Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 6 - Shloka (Verse) 2

यं संन्यासमिति प्राहुर्योगं तं विद्धि पाण्डव'--पाँचवें अध्यायके आरम्भमें भगवान्ने बताया था कि संन्यास (सांख्ययोग) और योग (कर्मयोग)--ये दोनों ही स्वतन्त्रतासे कल्याण करनेवाले हैं (5। 2), तथा दोनोंका फल भी एक ही है (5। 5) अर्थात् संन्यास और योग दो नहीं हैं, एक ही हैं। वही बात भगवान् यहाँ कहते हैं कि जैसे संन्यासी सर्वथा त्यागी होता है, ऐसे ही कर्मयोगी भी सर्वथा त्यागी होता है।अठारहवें अध्यायके नवें श्लोकमें भगवान्ने कहा है कि फल और आसक्तिका सर्वथा त्याग करके जो नियत कर्तव्य-कर्म केवल कर्तव्यमात्र समझकर किया जाता है, वह 'सात्त्विक त्याग' है, जिससे पदार्थों और क्रियाओंसे सर्वथा सम्बन्ध-विच्छेद हो जाता है और मनुष्य त्यागी अर्थात् योगी हो जाता है। इसी तरह संन्यासी भी कर्तृत्वाभिमानका त्यागी होता है। अतः दोनों ही त्यागी हैं। तात्पर्य है कि योगी और संन्यासीमें कोई भेद नहीं है। भेद न रहनेसे ही भगवान्ने पाँचवें अध्यायके तीसरे श्लोकमें कहा है कि राग-द्वेषका त्याग करनेवाला योगी 'संन्यासी' ही है।

इससे मुख्य संन्यासित्व और योगित्व इष्ट नहीं है। इसी भावको दिखलानेके लिये कहते हैं श्रुतिस्मृतिके ज्ञाता पुरुष सर्वकर्म और उनके फलके त्यागरूप जिस भावको वास्तविक संन्यास कहते हैं हे पाण्डव कर्मानुष्ठानरूप योगको ( निष्काम कर्मयोगको ) भी तू वही वास्तविक संन्यास जान। प्रवृत्तिरूप कर्मयोगकी उससे विपरीत निवृत्तिरूप परमार्थसंन्यासके साथ कैसी समानता स्वीकार करके एकता कही जाती है ऐसा प्रश्न होनेपर यह कहा जाता है परमार्थसंन्यासके साथ कर्मयोगकी कर्तृविषयक समानता है क्योंकि जो परमार्थसंन्यासी है वह सब कर्मसाधनोंका त्याग कर चुकता है इसलिये सब कर्मोंका और उनके फलविषयक संकल्पोंका जो कि प्रवृत्तिहेतुक कामके कारण है त्याग करता है। और यह कर्मयोगी भी कर्म करता हुआ फलविषयक संकल्पोंका त्याग करता ही है ( इस प्रकार दोनोंकी समानता है ) इस अभिप्रायको दिखलाते हुए कहते हैं जिसने फलविषयक संकल्पोंका यानी इच्छाओंका त्याग न किया हो ऐसा कोई भी कर्मी योगी नहीं हो सकता। अर्थात् ऐसे पुरुषका चित्त समाधिस्थ होना सम्भव नहीं है क्योंकि फलका संकल्प ही चित्तके विक्षेपका कारण है। इसलिये जो कोई कर्मी फलविषयक संकल्पोंका त्याग कर देता है वही योगी होता है। अभिप्राय यह है कि चित्तविक्षेपका कारण जो फलविषयक संकल्प है उसके त्यागसे ही मनुष्य समाधानयुक्त यानी चित्तविक्षेपसे रहित योगी होता है। इस प्रकार परमार्थसंन्यासकी और कर्मयोगकी कर्त्ताके भावसे सम्बन्ध रखनेवाली जो त्यागविषयक समानता है उसकी अपेक्षासे ही कर्मयोगकी स्तुति करनेके लिये यं संन्यासमिति प्राहुर्योगं तं विद्धि पाण्डव इस श्लोकमें उसे संन्यास बतलाया है।

To show the purport of the next verse, he presents the doubt that is to be excluded with "Nanu cha," etc. He refutes the objection that accepting an unknown meaning while rejecting the well-known one is contrary to usage, with "Naisha doshah" (This is not a fault). The meaning is: the status of both Sannyasi and Yogi is established in the one who has fire (Sagni) and action (Sakriya).

He reveals the establishment of both attributes through a "Guna-vritti" (secondary/figurative function) by raising a question with "Tat katham" (How is that), etc. Anticipating the doubt—"When the primary meaning is possible, why are both desired in a secondary sense?"—and implying that since the primary (renunciation) is impossible in action, the secondary sense is indeed desired for the accomplishment of praise, he says "Na punah" (Not again [the primary]...), etc.

Regarding the doubter who thinks: "Due to the abandonment of desire which is the cause of mental agitation, the attainment of mental poise (samadhana) makes it proper for a performer of action (Karmi) to be a Yogi, but being a Sannyasi is contradictory to him"—he introduces the verse to answer this with "Ityetam," etc. "Paramartha Sannyasa" (Supreme Renunciation) they call—this is the connection. Since Sannyasa is accepted in this way by authoritative persons, the word "Iti" should be construed. "Yoga"—by rejecting the thirst for fruit and having a collected mind—this remains to be understood.

What was stated—that the status of Sannyasi and Yogi is figurative for the householder—to reveal that through the construction of the second half (of the verse), he brings up the second half with "Karmayogasya," etc. He clarifies the similarity of Karma Yoga with Supreme Renunciation through the agent, which was stated, with "Yo hi," etc.

By whom all actions and means are abandoned is "tathokta" (such a one); his state is "tat" (thatness); by that (instrument), he abandons the resolve (sankalpa) regarding all actions and their fruits—this is the meaning. Intending that by the renunciation of resolve, the renunciation of its effect (desire) and the renunciation of the activity generated by it are established, he qualifies it with "Pravritti," etc. He states that the aforementioned 'Sankalpa-sannyasitva' (state of having renounced resolve) exists in the performer of action also, with "Ayamapi" (This one also), etc. Because, if that is not abandoned, the performance of action itself becomes difficult due to a distracted mind—this is the meaning.

Clarifying the very same similarity, he shows the contrast (negative aspect) with "Ityetam," etc. If the resolve for fruit is not abandoned, why is there an absence of poise? To this he says "Phala," etc. He concludes the meaning stated through the negative method (vyatireka) by the positive method (anvaya) with "Tasmat," etc.

The meaning of the word "Hi," stated as "Yasmat" (Because), has its connection with "Tasmat" (Therefore). Regarding the performer of action, intending the cause-and-effect relationship in the method described, he states the cause in the second method with "Chittavikshepa" (Mental distraction), etc. In the previous verse, he translates what was said by the first and second halves with "Evam," etc.

To show the "connection of quality" (guna-yoga) itself, which is the cause for the figurative usage, He says "Yam," etc. That which the Srutis, Smritis, Itihasas, and Puranas call "Supreme Renunciation" (Paramartha Sannyasa)—characterized by the abandonment of all actions and their fruits; know that to be Yoga—characterized by the performance of action without desire for the fruit; know it (as Sannyasa) due to the "connection of quality" in the form of abandonment of the resolve regarding the fruit. Just as you, being in reality the son of Indra, are called "Pandava" by people because of being born in the field (wife) of Pandu—similarly (this usage is figurative); with this hidden intention, He addresses him as "O Pandava." He states the connection of quality itself. "Hi" means "Because" (Yasmat)—no Karma Yogi whatsoever who is "Asannyasta-sankalpa"—meaning one who has not abandoned desire for the fruit—becomes possessed of poise (samadhana); only the one who has renounced resolve becomes a Yogi—this is the meaning. The intention is that the resolve for fruit, which is the cause of mental distraction, is renounced. Being a Yogi and a Sannyasi is spoken of 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 causes mental distraction.

Regarding what others have said—"Having accepted the difference between Karma Yoga and Sannyasa, praise was stated without contradiction; now He begins praise by their very oneness with 'Yam'..."—and their interpretation starting with "Know that Yoga to be Karma Yoga which they call Sannyasa par excellence..." which conveys the superiority of Karma Yoga over Sannyasa—that is weak (incorrect) due to contradiction.

Furthermore, the oneness of Sannyasa and Karma Yoga is not possible (literally) like that of a lion and a boy; rather, like the use of the word "lion" for a boy, the use of the word "Sannyasa" for desireless Karma Yoga is merely figurative—this is the direction (indication of the correct view).

Sannyasa is also included within Yoga; He states this with "Yam sannyasam," etc.

Without abandoning desire, resolve, etc., how can one be possessed of the means (be a Yogi)? This is the intent.

By what similarity is he praised as "He is a Sannyasi and a Yogi"? To this, He says "Yam," etc. He indeed who has abandoned all resolves is a Sannyasi, and such a one is a Dhyana Yogi; therefore, there is no difference between them.

"One should remain indifferent, free from resolve; this is the mark of liberation"—since the state of being "free from resolve" (nihsankalpatva), which is the characteristic of liberation heard in the Maitrayani Upanishad, is equal in both cases. Therefore, this Karma Yogi also, due to the abandonment of the resolve for fruit, becomes a Sannyasi and a Yogi because of the similarity of being "free from resolve"—thus he is praised; this is the meaning.

The purport of the two verses is that desireless actions should be performed to establish eligibility for Yoga.

That which they call 'Jnana Yoga'—meaning the knowledge of the true nature of the Self—know that to be Karma Yoga itself.

He justifies this with the statement: 'For no one becomes a Yogi who has not renounced Sankalpa.'

He by whom the 'Atma-sankalpa' (the misconception of Self) regarding the non-self, i.e., Nature (Prakriti), has been renounced or abandoned through the contemplation of the true nature of the Self—he is 'Sannyasta-sankalpa' (one who has renounced Sankalpa). He who is not such is 'Asannyasta-sankalpa'. Indeed, among the mentioned Karma Yogas, there is no Karma Yogi who is not such (i.e., every true Karma Yogi has renounced the misconception). For it has indeed been said: 'He whose undertakings are all devoid of desire and Sankalpa' (Gita 4.19).

He states that Karma Yoga alone accomplishes Yoga without negligence.

Anticipating the question "Why?" (is Karma Yoga called Sannyasa?), and establishing the status of Sannyasa within Karma Yoga itself, He says "Yam," etc. "That which they call Sannyasa"—meaning, which they speak of as superior/best due to scriptural statements like "Renunciation alone surpassed all"—know that to be Yoga itself, for the reason of the mere renunciation of the fruit.

Anticipating "Why?", He states that the reason implied by the word "Iti" (thus/because) exists in Yoga as well, with "Na hi," etc. He by whom the resolve for fruit (Phala-sankalpa) has not been renounced, whether he is established in action or in knowledge—no such person becomes a Yogi.

Therefore, due to the similarity of the renunciation of the resolve for fruit, he is indeed a Sannyasi; and precisely because of the absence of mental distraction resulting from the renunciation of the resolve for fruit, he is indeed a Yogi—this is the meaning.

If, having referred to Sannyasa, it were enjoined as Yoga, there could arise a delusion that the existence of Karma Yoga is being propounded within Jnana Yoga. And that would be contrary to the justification "Na hyasannyasta..." (For one who has not renounced...) and would be inappropriate here. With this intention, he (Ramanuja) said "Uktalakshana" (of the defined characteristic), etc. The meaning is that the sentence is intended to enjoin the status of Sannyasa with reference to Yoga.

To state the intended meaning of the word 'Sannyasa', he first states the primary meaning relevant to the context: "Jnana Yoga." Here, he states the specific intent of that: "Knowledge of the true nature of the Self." The idea is that a term denoting a collection is used for a part of it as well.

"Know that to be Karma Yoga alone" means "Know it to be included within Karma Yoga."

The intention of (the commentary phrase) "Atmayathatmya..." is this: The word 'Sankalpa' here does not refer to the resolve "I shall do," because in the absence of that, the performance of action itself would be impossible. Nor does it refer to the desire for fruit (Phala-bhisandhi), because even if it were so, it would not serve as a justification for the proposition that Jnana Yoga is included in Karma Yoga. Therefore, the 'Sankalpa' mentioned in Smritis like "Desire is rooted in Sankalpa" (Manu 2.3), which is the cause of desire and actions, is not intended here. Therefore, 'Sankalpa' here means "Kalpa" (imagination/conception) in the sense of unifying/identifying (ekikritya). And here, it refers to the (identification of) the body and the Self. And its abandonment comes from the knowledge of reality. Only if this is so, does the statement "Na hi..." etc. become appropriate as a justification for what was stated.

The direction "Kaschana" (whosoever/anyone) is indicative of the variety of those established in Karma Yoga mentioned earlier; with this intention, it is said (in the Bhashya) "Ukteshu karmayogishu" (Among the mentioned Karma Yogis).

For a proven fact serves as a justification here; anticipating the question "From where is that established here?", he states the meaning intended by the word "Hi" with "Yasya" (Whose...), etc.

भगवान् यहाँ पूर्वकथित विचार को ही दोहराते हैं क्योंकि कहीं ऐसा न हो कि अर्जुन को इस तथ्य विस्मरण हो जाय कि संन्यास (कर्तृत्व का त्याग) और योग(फलासक्ति का त्याग) दोनों वास्तव में एक ही हैं। योग के द्वारा संन्यास की स्थिति तक पहुँचा जाता है और मन में संन्यास की भावना के बिना योग के अभ्यास का विचार तक नहीं किया जा सकता। वास्तव में देखा जाय तो यह दोनों आध्यात्मिक पूर्णत्व रूपी सिक्के के दो पहलू हैं।भगवान् के इस कथन पर स्वाभाविक है कि अर्जुन ने उनकी ओर प्रश्नार्थक मुद्रा में देखा होगा। संन्यास और योग को एक ही कहने का क्या कारण है भगवान् स्पष्ट करते हैं कि संकल्पों का संन्यास किये बिना योगाभ्यास में दृढ़ता नहीं आ सकती और उसके अभाव में आध्यात्मिक प्रगति भी नहीं हो सकती।साधारणत मनुष्य संकल्पविकल्प किये बिना नहीं रह सकता। वह भविष्य की सुन्दरसुन्दर कल्पनाएँ करता रहता है। हम स्वयं ही किसी एक परिच्छिन्न लक्ष्य को निर्धारित करके उसे पाने के लिए योजनाएं बनाते हैं और उस पर प्रयत्नशील हो जाते हैं। परन्तु अपनी योजनाओं को पूर्णतया कार्यान्वित करने के पूर्व ही मन की कभी न थकने वाली क्रियाशील कल्पना शक्ति हमें नये लक्ष्य का निर्देश करती है जो पूर्व निर्धारित लक्ष्य से सर्वथा भिन्न होता है।जैसे ही हम उस नये लक्ष्य को पाने के लिए तत्पर हो जाते हैं उसी समय फिर यह अनोखी कल्पना शक्ति अन्य विकल्प को उपस्थित कर देती है। इस प्रकार प्रत्येक समय हमारा लक्ष्य तब तक ही निश्चित रहता है जब तक उसे पाने के लिए हम प्रयत्न आरम्भ नहीं कर देते यात्रा प्रारम्भ हुई कि गन्तव्य लुप्त।संक्षेप में विडम्बना यह है कि जब हमारे समक्ष लक्ष्य होता है तब प्रयत्न का आरम्भ नहीं और जैसे ही हम प्रयत्नशील होते हैं तो सामने कोई लक्ष्य ही नहीं दिखाई देता हमारे अन्तकरण में जो सूक्ष्म शक्ति इस उन्मत्त स्वभाव को जन्म देती है वह है निरंकुश संकल्पशक्ति।यह तो स्वत स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि जब तक हम इस विनाशकारी संकल्प शक्ति को वश में करके विनष्ट नहीं कर देते तब तक हम भौतिक और आध्यात्मिक उपलब्धि को प्राप्त नहीं कर सकते हैं। इसे समझने के लिए किसी व्याख्याकार की आवश्यकता नहीं हैं।यह कहकर कि कोई भी (कश्चन) पुरुष संकल्प के बिना योगी नहीं बन सकता भगवान् यह दर्शाते हैं कि बिना संकल्प शक्ति के विनष्ट किये इस विषय में किसी प्रकार का समझौता नहीं हो सकता।फलनिरपेक्ष कर्मयोग का अनुष्ठान ध्यानयोग का बहिरंग साधन है। अत उसकी प्रशंसा करने के पश्चात् अब भगवान् यह बताते हैं कि किस प्रकार कर्मयोग ध्यान का साधन है

Thus, the meaning established by the previous group of chapters is articulated by the 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.

"Nanu" (Objection): Sannyasa and Yoga have different characteristics, so how is their oneness/identity asserted? To this, He says "Sannyaso'pi" (Sannyasa also...), etc. With the statement "he is a Sannyasi and a Yogi," the doubt regarding absolute difference that might arise is removed—this is the conclusion. The word 'api' (also/even) implies "even though stated separately in relation to the secondary Yoga."

By the word 'Yoga' here, the primary one (which is the means to knowledge) is meant. Therefore, He will say later "Upayavan" (possessed of the means)—because it (Sannyasa) is included within it, the statement of unity is made—this is the meaning.

The inclusion of Sannyasa within Yoga is justified with "Na hi," etc. (Objection): "That is false, because mere renunciation of resolve is not Sannyasa. Yoga is merely doing one's own duty for the worship of God; that is possible even in the absence of Sannyasa?" To this, he says "Kama," etc.

Since the word 'Sankalpa' is an implication (upalakshana) for desire (kama) etc., and since the word 'Yoga' refers to the primary Yoga which is the means to knowledge, there is no inconsistency—this is the idea.

To show the "connection of quality" (guna-yoga) which is the cause for using the word 'Sannyasa' even when it is not (literal) Sannyasa, He says: "That which"—meaning the renunciation of all actions and their fruits—"they call Sannyasa"—the Srutis such as "Renunciation alone surpassed all" and "Brahmins, having risen above the desire for sons, desire for wealth, and desire for worlds, wander for alms," etc. Know that to be 'Yoga'—the performance of prescribed actions with the abandonment of thirst for fruit and the pride of doership.

"O Pandava"—just as in the maxim "He calls the non-Brahmadatta as Brahmadatta, we consider him to be like Brahmadatta," a word belonging to one thing used for another indicates similarity, either through a secondary function (gaunya vritti) or by superimposing its nature.
In the present context, what is the similarity? He states that with "Na hi," etc. "Hi" means because; "Asannyasta-sankalpa"—one who has not abandoned the resolve for fruit—no one whatsoever becomes a Yogi; rather, every Yogi is indeed one who has abandoned the resolve for fruit. Therefore, due to the similarity of renouncing the fruit and the similarity of restraining the mental modification in the form of thirst, the performer of action (Karmi) becomes a Sannyasi and a Yogi through a secondary function—this is the meaning.

To explain: Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications (chitta-vritti-nirodha). The modifications are fivefold: Right Knowledge (Pramana), Error (Viparyaya), Imagination (Vikalpa), Sleep (Nidra), and Memory (Smriti).

Among them—Direct Perception, Inference, Scripture (Agama), Analogy, Presumption, and Non-existence are the six proofs according to Vedics (Mimamsakas); but (in Yoga) Direct Perception, Inference, and Testimony are the three proofs. Contraction and expansion should be seen based on inclusion and exclusion. That is why there are differences of opinion among logicians etc. Viparyaya is false knowledge; it has five divisions—Ignorance (Avidya), Egoism (Asmita), Attachment (Raga), Aversion (Dvesha), and Clinging to life (Abhinivesha). These are indeed the Afflictions (Kleshas). Vikalpa is an idea which follows verbal knowledge but is devoid of factual substance; it is distinct from valid knowledge and error, a usage based on non-existent objects; such as "a hare's horn" or "the consciousness of a non-existent person," etc. Nidra (Sleep) is the modification supported by the cognition of absence. The cause of the absence of the (other) four modifications is the Tamas Guna; the modification relying on that is Sleep, not merely the absence of knowledge etc. Smriti (Memory) is the not letting go of an experienced object; meaning knowledge born from the impression (samskara) of a previous experience. It is mentioned at the end because it is generated by all modifications.

The inclusion of modifications like shame etc. should be seen within these five.
The restraint of all such mental modifications is called 'Yoga' and 'Samadhi'. The resolve for fruit (phala-sankalpa) is actually 'Attachment' (Raga), which is the third variety of Viparyaya (Error). The restraint of merely that is also called 'Yoga' and 'Sannyasa' by a secondary function; thus there is no contradiction.

"Nanu," anticipating the doubt "Why would one possessing the said renunciation not be a Yogi?", He says "Yam Sannyasam," etc. That "Sannyasa" which they speak of "excellently"—in the form of Sarvatmabhava (total absorption in the Lord); the devotees who know its true nature are not spoken of now due to lack of eligibility (in this context), they will be spoken of later; know that (Sannyasa), O Pandava, to be 'Yoga'—in the form of Yoga.

By the address "Pandava," fitness for knowledge is ascertained. In that Sannyasa (of the devotee), which is in the form of experiencing the sentiment of separation (viprayoga), there is the renunciation of the fruit desired by oneself; therefore, the Union (samyoga) is attained. Since that is absent in this (Karma Yoga context), that attainment does not happen; so He says "Na hi," etc.

"Asannyasta-sankalpa"—he by whom the mental rule, which is in the nature of experiencing one's own happiness, is not abandoned—such a person, even if possessing emotion (bhava), does not become 'Yoga' (united). "Hi"—this meaning is indeed proper. Because, for one desiring the experience of his own happiness, the desire for the experience of the Lord's happiness does not arise; the existence of both in one place is mutually impossible. Therefore, only one who renounces the mental determination for the experience of his own happiness becomes a Yogi—this is the idea.

"That which"—the Supreme Renunciation (Paramartha Sannyasa) characterized by the abandonment of all actions and their fruits—"they"—the knowers of Sruti and Smriti—"call Sannyasa"; know that Yoga—characterized by the performance of action—to be Supreme Renunciation, O Pandava.

Anticipating the question: By accepting what kind of commonality is the identity stated between Karma Yoga, characterized by engagement (pravritti), and the Supreme Renunciation, characterized by withdrawal (nivritti) which is contrary to it? This is said: Indeed, there is a similarity of Karma Yoga with Supreme Renunciation through the agent (kartri).

He who is a Supreme Sannyasi renounces the resolve (sankalpa) concerning all actions and their fruits, which is the means for all actions and the cause of desire that leads to activity. This Karma Yogi also, while indeed performing action, renounces the resolve regarding the fruit. Showing this meaning, He says "Na hi" (For not...), etc.
Because (Hi)—"Asannyasta-sankalpa"—he by whom the resolve or intention regarding the fruit has not been renounced is asannyasta-sankalpa—no such performer of action (Karmi) whatsoever becomes a 'Yogi', i.e., possessed of mental poise; it is not possible—this is the meaning—because the resolve for fruit is the cause of mental distraction. Therefore, whichever performer of action becomes one who has renounced the resolve for fruit, he becomes a Yogi—possessed of poise, with an undistracted mind—because the resolve for fruit, which is the cause of mental distraction, has been renounced; this is the intention.

Thus, relying on the commonality of 'renunciation' between Supreme Renunciation and Karma Yoga through the agent, "That which they call Sannyasa, know that to be Yoga, O Pandava"—in this way, the status of Sannyasa is stated for the sake of praising Karma Yoga. Desireless Karma Yoga is the external means (bahiranga sadhana) to Dhyana Yoga; so, having praised it as Sannyasa, He now shows how Karma Yoga is the means to Dhyana Yoga.

Anticipating the question "Why?", and establishing the identity of meaning between the subjects of Sankhya and Yoga—which are renunciation and non-renunciation (action) respectively—He says "Yam sannyasam," etc. That which the Sages call "Sannyasa" by the method of renunciation, know that to be Yoga itself, because the renunciation of the resolve for fruit is being demonstrated in the actions pertaining to it.

To explain this, He says "Na hi," etc. One who has not renounced resolve (sankalpa) does not become a Yogi. If one is a doer of such action (with resolve), he is not fit (yogya/a Yogi). If he is so (without resolve), he is indeed fit (a Yogi)—this is the idea.

यम् which? संन्यासम् renunciation? इति thus? प्राहुः (they) call? योगम् Yoga? तम् that? विद्धि know? पाण्डव O Pandava? न not? हि verily? असंन्यस्तसङ्कल्पः one who has not renounced thoughts? योगी Yogi? भवति becomes? कश्चन anyone.Commentary Sankalpa is the working of the imagining faculty of the mind that makes plans for the future and guesses the results of plans so formed. No one can become a Karma Yogi who plans and schemes and expects fruits for his actions. No devotee of action who has not renounced the thought of the fruits of his actions can become a Yogi of steady mind. The thought of the fruits will certainly make the mind unsteady.Lord Krishna eulogises Karma Yoga here because it is the means or an external aid (Bahiranga Sadhana) to Dhyana Yoga. Karma Yoga is a steppingstone to Dhyana Yoga. It leads to the Yoga of Meditation in due course. In order to encourage the practice of Karna Yoga it is stated here that Karma Yoga is Sannyasa. (Cf.V.4)

Yam, that which is characterized by the giving up of all actions and their results; which prahuh, they, the knowers of the Vedas and the Smrtis, call; sannyasam iti, monasticism, in the real sense; viddhi, known; tam, that monasticism in the real sense; to be yogam, Yoga, consisting in the performance of actions, O Pandava.
Accepting what kind of similarity between Karma-yoga, which is characterized by engagement (in actions), and its opposite, renunciation in the real sense, which is characterized by cessation from work, has their eation been stated?
When such an apprehension arises, the answer is this; From the point of view of the agent, there does exist a simialrity of Karma-yoga with real renunciation. For he who is a monk in the real sense, from the very fact of his having given up all the means needed for accomplishing actions, gives up the thought of all actions and their results-the source of desire that leads to engagement in work. [Thoughts about an object lead to the desire for it, which in turn leads to actions for getting it. (Also see note under 4.19)] also, even while performing actions, gives up the thought for results.
Pointing out this idea, the Lord says: Hi, for; kascit, nobody, no man of action whosoever; asannyasta-sankalpah, who has not given up expactaions-one by whom has not been renounced expectation, anticipation, of results;bhavati, becomes, i.e. can become; yogi, a yogi, a man of concentration, because thought of results is the cause of the disturbance of mind. Therefore, any man of action who gives up the thought of results would become a yogi, a man of concentration with an unperturbed mind, because of his having given up thought of results which is the cause of mental distractions. This is the purport.
Thus, because of the similarity of real monasticism with Karma-yoga from the point of veiw of giving up by the agent, Karma-yoga is extolled as monasticism in, 'That which they call monasticism, know that to be Yoga, O Pandava.'
Since Karma-yoga, which is independent of results, is the remote help to Dhyana-yoga, therefore it has been praised as monasticism. Thereafter, now the Lord shows how Karma-yoga is helpful to Dhyana-yoga:

Know Karma Yoga only to be that which they call as Sannyasa i.e., as Jnana Yoga or knowledge of the real nature of the self. Sri Krsna substantiates this by the words, 'For no one whose delusive identification of the body with the self is not abandoned, becomes a true Karma Yogin.' 'One whose delusion is abandoned is one by whom the delusion of identifying the self with Prakrti (body), which is in reality distinct from the self, is not rejected by the contemplation of the real nature of the self. One who is not of this kind is one whose delusion is not abandoned. One who is not of this kind cannot become a Karma Yogin of the type described here. It has already been said: 'He whose every undertaking is free from desire for fruits and delusive identification of the body with the self ৷৷.' (4.19).
Sri Krsna now teaches that by Karma Yoga alone one succeeds in Yoga without the risk of fall.