Adhik.  XV (26) treats of the passages stating that the man dying in the possession of true knowledge shakes off all his good and evil deeds, and affirms that a statement, made in some of those passages only, to the effect that the good and evil deeds pass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is valid for all the passages.

Sutras 27-30 constitute, according to Sa@nkara, two adhikara/n/as of which the former (XVI; 27, 28) decides that the shaking off of the good and evil deeds takes place—­not, as the Kaush.  Up. states, on the road to Brahman’s world—­but at the moment of the soul’s departure from the body; the Kaushitaki statement is therefore not to be taken literally.—­The latter adhikara/n/a (XVII; 29, 30) treats of the cognate question whether the soul that has freed itself from its deeds proceeds in all cases on the road of the gods (as said in the Kaush.  Up.), or not.  The decision is that he only whose knowledge does not pass beyond the sagu/n/am brahma proceeds on that road, while the soul of him who knows the nirgu/n/am brahma becomes one with it without moving to any other place.

The Sri-bhashya treats the four Sutras as one adhikara/n/a whose two first Sutras are explained as by Sa@nkara, while Sutra 29 raises an objection to the conclusion arrived at, ’the going (of the soul on the path of the gods) has a sense only if the soul’s freeing itself from its works takes place in both ways, i.e. partly at the moment of death, partly on the road to Brahman; for otherwise there would be a contradiction’ (the contradiction being that, if the soul’s works were all shaken off at the moment of death, the subtle body would likewise perish at that moment, and then the bodiless soul would be unable to proceed on the path of the gods).  To this Sutra 30 replies, ’The complete shaking off of the works at the moment of death is possible, since matters of that kind are observed in Scripture,’ i.e. since scriptural passages show that even he whose works are entirely annihilated, and who has manifested himself in his true shape, is yet connected with some kind of body; compare the passage, ’para/m/ jyotir upasampadya svena rupe/n/abhinishpadyate sa tatra paryeti kri/d/an ramamana/h/ sa svara/d/ bhavati tasya sarveshu lokeshu kama/k/aro bhavati.’  That subtle body is not due to karman, but to the soul’s vidyamahatmya.—­That the explanation of the Sri-bhashya agrees with the text as well as Sa@nkara’s, a comparison of the two will show; especially forced is Sa@nkara’s explanation of ’arthavattvam ubhayatha,’ which is said to mean that there is arthavattva in one case, and non-arthavattva in the other case.

The next Sutra (31) constitutes an adhikara/n/a (XVIII) deciding that the road of the gods is followed not only by those knowing the vidyas which specially mention the going on that road, but by all who are acquainted with the sagu/n/a-vidyas of Brahman.—­The explanation given in the Sri-bhashya (in which Sutras 31 and 32 have exchanged places) is similar, with the difference however that all who meditate on Brahman—­without any reference to the distinction of nirgu/n/a and sagu/n/a—­proceed after death on the road of the gods. (The Sri-bhashya reads ‘sarvesham,’ i.e. all worshippers, not ‘sarvasam,’ all sagu/n/a-vidyas.)