Within the Purva Mimamsa tradition, ahimsa is acknowledged as a value, yet it does not stand as an absolute or independent moral law. Dharma, for this school, is known only through the Veda, and so any principle, including non‑injury, derives its authority from scriptural injunction rather than from sentiment, intuition, or abstract ethical reasoning. Ahimsa thus functions as a general norm: one ought not to cause harm to living beings in ordinary circumstances. However, its scope is always interpreted in light of specific Vedic commands, which are regarded as self‑valid and ultimately decisive.

This becomes especially clear in the domain of ritual. When the Veda prescribes animal sacrifice, that act is held to be dharmic, even though it involves physical harm. The specific injunction to perform a particular sacrifice in a particular way is taken to qualify or override the more general rule of non‑injury in that context. Violence carried out under such scriptural mandate is not classified as himsa in the morally blameworthy sense, because it is oriented toward the fulfillment of dharma and the maintenance of cosmic and social order, rather than toward cruelty or personal gratification.

Purva Mimamsa thinkers therefore distinguish between prohibited violence, rooted in desire, anger, or selfish motives, and prescribed violence, which is sanctioned by Vedic authority. The latter is seen as purifying and duty‑bound, not sinful, and so it does not violate ahimsa as they understand it. In daily life, unnecessary harm is discouraged, yet the tradition does not elevate non‑violence to an uncompromising, universal rule that would negate sacrificial rites or other scripturally enjoined duties. Ahimsa, in this view, is a significant but context‑dependent value, always interpreted within the hierarchy of Vedic injunctions that define what truly counts as dharma.