Adhik. VI (12-14) is of special importance.--According to /S/a@nkara the Sutras 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 vidya) 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 Sutra 12 is supposed to formulate an objection. 'If it be said that the departure of the pra/n/as from the body of the dying sage is denied (viz. in B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 5, na tasya pra/n/a utkramanti, of him the pra/n/as do not pass out); we reply that in that passage the genitive "tasya" has the sense of the ablative "tasmat," so that the sense of the passage is, "from him, i.e. from the jiva of the dying sage, the pra/n/as do not depart, but remain with it."'--This objection /S/a@nkara supposes to be disposed of in Sutra 13. 'By some there is given a clear denial of the departure of the pra/n/as in the case of the dying sage,' viz. in the passage B/ri/. Up. III, 2, 11, where Yaj/n/avalkya instructs Artabhaga that, when this man dies, the pra/n/as do not depart from it (asmat; the context showing that asmat means 'from it,' viz. from the body, and not 'from him,' viz. the jiva).--The same view is, moreover, confirmed by Sm/ri/ti passages. According to Ramanuja the three Sutras 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 Sutras. The topic continuing to be discussed is the utkranti of the vidvan. If, Sutra 12 says, the utkranti of the pra/n/as is not admitted, on the ground of the denial supposed to be contained in B/ri/. Up. IV, 4, 5; the reply is that the sense of the tasya there is '/s/arirat' (so that the passage means, 'from him, i.e. the jiva, the pra/n/as do not depart'); for this is clearly shown by the reading of some, viz. the Madhyandinas, who, in their text of the passage, do not read 'tasya' but 'tasmat.'--With reference to the instruction given by Yaj/n/avalkya to Artabhaga, it is to be remarked that nothing there shows the 'ayam purusha' to be the sage who knows Brahman.--And, finally, there are Sm/ri/ti passages declaring that the sage also when dying departs from the body. Adhik. VII and VIII (15, 16) teach, according to /S/a@nkara, that, on the death of him who possesses the higher knowledge, his pra/n/as, elements, &c. are merged in Brahman, so as to be no longer distinct from it in any way. According to Ramanuja the two Sutras continue the teaching about the pra/n/as, bhutas, &c. of the vidvan in general, and declare that they are finally merged in Brahman, not merely in the way of conjunction (sa/m/yoga), but completely.[21]