The third adhyaya, on sadhana, opens with the soul's movement between births, to stir dispassion. When the jiva leaves the body it goes enveloped in the subtle elements, as the Panchagni vidya of the Chandogya shows: the waters offered in the five fires take human form. Those who performed sacrifices rise to the moon and return when their merit is spent, but with a remainder of karma (anushaya) that shapes the next birth, good or bad. Those who did evil do not reach the moon; they go to Yama and suffer there. The descent is traced through akasha, air, smoke and cloud into rain and grain. Through grain it passes into a father and, through him, into a womb and a body.
In passing on to another body, the soul goes enveloped by the subtle elements of the body; this is known from the question and answer in the Chhandogya teaching of the five fires. The soul does not leave bare; the seeds of the next body go with it.
Though the text names only water, all the elements go with the soul, since everything is made of three elements; water is named because it is the larger part of the body.
If it is said that the pranas go into fire and the other devatas at death, as scripture states, the answer is no: that statement is figurative, as is said of the hair going into plants.
If it is objected that water is not mentioned in the first oblation, the answer is no: the faith (shraddha) offered there is the waters themselves, for only so does the passage fit.
If it is said that the soul is not mentioned as going with the waters, the answer is no: the passage plainly concerns those who perform sacrifices and good works, and it is they who go.
Their being called the food of the devas is figurative, since they do not know the Self; scripture itself shows this. They serve and please the devas, they are not eaten.
kṛtātyaye'nuśayavāndṛṣṭasmṛtibhyāṃ yathetamanevaṃ ca
When the merit of their works is used up, they come down with a residue of karma (anushaya), as shruti and smriti show, by the way they went and also by another way.
If it is said that the text speaks of conduct (charana), not of residual karma, the answer is no: Karshnajini holds that conduct there stands for the karma it implies.