Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 6 - Shloka (Verse) 1

अनाश्रितः कर्मफलम् इन पदोंका आशय यह प्रतीत होता है कि मनुष्यको किसी उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील वस्तु, व्यक्ति, घटना, परिस्थिति, क्रिया आदिका आश्रय नहीं रखना चाहिये। कारण कि यह जीव स्वयं परमात्माका अंश होनेसे नित्य-निरन्तर रहनेवाला है और यह जिन वस्तु, व्यक्ति आदिका आश्रय लेता है, वे उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील तथा प्रतिक्षण परिवर्तित होनेवाले हैं। वे तो परिवर्तनशील होनेके कारण नष्ट हो जाते हैं और यह (जीव) रीता-का-रीता रह जाता है। केवल रीता ही नहीं रहता, प्रत्युत उनके रागको पकड़े रहता है। जबतक यह उनके रागको पकड़े रहता है, तबतक इसका कल्याण नहीं होता अर्थात् वह राग उसके ऊँच-नीच योनियोंमें जन्म लेनेका कारण बन जाता है (गीता 13। 21)। अगर यह उस रागका त्याग कर दे तो यह स्वतः मुक्त हो जायगा। वास्तवमें यह स्वतः मुक्त है ही, केवल रागके कारण उस मुक्तिका अनुभव नहीं होता। अतः भगवान् कहते हैं कि मनुष्य कर्मफलका आश्रय न रखकर कर्तव्य-कर्म करे। कर्मफलके आश्रयका त्याग करनेवाला तो नैष्ठिकी शान्तिको प्राप्त होता है, पर कर्मफलका आश्रय रखनेवाला बँध जाता है (गीता 5। 12)।स्थूल, सूक्ष्म और कारण--ये तीनों शरीर 'कर्मफल' हैं। इन तीनोंमेंसे किसीका भी आश्रय न लेकर इनको सबके हितमें लगाना चाहिये। जैसे, स्थूलशरीरसे क्रियाओँ और पदार्थोंको संसारका ही मानकर उनका उपयोग संसारकी सेवा-(हित-) में करे, सूक्ष्मशरीरसे दूसरोंका हित कैसे हो, सब सुखी कैसे हों, सबका उद्धार कैसे हो--ऐसा चिन्तन करे; और कारणशरीरसे होनेवाली स्थिरता-(समाधि-) का भी फल संसारके हितके लिये अर्पण करे। कारण कि ये तीनों शरीर अपने (व्यक्तिगत) नहीं हैं और अपने लिये भी नहीं हैं, प्रत्युत संसारके और संसारकी सेवाके लिये ही हैं। इन तीनोंकी संसारके साथ अभिन्नता और अपने स्वरूपके साथ भिन्नता है। इस तरह इन तीनोंका आश्रय न लेना ही 'कर्मफलका' आश्रय न लेना' है और इन तीनोंसे केवल संसारके हितके लिये कर्म करना ही 'कर्तव्य-कर्म करना' है।आश्रय न लेनेका तात्पर्य हुआ कि साधनरूपसे तो शरीरादिको दूसरोंके हितके लिये काममें लेना है, पर स्वयं उनका आश्रय नहीं लेना है अर्थात् उनको अपना और अपने लिये नहीं मानना है। कारण कि मनुष्य-जन्ममें शरीर आदिका महत्त्व नहीं है ,प्रत्युत शरीर आदिके द्वारा किये जानेवाले साधनका महत्त्व है। अतः संसारसे मिली हुई चीज संसारको दे दें, संसारकी सेवामें लगा दें तो हम 'संन्यासी' हो गये और मिली हुई चीजमें अपनापन छोड़ दें तो हम 'त्यागी' हो गये।कर्मफलका आश्रय न लेकर कर्तव्य-कर्म करनेसे क्या होगा? अपने लिये कर्म न करनेसे नयी आसक्ति तो बनेगी नहीं और केवल दूसरोंके हितके लिये कर्म करनेसे पुरानी आसक्ति मिट जायगी तथा कर्म करनेका वेग भी मिट जायगा। इस प्रकार आसक्तिके सर्वथा मिटनेसे मुक्ति स्वतःसिद्ध है। उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील वस्तुओँको पकड़नेका नाम बन्धन है और उनसे छूटनेका नाम मुक्ति है। उन उत्पत्ति-विनाशशील वस्तुओंसे छूटनेका उपाय है--उनका आश्रय न लेना अर्थात् उनके साथ ममता न करना और अपने जीवनको उनके आश्रित न मानना।

इसी भावसे वह संन्यासी और योगी है इस प्रकार उसकी स्तुति की जाती है भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण बोले जिसने आश्रय नहीं लिया हो वह अनाश्रित है किसका कर्मफलका अर्थात् जो कर्मोंके फलका आश्रय न लेनेवाला कर्मफलकी तृष्णासे रहित है। क्योंकि जो कर्मफलकी तृष्णावाला होता है वही कर्मफलका आश्रय लेता है यह उससे विपरीत है इसलिये कर्मफलका आश्रय न लेनेवाला है। ऐसा ( कर्मफलके आश्रयसे रहित ) होकर जो पुरुष कर्तव्यकर्मोंको अर्थात् काम्यकर्मोंसे विपरीत नित्य अग्निहोत्रादि कर्मोंको पूरा करता है ऐसा जो कोई कर्मी है वह दूसरे कर्मियोंकी अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ है इसी अभिप्रायसे यह कहा है कि वह संन्यासी भी है और योगी भी है। संन्यास नाम त्यागका है वह जिसमें हो वही संन्यासी है और चित्तके समाधानका नाम योग है वह जिसमें हो वही योगी है अतः वह कर्मयोगी भी इन गुणोंसे सम्पन्न माना जाना चाहिये। केवल अग्निरहित और क्रियारहित पुरुष ही संन्यासी और योगी है ऐसा नहीं मानना चाहिये। कर्मोंके अङ्गभूत गार्हपत्यादि अग्नि जिससे छूट गये हैं वह निरग्नि है और बिना अग्निके होनेवाली तपदानादि क्रिया भी जो नहीं करता वह अक्रिय है। पू0 जब कि निरग्नि और अक्रिय पुरुषके लिये ही श्रुति स्मृति और योगशास्त्रोंमें संन्यासित्व और योगित्व प्रसिद्ध है तब यहाँ अग्नियुक्त और क्रियायुक्त पुरुषके लिये अप्रसिद्ध संन्यासित्व और योगित्वका प्रतिपादन कैसे किया जाता है उ0 यह दोष नहीं है क्योंकि किसी एक गुणवृत्तिसे ( किसी एक गुणविशेषको लेकर ) संन्यासित्व और योगित्व इन दोनों भावोंको उसमें ( गृहस्थमें ) सम्पादन करना भगवान्को इष्ट है। पू0 वह कैसे उ0 कर्मफलके संकल्पोंका त्याग होनेसे संन्यासित्व है और योगके अङ्गरूपसे कर्मोंका अनुष्ठान होनेसे या चित्तविक्षेपके कारणरूप कर्मफलके संकल्पोंका परित्याग होनेसे योगित्व है इस प्रकार दोनों भाव ही गौणरूपसे माने गये हैं।

After proposing Dhyana Yoga (Yoga of Meditation), the Lord praises 'Action' (Karma), which is the cause of eligibility for that Yoga, with the word 'Shri Bhagavan'. Stating the connection between the preceding and succeeding chapters, and translating what has passed, He introduces the next chapter with "Atita," etc. He dispels the notion that Dhyana Yoga is irrelevant in the context of Right Knowledge (Samyag-darshana) with "Samyag," etc. The idea is that the cause-and-effect relationship between the past chapter (summary) and the subsequent chapter (detailed explanation) is appropriate.

Having stated the connection of the chapter, He explains the purport of the two verses beginning with "Anashritah karmaphalam" with "Tatra," etc. The locative case meaning is: when the chapter has proceeded to show the limit of Karma Yoga which is the cause of Sannyasa, and to examine Yoga along with its limbs. He dispels the appearance (misconception) that action is to be performed by a Sannyasi with "Grihasthena" (by a householder), etc. The meaning of "Atah" (therefore) is that being obligatory means being worthy of praise.

The proponent of the combination of knowledge and action (Samuchayavadi) objects to the setting of a limit with "Nanu," etc. Citing the scriptural injunction "as long as one lives" (yavajjiva), he argues that even if one has the capacity to ascend to Dhyana, the performance of karma is unavoidable; stating this reason with "Yavata," etc. The answer is given: Just as non-performance of action enjoined by the "yavajjiva" scripture is possible due to obstructions like the loss of a wife, similarly non-performance is possible due to the obstruction of dispassion (Vairagya), and also because of the Lord's specific statement, the contingency of performing action "as long as one lives" does not arise. This is the refutation with "Na arurukshoh," etc. He explains the same meaning through contrast (vyatireka) with "Arurukshoh," etc.

"One who desires to ascend" is arurukshu—here the desire to ascend is the qualifier; and "one who has ascended" is arudha—here the ascent which was the object of desire is the qualifier. Thus, the qualification is by the difference in the objects: Shama (quietude) and Karma (action). If the setting of a limit/boundary is not accepted, a contradiction would arise, and thus making a division between the two and not accepting the limit set by the Lord would not be proper—this is the meaning. He anticipates an alternative justification for the cause of the division of qualifiers with "Tatra," etc. "Vyavahara bhumi" (the plane of empirical dealings) is the meaning of the locative case. The genitive is for specification. Even if there is a threefold division of eligible persons, what is gained in the present context regarding qualifiers? Anticipating this, he says the justification is in relation to the third (category) with "Tanapekshya," etc.

He points out a defect: If there is a difference between the arurukshu and the arudha, the reference to the subject under discussion by "tasyaiva" (of him alone) would be inappropriate with "Na tasya," etc. If the qualifier "arurukshu" is used in relation to a man who is not desiring to ascend, and the qualifier "arudha" is used in relation to a man who is not ascended (devoid of the cause for ascent which is action), and for him (the arudha), Shama or Sannyasa is the cause for obtaining the fruit of Yoga—if the division of qualifiers is justified in this way, then because the arurukshu and arudha would be different persons, the word "Tat" (that/his) referring to the context would be inappropriate; therefore, explaining the qualifiers in this way is not correct—this is the meaning.

Furthermore, having stated that for the one desiring to ascend to Yoga (arurukshu), action is the cause for that ascent, and then by using the word 'Yoga' again for the 'Yogarudha'—it implies that for the very same person who was earlier an arurukshu of Yoga, and has now ascended to the desired Yoga, Karma-Sannyasa (renunciation of action), denoted by the word Shama, is to be practiced as the means for obtaining the fruit. Because of this statement recognizing the non-difference between the arurukshu and the arudha, one cannot suspect them to be different. He says this with "Punah," etc.

Regarding the objection that setting a limit for ascending to Yoga is improper for Action due to the contradiction with the "yavajjiva" scripture, he says "Atah," etc. By the method stated earlier, since the division between action and its abandonment is justified, and the scripture refers to a different subject matter, it is established that for the Yogarudha (one established in Yoga), the seeker of liberation, the one desiring to know, there is abandonment even of obligatory (Nitya) and occasional (Naimittika) actions. For this reason also, action is not a duty for one's whole life, he says with "Yoga," etc. From the statement regarding the fear of destruction of a Sannyasi who has fallen from Yoga (Yogabhrashta), it appears that action is not to be performed for the whole life.

If it is objected that the word Yogabhrashta refers only to a householder, and since Yoga is prescribed for him alone in this chapter, he must perform action for his whole life even if he is fit to ascend to Yoga? He says—No, with "Grihasthasya," etc. Anticipating the doubt that since action performed by that seeker of liberation does not originate fruit other than liberation, the doubt "this Yogabhrashta perishes like a rent cloud" is valid—he answers with "Avashyam hi," etc. From the apaurusheya (authorless/divine) and faultless Veda, the natural power of action to yield fruit is known, and since the state of Brahman is self-existent, it does not have the nature of a result of action; therefore, action originates fruit only other than liberation. Thus, even if a performer of action (householder) falls from Yoga, he goes to the 'path of action' (Karma-gati); hence the doubt of destruction is baseless—this is the meaning.

But, since the seeker of liberation does not perform desire-prompted (Kamya) and prohibited actions, and since the performed Nitya and Naimittika actions are fruitless, how can his action invariably originate fruit? To this, he says "Nityasya cha," etc. By the word 'Cha', Naimittika action is also drawn in. He points out the defect if Nitya and Naimittika actions are fruitless despite having the Veda as authority, with "Anyatha," etc. Because it is certain that performed action originates fruit, a householder, even if fallen from Yoga, goes to the path of action; so there is no doubt of his destruction—this remains to be understood.

For this reason also, a householder is not the referent of the word Yogabhrashta, he says with "Na cha," etc. "Knowledge and Action—fallen from both, he perishes"—this statement cannot be meaningful regarding a householder who has action (is performing karma), because for one established in karma, there is no cause for falling from karma, and the fruit of that (karma) is inevitable—this is the meaning. He anticipates the doubt: Since action performed by a seeker of liberation is offered to the Lord, it does not originate fruit for the doer, so there is a cause for falling (from karma)—with "Karma," etc. He refutes this saying that offering to Ishwara is not a cause for the fall (loss of fruit), because it is observed that offering wealth, grain, etc., with the idea of propitiating a King leads to greater results—with "Na," etc.

He anticipates: Even if it leads to greater fruit, let it be the cause of liberation—with "Mokshaya," etc. He explains the same objection with "Svakarmanam," etc. He indicates the reason that due to the power of the auxiliary, it is not established as a means for another result—with "Yoga," etc. If Sannyasa accompanied by meditation is the means to liberation, then why is the doubt of destruction raised regarding the Yogabhrashta? To this he says "Yogaccha," etc. Due to the absence of the auxiliary, there is absence of the total causal aggregate, leading to the impossibility of the fruit; hence the doubt of destruction is appropriate—this is the meaning. He refutes the idea that offering action to Ishwara accompanied by meditation is for liberation, due to lack of evidence, and thus the householder is not the referent of the word Yogabhrashta—with "Na," etc.

He gives another reason for the householder not being the referent of Yogabhrashta with "Ekaki," etc. Indeed, these qualifiers are not possible as inherent in a householder; therefore, due to the absence of the injunction of Dhyana Yoga for him, the use of the word Yogabhrashta regarding him is not proper—this is the meaning. Anticipating that the mention of "being alone" (Ekaki) could apply to a householder also during the time of meditation with the intention of the absence of the wife's assistance? He says—No, because unlike Agnihotra etc., meditation is not accomplishable by the wife; therefore, since it is a prohibition of something not obtained, this is not so—with "Na cha atra," etc.

Even by considering other qualifiers, this word "Ekaki" cannot refer to a householder, he says with "Na cha," etc.

Furthermore, if one intended "aloneness" etc. for the householder in the injunction for Dhyana Yoga, the question regarding him being "fallen from both" (Ubhayabhrashta) would not be appropriate, he says with "Ubhaya," etc. It is not proper to ask regarding a householder accepting that he is fallen from both knowledge and action, because even if he falls from knowledge, there is no absence of action for him; and even if there is a fall from the action being currently performed, he obtains fruit due to actions performed previously. Therefore, by considering the question as stated, the instruction of meditation regarding a householder is not justified—this is the meaning.

"Nanu," since Sannyasa is prohibited by the Lord, and Yoga is prescribed only for the householder, he alone is the referent of the word Yogabhrashta—anticipating this doubt with "Anashritah ityanena," etc. He refutes that the Lord's statement is intended as a prohibition (of Sannyasa) with "Na." "Dhyana," etc. He clarifies that it is intended only as praise with "Na kevalam," etc. "Performing for the sake of purification of the mind"—this is the connection. Anticipating that the sentence could have both meanings, he says "not so" due to the contingency of sentence-split (Vakyabheda) with "Na cha," etc. For this reason also, the prohibition of the Sannyasa order is not intended by the Lord, he says with "Na cha prasiddham," etc. His status as a Sannyasi and a Yogi is well-known—this is the connection. He explains the "well-known" status with "Shruti," etc. For this reason also, the Lord does not prohibit the Sannyasa order, he says with "Svavachana," etc. He establishes the contradiction itself with "Sarvakarmani," etc.

Since the literal meaning of the sentence "Anashritah," etc., is not appropriate, having established that it is for praise, he concludes with "Tasmat," etc. The meaning of the word 'Muni' here is 'Renouncer of the fruit of action' (Karmaphalasannyasi). He cites the sentence intended for praise to explain the word construction with "Anashritah," etc. Anticipating the doubt—how can one be spoken of as "not taking refuge in it" (anashrita) merely by having no desire for the fruit of action?—he explains through the negative method (contrast) with "Yo hi," etc. He explains "Karyam," etc., with "Evambhutah san," etc. How can a performer of action (Karmi) be a Sannyasi and a Yogi, since it contradicts being a Karmi? Anticipating this, he says "Idrishah," etc. Since praise is what is intended here, no inconsistency should be raised—thinking thus, he says "Ityevam," etc. He gives the meaning of "Na niragnih," etc., with "Na kevalam," etc. 'Fires' refers to Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharyapachana, etc. "Nanu," if one is without fire (niragni), being without action (akriya) is established because actions are accomplished by fire; thus, the desired meaning is achieved merely by "Na niragnih," and saying "Na cha akriyah" is useless as it is a repetition of the meaning—to this he says "Anagni," etc.

At the end of the fifth chapter, three verses (standing in the place of aphorisms or sutras) concerning Dhyana Yoga, which is the proximate means to Right Knowledge (Samyag-darshana), were cited. This sixth chapter is begun standing in the place of a commentary (vritti) on them.

There, to establish eligibility for that (Yoga), since action is indeed to be performed by the qualified householder, He praises him with the two verses beginning with "Anashritah."

One who does not take refuge in the fruit of action—that is, being devoid of thirst for the results of action—performs "Karyam," i.e., that which is obligatory duty, contrary to desire-prompted action (Kamya), such as the daily Agnihotra etc.—he is a Sannyasi and a Yogi. Being superior to other performers of action who thirst for the fruit of action, he is praised through a secondary/figurative usage (gauna prayoga).
And thus: Sannyasa means renunciation; he who has that is "Sa" (he, the Sannyasi). And Yoga means mental absorption/poise; he who has that is "Sa" (he, the Yogi). Thus, this person should be considered endowed with both qualities. It is not that only the 'Niragni' (one without fire) and 'Akriya' (one without action) is to be considered a Sannyasi and a Yogi. (Defining Niragni:) He from whom the fires, which are auxiliary to rituals, have departed is "Sa" (Niragni). (Defining Akriya:) He for whom even the actions not requiring fire as a means, such as austerities (tapa) and charity (dana), are non-existent; meaning one who is established in eternal Samadhi.

By this explanation, the view that "He who performs obligatory duty is the only Sannyasi and Yogi, and not the Niragni nor the Akriya" is refuted. (The correct meaning is:) It is not only the Niragni—meaning one who remains after having discarded the fires like Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharyapachana, etc.—who is a Sannyasi. Nor is it only the one devoid of other actions like austerity and charity, established in Samadhi, who is a Yogi. The phrase "Na cha" (and not) should be interpreted as the negation of both respectively (meaning: the exclusive claim of the literal Sannyasi is negated to accommodate the Karma Yogi for praise, or vice versa, the literal meaning is not the only meaning).
By this, the interpretation where "the word 'Agni' implies all actions, thus 'Niragni' means Sannyasi; and the word 'Kriya' implies mental modifications, thus 'Akriya' means a Yogi with restrained mental modifications"—explaining via implied meaning (lakshana) to show the double negation—is refuted.

Thus, since there is a proper justification of non-contradiction through the straight path stated in the Bhashya (of Shankara), the imaginations contrary to the root text and its Bhashya—such as "Intending to expand principally on Jnanayoga in the sixth chapter, which was aphorized by two verses at the end of the previous chapter, the Lord spoke"—are to be disregarded.

Through this chapter explaining Samadhi Yoga, which is the internal means to Knowledge, He speaks of the intended Sannyasa along with Yoga, beginning with "Anashritah," etc.

For the one in the fourth order (the Sannyasi) also, 'Fire' and 'Action' have been stated—for example in (Gita) 4.25 "Daivameva," etc. And (in Smriti it is said): "Fire is Brahman and His worship is Action; this is declared in the Nyasa (Sannyasa) Ashrama."

Therefore, one who is 'Niragni' (without the fire of Brahman-knowledge) and 'Akriya' (without the action of worship) is verily neither a Sannyasi nor a Yogi.

Desiring to explain in detail the Dhyana Yoga which was aphorized (stated briefly) at the end of the previous chapter, He first praises Karma Yoga with the two verses beginning with "Anashritah," because it is the cause of eligibility for that (Dhyana Yoga).

He who performs "Karyam"—i.e., the obligatory daily duty—without taking refuge in, meaning not expecting, the fruit of actions, he alone,

due to the renunciation of the resolve for fruit (phala-sankalpa), becomes a Sannyasi and a Yogi.

It is not that the "Niragni"—he who has formally renounced Shrauta (Vedic) and Smarta (traditional) actions according to injunctions—is the only Sannyasi. Nor is it that the "Akriya"—he who has abandoned the actions of speech, mind, and body—is the only Yogi.

The Lord said: One who does not depend on the fruit of action, such as heaven etc., regarding "Karyam"—i.e., the performance of action itself—as the duty; thinking "Because it is in the form of worship of the Supreme Person who is the Self of all and our friend, action alone is my purpose, and not anything to be accomplished by it"—he who performs action in this way is a Sannyasi and established in Knowledge-Yoga (Jnana-yoga-nishtha), and is a Yogi and established in Action-Yoga (Karma-yoga-nishtha).

"Not the niragni (one without fire) nor the akriya (one without action)"—meaning, not the one who does not engage in enjoined actions like sacrifices etc., and is established in knowledge alone. For him (the mere Jnana-nishtha), there is only establishment in knowledge, whereas for the one established in Karma Yoga, there is both—this is the intention. The meaning is that he is established in both, which are the means to the Yoga of self-realization (atmavalokana).

He states that in Karma Yoga of the defined characteristic, Knowledge (Jnana) is also present.

"Even if the mind is purified, liberation cannot occur merely by Renunciation (Sannyasa) without Meditation (Dhyana)"—thus, in this sixth chapter, Dhyana Yoga is elaborated.

The beginning of the sixth chapter is to expand upon the Yoga stated briefly at the end of the previous chapter.

Since, starting with "mentally renouncing all actions" (Gita 5.13), establishment in Knowledge preceded by renunciation was stated with purport, and since action is of the nature of suffering, the contingency of sudden renunciation might arise. To prevent this, He praises Karma Yoga as being superior even to Sannyasa.

The Lord said: With the two verses beginning with "Anashritah."

One who does not take refuge in the fruit of action—meaning, not expecting it—and performs the action prescribed as an obligatory duty, he alone is a Sannyasi and a Yogi. But not the Niragni—the renouncer of rituals known as 'Ishta' which are accomplished with fire; nor the Akriya—the renouncer of works known as 'Purta' (charitable works) which are accomplished without fire.

To show that the commencement of the sixth chapter is in the form of a restatement (anuvada) of the previously stated meaning, and for the sake of continuous connection with the previous [chapter], stating the connection of the chapter, he takes up the text to be explained before [explaining the verse]; and shows the connection through the mention of the past and future topics—with "Ukta" (Stated). Karma Yoga has been stated; the Yoga characterized by Samadhi, which was proposed as accomplishable by that (Karma Yoga), is what is being propounded here along with its accessories; this is the connection. "The method of Yoga practice is being stated"—"Method of Yoga practice, the Yogi is fourfold, means of Yoga, perfection of Yoga, and the supremacy of his own Yoga are stated in the sixth" (Gitarthasangraha 10)—since the method of Yoga practice is mentioned first in this summary verse, and others are for the sake of that, it is summarized as the main meaning of the chapter; this is the purport.

Anticipating that the nine verses from "Anashritah" (6.1) up to "Samabuddhirvishishyate" (6.9) are purposeless because they do not contain more meaning than what was previously stated, he says "Tatra" (There). Repetition is indeed a sign of purport (tatparya), and immediate mention indicates independence (nairapekshya); this is the purport. By the two terms "Form of Knowledge" (Jnanakara) and "Culminating in Yoga" (Yogashiraska), the fullness of the means (Karma Yoga) characterized by previously stated included Self-knowledge etc., and the immediate nature of the goal Self-realization, are intended. In the verse "Anashritah", the first half is a restatement of Karma Yoga in the form of Knowledge; the second half is the strengthening of its independence. Considering the immediately preceding verse "Enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities" (5.29), "Being the friend of us with all his heart" etc. is stated.

Then, upon the doubt "If 'Not relying on the fruit of action' is said, the activity would be fruitless," since it is appropriate to state that the action itself is the fruit (end), the word "Karya" (duty/task) refers to the purpose; to show this, the explanation "Performance of action itself is the task/purpose" is shown. If the word "Karya" referred to the enjoined duty (chodita), it would have weak purpose; this is the idea.

(Objection) "Now, having restated the one established in Karma Yoga, it is improper to ordain him as established in Jnana Yoga and established in Karma Yoga; because in the first case there is contradiction, and in the second there is absence of division between object and subject, repetition, and purposelessness"—upon this doubt, he says "Self-realization." Since the fruit accomplishable by both (Jnana and Karma) which are distinct means is obtained by this (Karma Yoga alone), "establishment in both" is said figuratively; thereby the independent instrument-ality of Karma Yoga is intended; this is the purport. Or, the solution is by the distinction of Knowledge and Action which are parts of Karma Yoga; this is the idea.

To imply that the word "Agni" (fire) here indicates action related to fire, the word "Yajna-adi" (sacrifice etc.) is used. The collector of the indicated meanings is "Choditatva" (being enjoined). Since the cessation of action is stated by "Niragnih" (fireless) alone, the word "Akriya" (actionless), through the cessation of action, indicates establishment in something distinct from action; and the distinct thing here is the proximate Jnana Yoga—to show this, "Established in pure knowledge" is stated. Or, from both "Neither fireless nor actionless" which negate specific Shrauta and Smarta actions, he states the resultant meaning "Neither [abandoning] enjoined..." etc. He states the intention of that—"Nor established in pure knowledge." The exclusion of the Sannyasa Ashrama propounded by "Let him be without fire and without home" (Manu 6.25/6.43), "Abandoning actions accomplishable by material and fire" etc., is inconsistent here; this is the purport.

प्रथम अध्याय में अर्जुन का विचार युद्धभूमि से पलायन करके संन्यास जीवन व्यतीत करने का था। उसे यह नहीं ज्ञात था कि निस्वार्थ भाव से कर्म करने वाला कर्मयोगी पुरुष ही सबसे बड़ा संन्यासी है। स्वार्थ का त्याग किये बिना कर्म का आचरण अथवा उससे पलायन करने का अर्थ है विश्व के सामंजस्य में अनर्थकारी हस्तक्षेप करना।मन की अपरिपक्व स्थिति में जीवन संघर्ष से पलायन करके गंगा के किनारे शान्त वातावरण में ध्यानाभ्यास के लिए जाने से सामान्य स्तर के अच्छे मनुष्य का भी गंगा में पड़े पाषाण के स्तर तक पतन होगा इस श्लोक में भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन के इस त्रुटिपूर्ण विचार की मानो हंसी उड़ाते हैं। परन्तु भगवान् के व्यंग्य में किसी प्रकार की कटुता नहीं है। हम आगे देखेंगे कि अर्जुन को स्वयं भी अपनी गलत धारणा पर हंसी आती है।निदिध्यासन की सफलता के लिए आन्तरिक शक्तियों का विकास तथा उनका सही दिशा में उचित उपयोग करना भी अत्यन्त आवश्यक है। भगवान् ने इस अध्याय में हमारे मन के उद्देश्यों तथा भावनाओं मंे परिवर्तन लाने के लिए विशेष बल दिया है। इसके द्वारा हम आध्यात्मिक मार्ग में प्रवेश कर सकते हैं।

Thus, the meaning established by the previous group of chapters is articulated by these two verses—"Anashritah" and "Yam sannyasam."

"Karyam" means that which is prescribed according to one's own caste, etc. 'Sannyasi' and 'Yogi'—these two are synonyms. That is why He says "Yam sannyasam" (That which they call Sannyasa...).

And indeed, without Yoga, Sannyasa is not possible. Similarly, without the renunciation of resolve (sankalpa), Yoga is not fitting. Therefore, Yoga and Sannyasa are eternally connected.

By "Na niragnih" (not the one without fire), etc., this meaning is suggested: He is neither without fire nor without action, and yet he is a Sannyasi—this is a wonder.

Indicating the connection, he states the subject matter to be propounded in this chapter with "Jnana-antaranga" (Internal means to knowledge). Having promised "Listen to this regarding Yoga" (2.39), Karma Yoga was propounded principally in the past text because it is the external means (bahiranga) to the Knowledge of God which will be described in the second hexad (chapters 7-12). Being the result of that (Karma Yoga) and being the internal means (antaranga) to Knowledge, the "Samadhi Yoga" which has now obtained its opportunity is spoken of by this sixth chapter—this is the meaning. Although limbs like Asana (posture) etc. will be described, since they are for the sake of Samadhi, "Samadhi Yoga" is taken principally. If it is said that this is an elaboration of what was stated at the end of the fifth chapter, there is no fault in that.

"That for the sake of praising the householder also, the status of Sannyasi and Yogi is stated in the first verse figuratively"—thinking that this statement of purport by others is incorrect, he says "Vivakshitam" (intended), etc. To prescribe Samadhi Yoga, and while making known the one eligible for it—in order to refute the eligible person accepted by Sankhya etc.—He spoke of Sannyasa, defined as the abandonment of desires etc. which was intended earlier as a qualifier for that (eligibility), along with Yoga, defined as the performance of one's own duty as worship of God—this is the meaning. If Sannyasa here were intended as the order of the ascetic (Yati-ashrama) and Yoga were something impossible for a householder, then this would be a praise by figurative usage (upachara). But the idea is that it is not so.

"Not only the Niragni (fireless) and Akriya (actionless) person in the fourth order of life is a Sannyasi and Yogi, but also the householder described as 'Anashrita' etc."—thus he refutes the interpretation of others with "Chaturtha," etc. Right here, he recites another clear sentence "Agnih," etc. The word 'Cha' is in the sense of 'Tu' (indeed/but). Therefore, the interpretation of others is not proper—this remains to be understood. Then how (should it be interpreted)? To this, he says "Tasmat," etc., because the scheme created by others has been refuted. "Nanu" (Objection): Since the person in the fourth order of life, who is niragni and akriya, is also a Sannyasi and a Yogi, how is it said "Na niragnih" (Not the niragni...), etc.? To this, he says (or: offers an alternative explanation)—"Chaturthashramino'pi," etc. (Even for the one in the fourth order...). "He is not indeed (a Sannyasi/Yogi)"—this is the proper conclusion—this remains to be understood. And the common talk of 'anagnitva' (being without fire) etc., is based on the absence of external fire etc., this is the idea.

The 'Yoga-aphorism' (Yoga-sutra) was stated in three verses at the end of the fifth chapter; specifically to explain that in detail, the sixth chapter is begun. There, intending to prescribe Yoga through the renunciation of all actions, but anticipating the doubt of inferiority (regarding Action) due to it being something to be abandoned, He praises Karma Yoga with two verses. The Blessed Lord said:

He who performs "Karyam"—that is, the Nitya (obligatory) action like Agnihotra prescribed by scripture as duty—without taking refuge in, meaning not expecting, the fruit of actions, and being devoid of desire for results; such a person, even though he is a performer of action (Karmi), is praised as being a Sannyasi and a Yogi.
Indeed, Sannyasa is renunciation, and Yoga is the absence of mental distraction. And both of these are present in him due to the renunciation of fruit and due to the absence of mental distraction in the form of thirst for results. Here, the renunciation of the thirst for the fruit of action alone is expressed by the words 'Sannyasa' and 'Yoga' through a secondary figurative function (Gaunya-vritti), to declare his praiseworthiness compared to those who act with desire. For, the primary (Mukhya) Sannyasa and Yoga are inevitable for the performer of desireless action.

Therefore, although this person is "not Niragni"—meaning he is not a renouncer of Shrauta rituals accomplished with fire; and he is "not Akriya"—meaning he is not a renouncer of Smarta rites which do not require fire; still, he should be considered a Sannyasi and a Yogi.
Or, (the interpretation is): One should not think that only the Niragni and the Akriya is a Sannyasi and a Yogi; but rather, the one with fire (Sagni) and with action (Sakriya) who performs desireless action is to be considered a Sannyasi and a Yogi—thus he is praised. Just as in the statement "Others than cows and horses are non-animals" (implying cows and horses are the true animals), the grammatical connection of the negative particle 'Na' is justified here by the characteristic of praise (Prashamsa).

And here, if by the word 'Akriya' alone the renouncer of all actions were understood, the word 'Niragni' would become redundant. Therefore, by the word 'Agni', all actions are implied, so 'Niragni' means a Sannyasi; and by the word 'Kriya', mental modifications (chitta-vritti) are implied, so 'Akriya' means a Yogi with restrained mental modifications. Thus, "one should not consider (only) the Niragni as Sannyasi, nor consider (only) the Akriya as Yogi"—in this way, the exclusion of both should be seen respectively (Yathasankhya). When this is done, it should be seen that both negative particles are justified.

Even after performing total renunciation (Sarva-sannyasa) here, if one wanders like an inert being (Jada), one does not attain Devotion (Bhakti); therefore, He spoke of Dhyana Yoga.

Having spoken of Sannyasa in the previous chapter, and stating at the end of the chapter that one devoid of desire etc., wishing for liberation from objects, should become free from them due to the nature of experiencing objects—then, that liberation from them alone is not the result. Rather, through that liberation, by meditation on God, 'Bhagavad-avesha' (Absorption in God/Entrance of God) is the result. Thus, the Lord explains the nature of meditation with "Anashritah," etc.

One who does not take refuge in the fruit of action—forms like Heaven etc.—and performs "Karyam" Karma—meaning action that is obligatory because it is spoken by the Lord, which is in the form of Service (Seva) etc.—he is a Sannyasi (one possessing renunciation) and also a Yogi—this is the conclusion.

"Na niragnih"—he is not a Sannyasi (merely) by being a renouncer of Garhapatya fire etc. "Na cha akriyah"—nor does one become a Yogi by being devoid of Service (Seva) etc.—this is the meaning.

"Anashritah" means not dependent. On what? "Karmaphalam"—the fruit of actions is Karmaphalam; one who does not rely on that. The meaning is: one devoid of thirst for the fruit of action. For, he who has thirst for the fruit of action becomes dependent on (ashrita) the fruit of action; but this person is the opposite of that, hence he is "Anashritah karmaphalam."

Being such, he performs—accomplishes—"Karyam," i.e., duty—the Nitya (obligatory) action which is contrary to Kamya (desire-prompted) action, such as Agnihotra etc. Whosoever is such a performer of action (Karmi), he is distinguished from other performers of action—to convey this meaning, He says "he is a Sannyasi and a Yogi."

Sannyasa means complete renunciation; he who has that is a Sannyasi. And a Yogi: Yoga means mental poise/concentration; he who has that is a Yogi. Thus, this person should be considered endowed with these qualities. It should not be considered that only the 'Niragni' (fireless) and the 'Akriya' (actionless) is a Sannyasi and a Yogi.

He from whom the fires, which are auxiliary to rituals, have departed is 'Niragni'. And 'Akriya': he for whom even actions not requiring fire as a means, like austerities and charity, are non-existent is 'Akriya'.

(Objection) "Nanu," in the Sruti, Smriti, and Yoga scriptures, the status of Sannyasi and Yogi is well-known essentially for the Niragni and Akriya alone. How is it that the status of Sannyasi and Yogi is stated here for the one with fire (Sagni) and the one with action (Sakriya), which is not well-known?

(Refutation) This is not a fault, because the intention is to establish both statuses through some "Guna-vritti" (secondary function based on quality). How so? The status of Sannyasi is due to the renunciation of the resolve (sankalpa) for the fruit of action. And the status of Yogi is due to the performance of action as a limb of Yoga, and due to the abandonment of the resolve for the fruit of action which is the cause of mental distraction. Thus, both are figurative (Gauna); the primary (Mukhya) status of Sannyasi and Yogi is not intended here—to show this meaning, He speaks (the next verse).

"Through the dharma of self-control (Atma-samyama), the single goal of both spoken (paths) is achieved"—to say this to Partha (Arjun), Hari spoke again.

The Blessed Lord said: "Anashritah," etc. He demonstrates to him the identity of meaning (Ekarthata) of Sankhya and Yoga within Karma Yoga.

He who performs "Karyam" Karma—Agnihotra etc.—because it is a duty, without relying on the fruit of action; then the single goal of both is achieved. By the renunciation of fruit, the identity with Sankhya is taught, and by the performance of action, the identity with Yoga is taught.

That is what He says: "He is a Sannyasi and he is a Yogi." The one devoid of all actions like Agnihotra etc. is not considered a Sannyasi by Me. Nor is the one devoid of 'Purta' works (charitable acts) accomplishable without fire considered as such (a Yogi).

By this, the doer of actions characterized by the Yoga of self-control is indicated as the intended subject.

अनाश्रितः not depending (on)? कर्मफलम् fruit of action? कार्यम् bounden? कर्म duty? करोति performs? यः who? सः he? संन्यासी Sannyasi (ascetic)? च and? योगी Yogi? च and? न not? निरग्निः without fire? न not? च and? अक्रियः without action.Commentary Actions such as Agnihotra? etc.? performed without the expectation of their fruits purify the mind and become the means to Dhyana Yoga or the Yoga of Meditation.Karyam Karma bounden duty.Niragnih without fire. He who has renounced the daily rituals like Agnihotra? which are performed with the help of fire.Akriya without action. He who has renounced austerities and other meritorious acts like building resthouses? charitable dispensaries? digging wells? feeding the poor? etc.Sannyasi he who has renounced the fruits of his actions.Yogi he who has a steady mind. These two terms are applied to him in a secondary sense only. They are not used to denote that he is in reality a Sannyasi and a Yogi.The Sannyasi performs neither Agnihotra nor other ceremonies. But simply to omit these without genuine renunciation will not make one a real Sannyasi. (Cf.V.3)

Anasritah, without depending on;-on what?-on that which is karma-phalam, the result of action- i.e. without craving for the result of action-. He who craves for the results of actions becomes dependent on the results of actions. But this person is the opposite of such a one. Hence (it is said), 'wihtout depending on the result of action.
Having become so, yah he who; karoti, performs accomplishes; (karma, an action;) which is his karyam, duty, the nityakarmas such as Agnihotra etc. which are opposed to the kamya-karmas-.
Whoever is a man of action of this kind is distinguished from the other men of action. In order to express this idea the Lord says, sah, he ; is a sannyasi, monk, and a yogi. Sanyyasa, means renunciation. he who is possessed of this is a sannyasi, a monk. And he is also a yogi. Yoga means concentration of mind. He who has that is a yogi. It is to be understood that this man is possessed of these alities. It is not to be understood that, only that person who does not keep a fire (niragnih) and who is actionless (akriyah) is a monk and a yogi. Niragnih is one from whom the fires [viz Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharya-pacana, etc.], which are the accessories of rites, have bocome dissociated. By kriya are mean austerity, charity, etc. which are performed wityout fire.
Akriyah, actionless, is he who does not have even such kriyas.
Objection: Is it not only with regard to one who does not keep a fire and is acitonless that monasticsm and meditativeness are well known in the Vedas, Smrtis and scriptures dealing with meditation? Why are monasticism and meditativeness spoken of here with regard to one who keeps a fire and is a man of action-which is not accepted as a fact?
Reply: This defect does not arise, because both are sought to be asserted in some secondary sense.
Objection: How is that?
Reply: His being monk is by virtue of his having given up hankering for the results of actions; and his being a man of meditation is from the fact of his doing actions as accesories to meditation or from his rejection of thoughts for the results of actions which cause disturbances in the mind. Thus both are used in a figurative sense. On the contrary, it is not that monasticism and meditativeness are meant in the primary sense.
With a veiw to pointing out this idea, the Lord says:

The Lord said He who, without depending on such fruits of works as heaven, etc., performs them, reflecting, 'The performance of works alone is my duty (Karya). Works themselves are my sole aim, because they are a form of worship of the Supreme Person who is our Friend in every way. There is nothing other than Him to be gained by them' - such a person is a Sannyasin, i.e., one devoted to Jnana Yoga, and also a Karma Yogin, i.e., one devoted to Karma Yoga. He is intent on both these, which is the means for attaining Yoga, which is of the nature of the vision of the self.
'And not he who maintains no sacred fires and performs no works,' i.e., not he who is disinclined to perform the enjoined works such as sacrifices, etc., nor he who is devoted to mere knowledge. The meaning is that such a person is devoted only to knowledge, whereas a person who is devoted to Karma Yoga has both knowledge and works.
Now Sri Krsna teaches that there is an element of knowledge in the Karma Yoga as defined above.