श्रीभगवान्
In plain words
The Blessed Lord said: The wise understand Sannyāsa as the renunciation of actions motivated by desire; the discerning call Tyāga the relinquishment of the fruits of all actions.
Word for word
The sages know the laying down of desire-prompted actions [as] saṃnyāsa; the discerning call the giving up of the fruit of all actions tyāga.
काम्यानां कर्मणां न्यासं सन्न्यासं कवयो विदुःसर्वकर्मफलत्यागं प्राहुस्त्यागं विचक्षणाः
Other commentaries
The commentators
▸Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
संन्यासत्यागशब्दौ तत्र तत्र निर्दिष्टौ, न निर्लुठितार्थौ पूर्वेषु अध्यायेषु । अतः अर्जुनाय पृष्टवते तन्निर्णयाय भगवान् उवाच —
काम्यानाम् अश्वमेधादीनां कर्मणां न्यासं संन्यासशब्दार्थम् , अनुष्ठेयत्वेन प्राप्तस्य अनुष्ठानम् , कवयः पण्डिताः केचित् विदुः विजानन्ति । नित्यनैमित्तिकानाम् अनुष्ठीयमानानां सर्वकर्मणाम् आत्मसम्बन्धितया प्राप्तस्य फलस्य परित्यागः सर्वकर्मफलत्यागः तं प्राहुः कथयन्ति त्यागं त्यागशब्दार्थं विचक्षणाः पण्डिताः । यदि काम्यकर्मपरित्यागः फलपरित्यागो वा अर्थः वक्तव्यः, सर्वथा परित्यागमात्रं संन्यासत्यागशब्दयोः एकः अर्थः स्यात् , न घटपटशब्दाविव जात्यन्तरभूतार्थौ ॥
ननु नित्यनैमित्तिकानां कर्मणां फलमेव नास्ति इति आहुः । कथम् उच्यते तेषां फलत्यागः, यथा वन्ध्यायाः पुत्रत्यागः ? नैष दोषः, नित्यानामपि कर्मणां भगवता फलवत्त्वस्य इष्टत्वात् । वक्ष्यति हि भगवान् ‘अनिष्टमिष्टं मिश्रं च’(भ. गी. १८ । १२) इति ‘न तु संन्यासिनाम्’(भ. गी. १८ । १२) इति च । संन्यासिनामेव हि केवलं कर्मफलासम्बन्धं दर्शयन् असंन्यासिनां नित्यकर्मफलप्राप्तिम् ‘भवत्यत्यागिनां प्रेत्य’(भ. गी. १८ । १२) इति दर्शयति ॥ २ ॥
In plain words
The words saṃnyāsa and tyāga have come up here and there, but the earlier chapters never threshed out what they mean. So, to Arjuna, who had asked, and to settle the matter, the Lord said —
Some sages hold that 'saṃnyāsa' means giving up desire-prompted rites — things like the horse-sacrifice — meaning giving up their performance even once they've become due. Other, sharper scholars call something different by the word 'tyāga': giving up the fruit that belongs to you, through your own connection to it, of every daily and occasional rite you carry out — giving up the fruit of all action, in short. But here is the trouble: if 'giving up desire-prompted action' and 'giving up fruit' are truly what these two words mean, then both collapse into the same bare notion of 'giving up' — and they cannot be treated that loosely. They are not like 'pot' and 'cloth', two words whose meanings belong to wholly unrelated categories; saṃnyāsa and tyāga share too much common ground for that.
'But obligatory and occasional rites have no fruit at all' — so the objection runs. Then how can you speak of 'giving up their fruit', any more than you'd speak of a barren woman giving up a son she never had? There is no flaw here — because the Lord himself teaches that even obligatory rites do bear fruit. He says so directly: 'undesired, desired, and mixed' (Bhagavad Gītā 18.12) — 'but not for renunciates' (Bhagavad Gītā 18.12). In showing that renunciates alone stand free of any connection to fruit, he shows, in the very same breath, that those who have not renounced do reach the fruit of their obligatory acts: 'it comes to those who have not relinquished, after death' (Bhagavad Gītā 18.12) — that is exactly what he shows.
Close to the Sanskrit
The two words saṃnyāsa and tyāga were indicated here and there, (but they were) not ones whose meanings had been threshed out in the earlier chapters. Hence, to Arjuna who had asked, for the determination of that, the Lord said —
Of desire-prompted actions such as the horse-sacrifice and so on, the giving-up — this is the meaning of the word 'saṃnyāsa'; the giving-up of the performance of what has become due to be performed — some poets, scholars, know this, understand this. Of all obligatory-daily and occasional actions being performed, the giving-up of the fruit that has accrued through its connection to oneself — the giving-up of the fruit of all actions — that, discerning scholars declare, call 'tyāga', the meaning of the word 'tyāga'. If the meaning to be stated is 'giving-up of desire-prompted action' or 'giving-up of fruit', then in every way mere giving-up would become the one single meaning of the two words 'saṃnyāsa' and 'tyāga' — not like the two words 'pot' and 'cloth', whose meanings belong to an entirely different class.
'Now, of daily-obligatory and occasional actions there is no fruit at all' — thus they say. How can it be said that there is a relinquishment of their fruit, as one would speak of a barren woman's relinquishment of a son? This is not a flaw, because of its being taught by the Lord that even obligatory actions possess fruitfulness. For the Lord will say: 'undesired, desired, and mixed' (Bhagavad Gītā 18|12) — 'but not for renunciates' (Bhagavad Gītā 18|12) — and so on. For, showing precisely that renunciates alone have no connection with the fruit of action, he shows, for non-renunciates, the attainment of the fruit of obligatory action: 'it occurs for non-relinquishers, after death' (Bhagavad Gītā 18|12) — thus he shows.