(The fires spoken of in the previous Sutra are) alternative forms of the one mentioned first ( i.e. the actual sacrificial fire) on account of the context; (they) ought to be part of the sacrifice like the imaginary drink.

And on account of the extension (of the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires).

But (the fires) rather form a Vidya, because (the Sruti) asserts it.

And because (of the indicatory marks) seen.

And because of the greater force of the Sruti etc. ( i.e. indicatory mark and syntactical connection), (the view that the fires constitute a Vidya) cannot be refuted.

From the connection and so on (extension etc.) (the fires constitute a separate Vidya), even as other Vidyas (like the Sandilya Vidya) are separate. And (it is) seen (that in spite of the context a sacrifice is treated as independent). This has been said (by Jaimini in Purva Mimamsa-Sutras ).

In spite of the resemblance (of the fires to the imaginary drink, they do) not (form part of the sacrificial act), for it is seen (from the reasons adduced that they constitute an independent Vidya); (the mental affair here is) as in the case of death, for the world does not become (fire because of certain resemblances).

And from the subsequent (Brahmana) the fact of the text (under discussion) being such ( i.e. enjoining a separate Vidya) (is known). But the connection (of the imaginary fires with the actual fire is) on account of the abundance (of the attributes of the latter that are imagined in these fires).