Verse 2.365

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

अप्यविद्वानमुं लोकं प्रेत्य कश्चित्समश्नुते ।
न चेदविद्वानाप्नोति विद्वानेतीति का प्रमा ।
स्यान्नवेत्यपरः प्रश्नस्त्रित्वाद्धि बहुवागियम् ॥ ३६५ ॥

apyavidvānamuṃ lokaṃ pretya kaścitsamaśnute |
na cedavidvānāpnoti vidvānetīti kā pramā |
syānnavetyaparaḥ praśnastritvāddhi bahuvāgiyam || 365 ||

English translation of verse 2.365:

Does any one who is ignorant, after departing from here, attain the yonder world? If it be said that an ignorant man does not attain it, what is the evidence for saying that an enlightened man attains it? Whether Brahman exists or not is yet another question. Since there are three questions, there is the usage of the plural number (in anupraśnāḥ).

Notes:

The śruti text as it is contains only two questions, viz., (1) Does any ignorant man, after departing from here, go to the other world? and (2) Does any man of knowledge, after departing from here, go to the other world? But in view of the plural number of the word praśna contained in the śruti text, the questions, though apparently only two, have to be re-formulated bringing out the implications in such a way as to justify the plural usage of the word praśna. This can be done in two ways. The question relating to the ignorant man is not really one, but two—(1) Does an ignorant man, after departing from here, attain the supreme Brahman? (2) Or, does he not? The latter follows by implication from the first. Similarly, the question relating to the man of knowledge is not one, but two. The two questions are; (1) Does the man of knowledge, after departing from here, attain the supreme Brahman? (2) Or, does he not? There are, on the whole, four questions, and so the plural usage of the word praśna is justified. This is one interpretation offered by Śaṅkara in his commentary on the śruti text.

Śaṅkara gives an alternative interpretation which is followed by Sureśvara here. There are, on the whole, only three questions—the first question relating to the ignorant man, the second one with regard to the man of knowledge, and die third one which is implied relating to the existence of Brahman. It is but proper on the part of the disciple to raise the third question; for, from the expressions “one who knows Brahman as non-existing” and “one who knows Brahman as existing”, the doubt arises whether Brahman exists or not.