body (10).

Adhik. VI (12-14) is of special importance.--According to /S/a@nkara the
Sûtras now turn from the discussion of the departure of him who
possesses the lower knowledge only to the consideration of what becomes
of him who has reached the higher knowledge. So far it has been taught
that in the case of relative immortality (ensuing on the apara vidyâ)
the subtle elements, together with the senses and so on, depart from the
body of the dying devotee; this implies at the same time that they do
not depart from the body of the dying sage who knows himself to be one
with Brahman.--Against this latter implied doctrine Sûtra 12 is supposed
to formulate an objection. 'If it be said that the departure of the
prâ/n/as from the body of the dying sage is denied (viz. in B/ri/. Up.
IV, 4, 5, na tasya prâ/n/a utkrâmanti, of him the prâ/n/as do not pass
out); we reply that in that passage the genitive "tasya" has the sense
of the ablative "tasmât," so that the sense of the passage is, "from
him, i.e. from the jîva of the dying sage, the prâ/n/as do not depart,
but remain with it."'--This objection /S/a@nkara supposes to be disposed
of in Sûtra 13. 'By some there is given a clear denial of the departure
of the prâ/n/as in the case of the dying sage,' viz. in the passage
B/ri/. Up. III, 2, 11, where Yâj/ñ/avalkya instructs Ârtabhâga that,
when this man dies, the prâ/n/as do not depart from it (asmât; the
context showing that asmât means 'from it,' viz. from the body, and not
'from him,' viz. the jîva).--The same view is, moreover, confirmed by
Sm/ri/ti passages.

According to Râmânuja the three Sûtras forming /S/a@nkara's sixth
adhikara/n/a do not constitute a new adhikara/n/a at all, and, moreover,
have to be combined into two Sûtras. The topic continuing to be
discussed is the utkrânti of the vidvân. If, Sûtra 12 says, the utkrânti