back to questions
Bhagavad-Gītā with Śaṅkara's bhāṣya · 2.9
saṃjaya uvāca evam uktvā hṛṣīkeśaṃ guḍākeśaḥ parantapaḥ | na yotsya iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṃ babhūva ha
Translation. Sañjaya said:
Having spoken thus to Hṛṣīkeśa, Guḍākeśa, the foe-scorcher—
having said to Govinda, “I will not fight”—became silent indeed.
Grammar check: 15 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 |
|---|
| saṃjayaḥ | saṃjaya | pass |
| uvāca | vac | pass |
| evam | evam | pass |
| uktvā | brū | pass |
| hṛṣīkeśam | hṛṣīkeśa | pass |
| guḍākeśaḥ | guḍākeśa | pass |
| parantapaḥ | paraṃtapa | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| yotsye | yudh | pass |
| iti | iti | pass |
| govindam | govinda | pass |
| uktvā | brū | pass |
| tūṣṇīm | tūṣṇīm | pass |
| babhūva | bhū | pass |
| ha | ha | 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.
Both occurrences of uktvā are absolutives, not feminine instrumental nouns.→ The syntax requires two prior actions sharing the subject of babhūva. The supplied canonical_lemmas further directs that the absolutive be cited under brū.
gita []
The printed yotsya before iti is the sandhi form of first-person singular future yotsye.→ yotsye, from yudh, Kartari Lṛṭ first-person singular: ‘I will fight.’ The sequence na yotsye iti is a direct quotation, ‘I will not fight.’ Compare [MW s.v. yudh, 854,3] and [MW s.v. iti, 165,1].
gita []
The two accusatives hṛṣīkeśam and govindam are the persons addressed by the corresponding occurrences of uktvā.→ They denote the person addressed, while evam and the quotation na yotsye supply the content or manner of the speaking.
gita []
On the supplied text, parantapaḥ is nominative and an epithet of guḍākeśaḥ.→ The printed final visarga requires nominative parantapaḥ. It therefore describes Arjuna as ‘foe-scorcher,’ consistently with [MW s.v. paraṃtapa, 586,3].
gita []
guḍākeśa is analyzed as a possessive bahuvrīhi.→ MW explicitly glosses guḍā-keśa as ‘thick-haired’ and identifies it with Arjuna ([MW s.v. guḍākeśa, 356,3]); this supports guḍāḥ keśāḥ yasya saḥ.
gita []
hṛṣīkeśa is provisionally analyzed as a genitive tatpuruṣa, hṛṣīkāṇām īśaḥ.→ The conventional hṛṣīka + īśa analysis is grammatically transparent, but the supplied MW entry’s ‘perhaps’ and its displayed hṛṣī-keśa division make the decision tentative rather than commentary-secured.
gita []
govinda is provisionally treated as a tatpuruṣa built from go and vinda.→ The formal compound analysis go-vinda is retained, but no etymological meaning is inserted into the translation because [MW s.v. govinda, 366,3] records competing explanations.
gita []
tūṣṇīm babhūva is construed as ‘became silent,’ with ha as an emphatic or narrative particle.→ The supplied dictionary specifically cites tūṣṇīṃ babhūva in the sense ‘became silent’ ([MW s.v. tūṣṇīm, 453,1]); babhūva is the perfect of bhū ([MW s.v. bhū, 760,1]).
gita []