Verse 1

In plain words

At the end of the chapter just finished, verses summing up the inner heart of meditation — the direct path to right vision — were taught, starting with 'having drawn the senses' contacts back outside...' This sixth chapter now opens to spell that out more fully. Here the point is that action is the outer support for meditation: as long as a householder hasn't yet reached the point of being able to climb into meditation itself, action is still his to perform. That's why Krishna now praises it, beginning with the words 'not resorting to...'

But wait — why set any limit at all on the ascent into meditation? Shouldn't the enjoined action simply continue for as long as one lives? No. Because the verse itself specifies: 'for the sage still trying to ascend, action is called the means' — and for one who has already ascended, it links tranquility alone. If both action and tranquility were meant equally for both the ascending one and the ascended one, then drawing this very distinction — 'for one ascending' versus 'for one who has ascended' — splitting tranquility from action, would be entirely pointless.

Among people at various stages of life, some are trying to ascend to yoga, some have already ascended, and others are neither. One might object: doesn't the qualification 'for one desiring to ascend' versus 'for one who has ascended' simply describe these different people, without implying any real time-limit? No. Because the verse says 'for him alone' — meaning the very same person — and mentions 'yoga' again in 'one who has ascended in yoga.' The person who was earlier trying to ascend to yoga is the very same person for whom, once he has ascended, tranquility alone is now said to be the means to the fruit of yoga. So no action is owed for an entire lifetime by anyone. And here's another reason: if action-based yoga were prescribed for a householder in this sixth chapter, and it were also said, 'even someone who falls from yoga still reaches the destiny, the fruit, of his actions,' then any fear of ruin for such a person would be baseless. Because any action performed — whether optional or obligatory, since liberation, being eternal, isn't something anyone produces — inevitably produces its own fruit. And we've already established that obligatory action, since we know of it only through the Veda's authority, must have a fruit — otherwise the Veda itself would end up pointless, which no one wants. And this concern about 'falling from both' simply doesn't apply once there's action involved, because purposeful action has no way to just fall away and come to nothing.

Objection: 'Once the act is done and handed over to the Lord, it produces no fruit for the doer at all.' No. Handing it over to the Lord stands to reason as the cause of a greater fruit, not of none.

Suppose someone argues: the renunciation of one's own actions to the Lord aims only at liberation, nothing else — combined with yoga it gets you there; but if a person falls from yoga having tried this, then his fear of ruin would be perfectly reasonable. No. Because renunciation of action is enjoined specifically for the wandering ascetic — 'solitary, of controlled mind and self, free of craving, without possessions,' 'abiding in the vow of a celibate student.' And here there's no question of worrying about a wife's company during meditation, which would be the only reason solitariness needs to be prescribed at all. Nor do phrases like 'free of craving, possessionless' fit a householder's life. And besides, the whole question about 'falling from both paths' wouldn't even arise on this reading.

But wait — doesn't this phrase 'not resorting to' mean that only someone still engaged in action gets called a renunciant and a yogin, while someone with no ritual fire or ritual action is denied that title? No. Because, with respect to meditation-yoga, action is only its external support, and the real point here is to praise giving up the desire for its fruit. It isn't only the person with no ritual fire and no ritual action who counts as a renunciant and yogin. So who does? Someone still engaged in action, too — who has renounced attachment to its fruit, and practices the yoga of action purely to purify his inner being — such a person 'becomes both renunciant and yogin.' That's the praise here. A single statement couldn't possibly do two things at once — both praise giving up attachment to fruit and also rule out the fourth stage of life. And the Lord certainly isn't denying the well-established status of renunciant and yogin that scripture, tradition, the Purāṇas, epics, and yoga treatises all grant to the true renunciant who has neither ritual fire nor ritual action — because that would contradict his own words elsewhere: 'having renounced all actions with the mind... not acting, not causing action, he simply sits'; 'silent, content with whatever comes, without a fixed home, steady-minded'; 'having given up every desire, the man who wanders free of longing'; 'one who has given up every undertaking.' These are his own words, said again and again — and they would be flatly contradicted if he were now ruling out the fourth stage of life. So the real point is: for the sage still striving toward yoga, who has taken up householder life, rites like the fire-oblation, performed without care for their fruit, become — through purifying the inner being — the very means of climbing toward meditation-yoga. That's why he is praised: 'he is both renunciant and yogin.'

'Not resorting to' means not relying on. What doesn't he rely on? The fruit of action — that is, he doesn't crave the fruit his actions produce. That's the meaning. Whoever craves the fruit of action is, in that sense, leaning on it; this person is the opposite — hence 'not resorting to the fruit of action.' Being like this, whoever still performs the obligatory daily rites — the fire-oblation and the like, as opposed to the optional ones — such a person, engaged in action, stands apart from everyone else who's engaged in action. To make exactly this point, Krishna says: 'he is both renunciant and yogin.' 'Renunciation' means letting go; whoever has that is a renunciant. 'Yoga' means a composed, gathered mind; whoever has that is a yogin. So it's this combination of qualities that marks such a person as both — not the popular idea that only someone who's dropped every ritual fire and every ritual action counts as renunciant and yogin. 'Without ritual fire' means the fires that once served his rites have simply gone out. And 'without ritual action' means even the fireless practices — austerity, charity, and so on — are absent for him too.

Close to the Sanskrit

At the end of the immediately preceding chapter, verses serving as an aphoristic summary of the intimate means toward right vision, [namely] the yoga of meditation, were taught, beginning with 'having made contacts outside' (Gītā 5.27) and so on. This sixth chapter begins, serving as their elaboration. Here, the point is that action is the external means for the yoga of meditation: for as long as one is not yet capable of ascending to the yoga of meditation, so long is action to be performed by the householder who is still qualified for it. Therefore he praises it — [with the words] 'not resorting to...'

But surely, for what purpose is a limit set for ascending to the yoga of meditation, when the enjoined action is simply to be practiced for as long as life lasts? — No; because of the qualification, 'for the sage desiring to ascend, action is said to be the means to yoga' (Gītā 6.3), and because, for one who has ascended, the connection is made with tranquility alone. If it were intended that both, tranquility for one desiring to ascend and for one who has ascended, and action, were to be done, then the qualification and the division made by [the two phrases] 'for one desiring to ascend' and 'for one who has ascended,' distinguishing the domains of tranquility and action, would be pointless.

Among these, someone belonging to a stage of life is desiring to ascend to yoga, and someone else has [already] ascended; others are neither desiring to ascend nor have ascended. If [one objects]: with regard to these, the qualification and division made by 'of one desiring to ascend' and 'of one who has ascended' would indeed be tenable [without implying a time-limit] — no; because of the phrase 'of him alone,' and again because of the mention of 'yoga' in 'of one ascended in yoga.' He who was previously desiring to ascend to yoga — for him alone, once he has ascended, tranquility alone is what is said to be practiced as the means toward the fruit of yoga. Therefore there is no lifelong incurring of an obligation for any action whatsoever. And because of the statement about one who has fallen from yoga: if yoga were enjoined for a householder engaged in action, in the sixth chapter, and it were said, 'he, even though fallen from yoga, attains the destiny of action, [i.e.] the fruit of action,' then his fear of ruin would be groundless. For action performed, whether optional or obligatory — since liberation is eternal and thus not something to be produced — necessarily produces its own fruit. And we have already said that obligatory action, since it is understood through the authority of the Veda, must have a fruit; otherwise, the Veda would incur the undesired consequence of being pointless. Nor, when action is present, does the statement about 'both falling away' apply, since purposeful action has no tenable cause for falling away.

If it be said: 'The action, having been performed and laid down in the Lord — from this, for the doer the action does not begin its fruit' — no; because it stands to reason that the laying down in the Lord is the cause of an even greater fruit.

If [one says]: the renunciation, unto the Lord, of one's own actions performed, is for liberation alone, not for any other fruit — combined with yoga [it leads to liberation]; and if he falls from yoga, having fallen, then the fear of ruin for him would indeed be reasonable — [we answer]: no; because renunciation of action is enjoined [only for the wandering ascetic], as in 'solitary, of controlled mind and self, free of craving, possessionless' (Gītā 6.10), '[and] abiding in the vow of a celibate student' (Gītā 6.14). Nor, here, is there any concern about the companionship of a wife at the time of meditation, for which reason solitariness would need to be enjoined. Nor are statements like 'free of craving, possessionless' fitting for a householder. And because the question about 'falling from both' would then be untenable.

If [one objects]: by this phrase 'not resorting to,' the status of renunciant and yogin is being asserted for one engaged in action alone, and denied for one without ritual fire or action — [we answer]: no; because, toward the yoga of meditation, being its external means, action's primary intent is praising the renunciation of the desire for its fruit. It is not merely one without ritual fire or action alone who is a renunciant and yogin. What, then? One engaged in action too, having renounced attachment to the fruit of action, while practicing the yoga of action for the purpose of purifying his inner being — 'he becomes both renunciant and yogin' — is thus praised. Nor can a single statement accomplish both the praise of renouncing attachment to the fruit of action and the prohibition of the fourth stage of life at once. Nor does the Lord deny the well-established status of renunciant and yogin, enjoined for the ultimate renunciant without ritual fire or action, in scripture, tradition, the Purāṇas, epics, and yoga treatises — and this too because it would contradict his own words: 'having renounced all actions with the mind... not at all acting, nor causing to act, he sits' (Gītā 5.13); 'given to silence, content with whatever comes, without a fixed home, of firm mind' (Gītā 12.19); 'having abandoned all desires, the man who wanders free from longing' (Gītā 2.71); 'one who has abandoned every undertaking' (Gītā 12.16) — thus, and here and there, the Lord's own statements have been shown; by these, the prohibition of the fourth stage of life would be contradicted. Therefore, for the sage desiring to ascend to yoga, who has taken up householder life, the fire-oblation and similar rites, performed indifferent to their fruit, become the means to ascend to the yoga of meditation, through the channel of purifying the inner being — thus, 'he is both renunciant and yogin,' is he praised.

'Not resorting to' — not resorting; [hence] 'not resorting to.' What? 'The fruit of action' — of actions, fruit, 'the fruit of action' — which he does not resort to; [i.e.] devoid of craving for the fruit of action. That is the meaning. For whoever is possessed of craving for the fruit of action, he is resorting to the fruit of action; this one, however, is the opposite of that; therefore, 'not resorting to the fruit of action.' Being of such a nature, whoever performs, carries out, the obligatory, [i.e.] to-be-performed, daily rite, the opposite of the optional, [namely] the fire-oblation and the like — such a person engaged in action stands apart from other persons engaged in action — to convey this very point, he says: 'he is renunciant and yogin.' 'Renunciation' means abandonment; that, for whom there is [renunciation], he is 'renunciant'; and 'yogin': 'yoga' means composure of mind; that, for whom there is [this composure], he is 'yogin'; thus, endowed with both these qualities, this person is to be understood [as renunciant and yogin] — not merely should one understand that only a person without ritual fire, without ritual action, is a renunciant and yogin. The [ritual] fires that were once accessories of ritual action have gone out, from whom — he is 'without ritual fire'; and 'without ritual action': even the rites not requiring fire, [namely] the rites of austerity, charity, and the like, are absent, for whom — he is 'without ritual action.'

In plain words

“Dhyāna Yoga needs the support of Karma Yoga! That is why Karma Yoga had to be taught first. Arjuna! He who does the karma of duty, giving up the fruit, is most dear to Me. Such a one alone is the true sannyāsi. Not those who give up the sacred fires, abandon work and toil, eat and sleep like utter idlers, crave the objects of the senses, and have become brothers of Kumbhakarṇa: they are never dear to Me. I am very far from idlers. He who has not renounced saṅkalpas cannot become a yogi, however many sādhanas he may do. He who is not caught in sense objects such as sound, nor in the fruits of karmas, can become one who has renounced all attachment. Only through such niṣkāma karmas can Dhyāna Yoga be accomplished. The citta that does not obey becomes one's own worst enemy. So become one who has conquered the senses. Live in solitude. Bring the citta and the senses under control. A horse without a bridle, an ox that will not let the yoke be put on, and a sādhana that cannot bring the senses under control are like a river without water: purposeless karmas.”