In the history of Brahmanical discourse, dharma might be seen as the norm of householder practice from which the renouncer, the practitioner of asceticism (tapasvin), is formally excluded by the rite of renunciation. The householder is seeking to fulfil the goals of social obligation (dharma), profit (artha) and pleasure (kāma), his legitimate pursuit, in contrast to the renouncer seeking liberation (mokṣa) through renunciation and asceticism. For the vedic exegetes, the Mīmāṃsakas, dharma is cosmic order expressed in the series of vedic injunctions (vidhi) about ritual (karma) or sacrifice, and the ‘founder’ of the school, Jaimini, defines dharma as the meaning expressed by vedic utterance (codana). This excludes the renouncer, who has technically given up ritual action (even though asceticism is pervaded by ritual). A much later text, Yādava Prakāśa's Yatidharmasamuccaya (of which the terminus ad quem is the thirteenth century CE), says that the renouncer should give up the vedic ritual of the householder in order to pursue the ‘yoga of knowledge’ (jñānayoga). Although there are ascetic practices common to both householder and renouncer, as we saw in the last chapter (such as the ten points of the dharma), the realms of the householder and renouncer are formally distinguished in terms of institution: they are different āśramas or stages on life's way and are often separated by the institution of monasticism.