Adhik.  V (10-14) decides that the released are embodied or disembodied according to their wish and will.

Adhik.  VI (11, 12) explains how the soul of the released can animate several bodies at the same time.—­Sutra 12 gives, according to Sa@nkara, the additional explanation that those passages which declare the absence of all specific cognition on the part of the released soul do not refer to the partly released soul of the devotee, but either to the soul in the state of deep sleep (svapyaya = sushupti), or to the fully released soul of the sage (sampatti = kaivalya).—­Ramanuja explains that the passages speaking of absence of consciousness refer either to the state of deep sleep, or to the time of dying (sampatti = mata/n/am according to ‘van manasi sampadyate,’ &c.).

Adhik.  VII (17-21).—­The released jivas participate in all the perfections and powers of the Lord, with the exception of the power of creating and sustaining the world.  They do not return to new forms of embodied existence.

After having, in this way, rendered ourselves acquainted with the contents of the Brahma-sutras according to the views of Sa@nkara as well as Ramanuja, we have now to consider the question which of the two modes of interpretation represents—­or at any rate more closely approximates to the true meaning of the Sutras.  That few of the Sutras are intelligible if taken by themselves, we have already remarked above; but this does not exclude the possibility of our deciding with a fair degree of certainty which of the two interpretations proposed agrees better with the text, at least in a certain number of cases.

We have to note in the first place that, in spite of very numerous discrepancies,—­of which only the more important ones have been singled out in the conspectus of contents,—­the two commentators are at one as to the general drift of the Sutras and the arrangement of topics.  As a rule, the adhikara/n/as discuss one or several Vedic passages bearing upon a certain point of the system, and in the vast majority of cases the two commentators agree as to which are the special texts referred to.  And, moreover, in a very large number of cases the agreement extends to the interpretation to be put on those passages and on the Sutras.  This far-reaching agreement certainly tends to inspire us with a certain confidence as to the existence of an old tradition concerning the meaning of the Sutras on which the bulk of the interpretations of Sa@nkara as well as of Ramanuja are based.

But at the same time we have seen that, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, the interpretations of Sa@nkara and Ramanuja diverge more or less widely, and that the Sutras affected thereby are, most of them, especially important because bearing on fundamental points of the Vedanta system.  The question then remains which of the two interpretations is entitled to preference.