back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.6
na caitad vidmaḥ kataran no garīyo yad vā jayema yadi vā no jayeyuḥ | yān eva hatvā na jijīviṣāmas te 'vasthitāḥ pramukhe dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ
Translation. Nor do we know which of the two would be better for us—
whether we should conquer, or whether they should conquer us.
Those very men after killing whom we would not wish to live
stand before us—the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.
Grammar check: 23 words pass / 0 flagged / 0 beyond the checkerPāṇini-verified
Every word's claimed grammar is re-derived with vidyut-prakriya, software implementing Pāṇini's rules. Flags are shown, never hidden; some are the text taking epic or Vedic liberties the classical rules do not generate.
Word by word
| surface | lemma | grammar |
|---|
| na | na | pass |
| ca | ca | pass |
| etat | etad | pass |
| vidmaḥ | vid | pass |
| katarat | katara | pass |
| naḥ | mad | pass |
| garīyaḥ | garīyas | pass |
| yat | yad | pass |
| vā | vā | pass |
| jayema | ji | pass |
| yadi | yadi | pass |
| vā | vā | pass |
| naḥ | mad | pass |
| jayeyuḥ | ji | pass |
| yān | yad | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| hatvā | han | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| jijīviṣāmaḥ | jīv | pass |
| te | tad | pass |
| avasthitāḥ | avasthita | pass |
| pramukhe | pramukha | pass |
| dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ | dhārtarāṣṭra | pass |
How the commentary settled it
Where the verse alone is ambiguous, the reading follows Śaṅkara's commentary; the deciding lines are quoted below each decision.
The supplied numbered passage does not comment on 2.6: it reproduces Bhagavad-Gītā 2.7. It therefore cannot legitimately support the contested interpretations in this unit.→ Recognize a source mismatch and refrain from using these lines as exegetical evidence for 2.6.
gita [1, 2, 3, 4]kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ
pṛcchāmi tvāṃ dharma-saṃmūḍha-cetāḥ |
yac chreyaḥ syān niścitaṃ brūhi tan me
śiṣyas te 'haṃ śādhi māṃ tvāṃ prapannam
‘With my nature overcome by the fault of faint-heartedness, with my mind confused about dharma, I ask you: tell me decisively what would be better. I am your pupil; instruct me, who have taken refuge in you.’ This is verse 2.7, not commentary on 2.6.
Etat is the neuter accusative singular object of vidmaḥ: ‘we do not know this.’ Although nominative and accusative are formally identical, the transitive syntax of vid supports the accusative; compare the sense ‘know’ under [MW s.v. vid, 963,2] and the pronoun under [MW s.v. etad, 231,2].→ Dvitiya Eka Napumsaka, object of vidmaḥ.
gita []
Katarat is the neuter nominative subject and garīyaḥ its nominative predicate: ‘which of the two is greater/better.’ Katara asks ‘which of two?’ [MW s.v. katara, 246,3], while garīyas means ‘heavier’ or ‘greater’ [MW s.v. garīyas, 348,3]. The first naḥ is construed as genitive plural, ‘for us/of concern to us,’ though the enclitic form also permits a formally dative analysis.→ Katarat and garīyaḥ form a nominative neuter predication; naḥ is Sasthi Bahu with an interest relation, translated ‘for us.’
gita []
The sequence yad vā … yadi vā presents two alternatives: ‘whether we should conquer, or whether they should conquer us.’ Yad is taken adverbially/conjunctionally with canonical lemma yad, rather than as a referential nominal; yadi means ‘if/in case that’ [MW s.v. yadi, 844,3]. Both finite verbs are active optatives.→ Conjunctional yad and yadi introduce parallel alternatives; jayema and jayeyuḥ are Kartari VidhiLin forms.
gita []
The second no is underlying naḥ, the enclitic accusative plural ‘us,’ and is the object of jayeyuḥ. Reading it as the indeclinable negative no would wrongly yield ‘or they might not conquer.’→ Dvitiya Bahu of mad: ‘they should conquer us.’
gita []
Yān … te is a relative-correlative construction. Yān is the object of hatvā, eva emphasizes it, and te is the subject of avasthitāḥ: ‘those very men whom … they stand.’ Eva commonly strengthens the associated expression as ‘very/just/only’ [MW s.v. eva, 232,2].→ Relative yān is resumed by correlative te, with eva emphasizing yān.
gita []
Hatvā is an indeclinable -tvā absolutive from han, not a finite imperative; it shares the understood first-person plural agent of jijīviṣāmaḥ and denotes prior action. Jijīviṣāmaḥ is a desiderative present from jīv: ‘we do not wish to live after killing them.’ The supplied dictionary identifies han as the verbal root ‘kill’ [MW s.v. han, 1287,2].→ Hatvā is an anterior absolutive, and jijīviṣāmaḥ is a present desiderative.
gita []
Avasthitāḥ is the plural predicate of te, while pramukhe is a locative of position, rendered ‘before us/at the front.’ This fits pramukha in the sense ‘facing’ or ‘foremost’ [MW s.v. pramukha, 686,3].→ Substantivized spatial locative: ‘standing before us.’
gita []
Dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ is a substantival patronymic in apposition to te, meaning ‘sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra,’ as explicitly given under [MW s.v. dhārtarāṣṭra, 516,1]. Its immediate formation is taddhitānta, so no synchronic samāsa analysis is imposed.→ Substantival patronymic, ‘the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.’
gita []
Śaṅkara's commentary on this unit
1kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ
2pṛcchāmi tvāṃ dharma-saṃmūḍha-cetāḥ |
3yac chreyaḥ syān niścitaṃ brūhi tan me
4śiṣyas te 'haṃ śādhi māṃ tvāṃ prapannam