back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.7
kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāvaḥ pṛcchāmi tvāṃ dharma-saṃmūḍha-cetāḥ | yac chreyaḥ syān niścitaṃ brūhi tan me śiṣyas te 'haṃ śādhi māṃ tvāṃ prapannam
Translation. My disposition overcome by the fault of faint-heartedness,
my mind bewildered about dharma (duty/right), I ask you:
tell me with certainty what would be the better course (śreyas).
I am your disciple; instruct me, who have taken refuge in you.
Grammar check: 18 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 |
|---|
| kārpaṇyadoṣopahatasvabhāvaḥ | kārpaṇyadoṣopahatasvabhāva | pass |
| pṛcchāmi | prach | pass |
| tvām | tvad | pass |
| dharmasaṃmūḍhacetāḥ | dharmasaṃmūḍhacetas | pass |
| yat | yad | pass |
| śreyaḥ | śreyas | pass |
| syāt | as | pass |
| niścitam | niścitam | pass |
| brūhi | brū | pass |
| tat | tad | pass |
| me | mad | pass |
| śiṣyaḥ | śiṣya | pass |
| te | tvad | pass |
| aham | mad | pass |
| śādhi | śās | pass |
| mām | mad | pass |
| tvām | tvad | pass |
| prapannam | prapanna | 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 opening expression is one nominative masculine bahuvrīhi describing Arjuna, not a sequence containing a vocative. Its internal relation is “one whose disposition has been afflicted by the fault of weakness of spirit.” Kārpaṇya is therefore taken as “weakness of spirit,” not material poverty or parsimony [MW s.v. kārpaṇya, 275,3]; doṣa is “fault” [MW s.v. doṣa, 498,2], and upahata expresses affliction or impairment [MW s.v. upahan, 211,3].
→ kārpaṇyasya doṣeṇa upahataḥ svabhāvo yasya saḥ
Dharma-saṃmūḍha-cetāḥ is a masculine nominative bahuvrīhi coordinated with the opening compound and referring to Arjuna. Dharma is construed locatively with saṃmūḍha: his mind is bewildered concerning dharma—here retained as the polyvalent term for duty/right [MW s.v. dharma, 510,3].
→ A bahuvrīhi with an internal locative relation, dharme saṃmūḍham
Yat is nominative neuter singular, as the subject of syāt, while śreyaḥ is its predicate nominative. The correlative tat is accusative as the object of brūhi. Thus the construction means “tell me that which would be better,” naturally rendered “tell me what would be the better course.”
→ yat—śreyaḥ as subject and predicate nominatives; tat as the resumptive accusative object
Niścitam is taken as the indeclinable “decidedly, positively” [MW s.v. niścitam, 561,2], modifying brūhi, rather than as an accusative adjective agreeing with tat. The request is to be told with certainty what is better.
→ Indeclinable adverb, translated “with certainty”
The two enclitic pronouns have different syntactic cases despite formal syncretism: me is dative as the recipient of brūhi (“tell me”), whereas te is genitive with śiṣyaḥ (“your disciple”).
→ me = Caturthi; te = Sasthi
Prapannam agrees in the masculine accusative singular with mām, while tvām is its accusative complement. Pra-pad can mean “take refuge with” a person in the accusative [MW s.v. prapad, 682,1], so the phrase is “me, who have taken refuge in you.”
→ māṃ tvāṃ prapannam = “me, having taken refuge in you”
Śādhi is rendered “instruct” rather than merely “command” or “rule.” Its object is mām, and the immediately preceding self-description śiṣyaḥ—“one to be instructed” [MW s.v. śiṣya, 1077,1]—determines the contextual force.
→ “Instruct me”