised by injunctions such as the darśapūrṇamāsa-sacrifice which aim at bringing about certain fruits such as the heavenly would require other (subordinate) means co-operating towards the fruit (such as the prayājas). But not so knowledge. Compare on this point Sūtra 25. Therefore texts stating the cooperation of works (with knowledge) have to be interpreted as stating that works are means for the origination of knowledge.--Nor need we fear that thus there arises a contradiction of permanent and non-permanent connexion. For there may be difference of connexion even where there is no difference of work. One connexion is permanent, resting on the texts about the life-long performance of the agnihotra and so on; of this knowledge is not the result. The other connexion is non-permanent, resting on texts such as 'Him the Brāhmaṇas seek to know,' &c.; of this knowledge is the result. The case is analogous to that of the one khadira, which through a permanent connexion serves the purpose of the sacrifice, and through a non-permanent connexion the purpose of man.