09 None

9. Should it be objected that on account of conduct (the assumption of a remainder is not needed), we deny this because (the scriptural expression ‘conduct’) is meant to connote (the remainder); so Kārshṇājini thinks.

But–an objection may be raised–the scriptural passage, which has been quoted for the purpose of proving that the existence of a remainder of works (’those whose conduct has been good,’ &c.), declares that the quality of the new birth depends on caraṇa, not on anuśaya. Now caraṇa and anuśaya are different things; for caraṇa is the same as caritra, ācāra, śīla, all of which mean conduct ¹, while anuśaya denotes work remaining from requited work. Scripture also speaks of actions and conduct as different things, ‘According as he acts and according as he conducts himself so will he be’ (Br̥, Up. IV, 4, 5); and ‘Whatever

works are blameless those should be regarded, not others; whatever our good conduct was that should be observed by thee’ (Taitt. Up. I, 11, 2). From the passage which proclaims the dependence of the quality of birth on conduct the existence of an unrequited remainder of works cannot therefore be proved.

This objection is without force, we reply, because the scriptural term ‘conduct’ is meant to connote the remainder of the works. This is the opinion of the teacher Kārshṇājini.