Renunciation and yoga are one inward act wearing two names.
It sounds like a riddle: how can walking away and staying to work be called the same thing? Krishna's answer is that the sameness was never in the outward act. It was always in what the mind lets go of while acting.
What the wise call renunciation, Krishna says, is the very thing you should recognize as yoga. No one becomes a yogi while still holding on to the resolve that reaches for a result.
The reading read whole, as one unhurried piece
Where it stands
Krishna has just praised the one who acts without leaning on results as the true renouncer and the true yogi both. Now he makes the claim explicit: these are not two paths that a seeker must eventually choose between. They are one inward stance, named twice.
The teaching
What the wise call renunciation, Krishna says, is the very thing you should know as yoga. On the surface these sound opposed: renunciation is the turning away from action, yoga is the carrying of it out. But the identity does not rest on outward conduct. It rests on the doer, and specifically on one thing the doer either still holds or has let go: sankalpa, the resolve that reaches ahead of the deed toward a hoped-for result. The one who renounces in the full sense gives up the deed along with its fruit. The one who keeps working gives up only the resolve that reaches for the fruit, while the deed continues exactly as before. Because both perform this same inward release, both may rightly be called by both names. And the verse's second line is not a gentle encouragement but a flat test: no one whatever becomes a yogi while that resolve still stands, because it is precisely what keeps the mind scattered, leaning forward onto a result not yet arrived. Drop the resolve, and there is nothing further to add; the mind gathers on its own. True renunciation, then, is not a robe, not a fire left untended, not a household abandoned. It is a frame of mind, and it can live completely inside someone who has not changed a single outward circumstance of his life. Read this way, fruit-free action is not a consolation prize for those unable to renounce fully. It is, on more than one reading here, already the thing itself, or at minimum a genuine step toward the stillness the Gita will later call meditation.
The doubt that rises
If nothing about my outward life changes, if I keep the same work, the same duties, the same fire, in what sense have I actually renounced anything at all, and is that really the same thing the word has always meant?
Where the paths divide
Reads the identity as figurative, a lending of the honored word for the sake of praise.
Shankara holds that renunciation in its full, primary sense belongs only to the one who has given up every means of action; that sense cannot literally hold for someone still in the field of work. So when karma-yoga is called renunciation here, the naming is figurative, resting on the shared relinquishing of the fruit-resolve rather than on any sameness of outward conduct. The figure is not empty praise, though: it tells the practitioner exactly what to release, and fruit-free action becomes, on this reading, the outer and indirect means toward the deeper stillness of meditation.
Reads the identity as literal and complete, not a preparatory figure of speech.
Ramanuja will not let this be merely figurative. For him, what is called the path of knowledge simply is the path of action rightly practiced, once the false pride that identifies the self with unconscious matter has been dislodged by steady attention to the self's true nature. Action performed this way, without heedlessness, directly brings about the path of meditation; it is not demoted to a rung on a ladder leading somewhere else. Someone still carrying that false identification, however busy he appears, is for Ramanuja simply not on this path at all.
Reads renunciation as a necessary ingredient contained within yoga, on a comparatively brief surviving source.
What is preserved of Madhva's comment on this verse is short. His stated claim is that renunciation is not a separate topic standing apart from yoga; it is folded inside yoga as a necessary ingredient, since one who has not given up desire and intention cannot be said to possess the means to yoga at all. The source does not extend this into his fuller architecture of dependence on the Lord for this particular verse, so this reading stays close to what is actually said rather than supplying that architecture on his behalf.
Reads a compact, jointly-shared comment on 6.1-6.2 rather than a separate, extended treatment.
Abhinavagupta's surviving comment treats 6.1 and 6.2 as one passage, and what is preserved is brief: renunciation and yoga name the same thing because neither holds without the other, and he singles out as the passage's real wonder that a person can keep his household fire and keep doing his work and still be a true renouncer. A fuller Kashmir Shaiva reading, framing this as the self's own freedom loosening from contraction, would extend beyond what the extant text itself says, so it is offered here only as a clearly labeled possibility, not as his stated words.
Reads the identity as functional, grounded in one shared root condition present in both practices.
Sridhara secures the identity by pointing to a shared root condition: the bare giving up of fruit is present in yoga exactly as it is in renunciation, and that shared ground alone licenses lending one word to the other. He extends the test to every kind of practitioner without exception, whether following the path of action or of knowledge, and insists the identity is functional rather than a mere coincidence of vocabulary: one and the same inward act earns a single person both names at once.
Reads the figurative naming as resting on a precise, locatable psychological event rather than a loose comparison.
Madhusudana's more technical account defines yoga as the stilling of the mind's various movements and identifies fruit-directed resolve as one specific movement among them, a form of liking. Stilling that one movement, on his account, already and precisely counts as both yoga and renunciation, in the appropriate sense. This grounds the verse's language in something exact and observable in one's own mind, rather than leaving the identity as a comparison one simply has to take on faith.
Every reading agrees that letting go of the fruit-directed resolve is the one thing that matters. They part on how far that letting-go actually goes. Is it a figure of speech that praises and prepares, as Shankara holds, or a total, literal identity that needs no further stage, as Ramanuja insists? Is it a necessary ingredient inside yoga, as the brief Dvaita source suggests, or a wonder that needs no more theory than the plain fact of a man keeping his fire and his freedom together, as the compact Shaiva comment marks it? This page does not choose among them, and for two of the six voices here, Madhva and Abhinavagupta, the surviving material itself is thinner than for the others, so some of what could be said stays deliberately unsaid.
A question to carry
In the work you will do today, can you locate the exact moment your mind reaches ahead toward how it will turn out, and can you let that reaching go without also letting go of your care for the work itself?
Where this teaching travels
Verses that sit near this one, each going its own way; follow whichever calls you.
So carry on with the task in front of you, unchanged in its outward shape, and let the resolve that reaches for its outcome quietly loosen its grip. That loosening, made inside the very doing, is the renunciation the wise have handed you two names for.
Each school is voiced from the commentators named above. Their full words, every translation, and where the schools agree and differ wait in the reading desk just below. Open the commentary desk.
Krishna opened this chapter by praising the one who acts without leaning on results; here he goes further and gives that very stance the honored name renunciation, so Arjuna will not mistake fruit-free action for a lesser road.
Where they agreethe convergence
Across schools and centuries the commentators come to the same ground. These are the points they share, and the voices that hold each one.
What people call renunciation and what is called yoga are one inner stance carrying two names, not two practices ranked one above the other.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Madhva · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 3 others’ words
All six readings agree on the basic move of the verse: what people call renunciation and what is called yoga are named as one and the same inner stance, approached from two sides. Krishna is not ranking one practice above the other or fusing two different disciplines into a hybrid third. He is pointing at a single thing wearing two names, the giving-up side calling it renunciation, the acting side calling it yoga.
The shared heart of both is the letting go of sankalpa, the resolve reaching ahead toward a fruit; drop it, and the mind that it scattered begins to gather.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 2 others’ words
The shared heart of both names, on every reading, is the letting go of sankalpa, the resolve or intention fixed on a desired fruit. The formal renunciate lets go of all action along with its fruit; the one who continues to act lets go only of the resolve that reaches for the fruit. Because both perform this identical inner release, both can rightly be called by both names.
The verse's test admits no exception: no one becomes a yogi, on any path, while that fruit-directed resolve still stands.
Across Advaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Śrīdhara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara, Śrīdhara, and 1 others’ words
The verse's second line functions as a strict, universal test rather than a pious flourish: no one whatever becomes a yogi while the fruit-directed resolve still stands. Several readings stress that this resolve is precisely what scatters and unsettles the mind, since it keeps the attention leaning forward onto results not yet arrived; releasing it is what allows the mind to gather.
True renunciation lives inward, in the surrendering of that resolve, and can be fully present in someone who keeps working, robes or none, fire or none.
Across AdvaitaŚaṅkara · MadhusūdanaIn Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana’s words
More than one reading explains the mechanism by which a single word can be lent from one practice to another: a real likeness, not a literal sameness of outward conduct, licenses the transfer, in the way courage lets a boy be called a lion. The likeness here is the shared relinquishing of the fruit and the shared stilling of the same restless craving.
Fruit-free action is not a lesser substitute for the real work of renunciation; done rightly, it is itself the stepping-stone toward the gathered, meditative mind.
Across Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, BhaktiŚaṅkara · Rāmānuja · ŚrīdharaIn Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and 1 others’ words
The true renunciation the verse honors is therefore inward: a frame of mind rather than an outward mark, a robe, or the abandoning of one's household duties. It can live fully inside someone who keeps working, and fruit-free action of this kind is treated as a genuine step that supports, rather than merely imitates, the deeper stillness the Gita will go on to call meditation.
This is the shared ground; it can be carried as it is. Below is where they differ.
Where they differthe divergence
Viśiṣṭādvaita, in their fuller words
Ramanuja takes the identity as literal and total: what is called the path of knowledge simply is the path of action rightly practiced, once the false identification of self with matter has been dislodged through steady attention to the self's true nature. He refuses to treat karma-yoga as a mere preparatory stage; done without heedlessness, it directly brings about the path of meditation on the self.
Dvaita, in their fuller words
Madhva's surviving comment on this verse is brief. What it states is that renunciation is not a separate topic but is folded inside yoga itself, since one who has not given up desire and intention cannot be said to possess the means to yoga at all. The bare giving-up of resolve is therefore a necessary ingredient of genuine yoga rather than something added alongside it.
Shaiva, in their fuller words
Abhinavagupta's extant comment, shared jointly with 6.1, states that renunciation and yoga name the same thing because neither holds without the other: renunciation does not happen without yoga, and yoga does not hold unless the wish for results is given up. He marks as the real wonder of the passage that one can keep the household fire and keep working and still be a true renouncer. A fuller Kashmir Shaiva elaboration, reading this as the self's own freedom loosening from contraction, would be a labeled extension beyond what the source itself states.
Bhakti, in their fuller words
Sridhara secures the identity on the ground that the same root condition, the bare giving up of fruit, is present in both renunciation and yoga, so the shared ground itself licenses lending one word to the other. He extends the test to every practitioner without exception, whether following the path of action or of knowledge, and insists the identity is functional: one and the same inward act earns a person both names at once.
A modern reading, in their fuller words
Read with a more technical eye, Madhusudana's account defines yoga as the stilling of the mind's movements and locates the fruit-directed resolve as one specific movement, a form of liking, among several kinds. Stilling even this one movement already counts, in the appropriate sense, as both yoga and renunciation, which is why the verse's language involves no contradiction: it names a precise psychological event, not a loose comparison.
A few questions to carry
These ask for understanding, not recall; each answer is settled by the commentary itself.
For a second sitting
Carry this with youwhat stays
Notice, in whatever you are doing today, where your attention actually rests: on the doing itself, or on how it will turn out. Each time you catch it leaning forward toward the result, let it fall back to the task in your hands without judging yourself for the lapse. That small, repeated return is the renunciation this verse is pointing at. It asks for no new posture, no change of place, only this redirection carried out inside the very work you already have to do.
So keep your hand at the work in front of you, and let the resolve that reaches for its outcome quietly fall away; that release, made inside the doing, is the renunciation the wise have named.
Read deeper
Everything a full study holds, folded below.
Word by word
All the commentary, woven together
The commentary, woven together
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
ll six readings agree on the basic move of the verse: what people call renunciation and what is called yoga are named as one and the same inner stance, approached from two sides. Krishna is not ranking one practice above the other or fusing two different disciplines into a hybrid third. He is pointing at a single thing wearing two names, the giving-up side calling it renunciation, the acting side calling it yoga.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Madhvācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The shared heart of both names, on every reading, is the letting go of sankalpa, the resolve or intention fixed on a desired fruit. The formal renunciate lets go of all action along with its fruit; the one who continues to act lets go only of the resolve that reaches for the fruit. Because both perform this identical inner release, both can rightly be called by both names.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The verse's second line functions as a strict, universal test rather than a pious flourish: no one whatever becomes a yogi while the fruit-directed resolve still stands. Several readings stress that this resolve is precisely what scatters and unsettles the mind, since it keeps the attention leaning forward onto results not yet arrived; releasing it is what allows the mind to gather.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
More than one reading explains the mechanism by which a single word can be lent from one practice to another: a real likeness, not a literal sameness of outward conduct, licenses the transfer, in the way courage lets a boy be called a lion. The likeness here is the shared relinquishing of the fruit and the shared stilling of the same restless craving.
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
The true renunciation the verse honors is therefore inward: a frame of mind rather than an outward mark, a robe, or the abandoning of one's household duties. It can live fully inside someone who keeps working, and fruit-free action of this kind is treated as a genuine step that supports, rather than merely imitates, the deeper stillness the Gita will go on to call meditation.
Śaṅkarācārya · Rāmānujācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
Shankara reads renunciation in its full, primary sense as belonging strictly to the one who has given up every means of action; that sense cannot literally hold inside the field of work. Karma-yoga is therefore called 'renunciation' only figuratively, by the shared feature of relinquishing the fruit-resolve, and the figure functions as praise meant to encourage the practitioner. This fruit-free action is the outer, indirect means toward the yoga of meditation, not itself the final word.
Śaṅkarācārya
Viśiṣṭādvaita
Ramanuja takes the identity as literal and total: what is called the path of knowledge simply is the path of action rightly practiced, once the false identification of self with matter has been dislodged through steady attention to the self's true nature. He refuses to treat karma-yoga as a mere preparatory stage; done without heedlessness, it directly brings about the path of meditation on the self.
Rāmānujācārya
Dvaita
Madhva's surviving comment on this verse is brief. What it states is that renunciation is not a separate topic but is folded inside yoga itself, since one who has not given up desire and intention cannot be said to possess the means to yoga at all. The bare giving-up of resolve is therefore a necessary ingredient of genuine yoga rather than something added alongside it.
Madhvācārya
Kashmir Śaiva
Abhinavagupta's extant comment, shared jointly with 6.1, states that renunciation and yoga name the same thing because neither holds without the other: renunciation does not happen without yoga, and yoga does not hold unless the wish for results is given up. He marks as the real wonder of the passage that one can keep the household fire and keep working and still be a true renouncer. A fuller Kashmir Shaiva elaboration, reading this as the self's own freedom loosening from contraction, would be a labeled extension beyond what the source itself states.
Ācārya Abhinavagupta
Bhakti
Sridhara secures the identity on the ground that the same root condition, the bare giving up of fruit, is present in both renunciation and yoga, so the shared ground itself licenses lending one word to the other. He extends the test to every practitioner without exception, whether following the path of action or of knowledge, and insists the identity is functional: one and the same inward act earns a person both names at once.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
Read with a more technical eye, Madhusudana's account defines yoga as the stilling of the mind's movements and locates the fruit-directed resolve as one specific movement, a form of liking, among several kinds. Stilling even this one movement already counts, in the appropriate sense, as both yoga and renunciation, which is why the verse's language involves no contradiction: it names a precise psychological event, not a loose comparison.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
A Seeker Asks
If I keep working exactly as before, in what real sense have I renounced anything, and how can that possibly be the same as walking away from everything?
What is renounced is not the deed but the resolve that reaches ahead of it toward a result. The formal renunciate gives up the deed along with its fruit; you give up only the fruit-directed resolve while the deed continues. Both of you perform one and the same inner act, the letting go of that resolve, and it is this shared act, not any outward resemblance, that earns both of you the same name.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrīdhara Svāmī
You have given up something quite real: the resolve that scatters the mind by keeping it leaning on results not yet arrived. Ramanuja goes further and says that once the false identification behind that resolve is dislodged, what remains is not a lesser, secondary path but the very thing the path of knowledge names, so nothing has been diluted or postponed in what you have released.
Rāmānujācārya
Madhusudana's more technical account can steady this worry: fruit-craving is one specific movement of mind among several, and stilling that one movement is a genuine, locatable event, not vague self-persuasion. You can watch for its presence or absence in yourself directly, which is a better test of whether you have renounced anything than any outward change of circumstance would be.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī
Contemplation
Notice, in whatever you are doing today, where your attention actually rests: on the doing itself, or on how it will turn out. Each time you catch it leaning forward toward the result, let it fall back to the task in your hands without judging yourself for the lapse. That small, repeated return is the renunciation this verse is pointing at. It asks for no new posture, no change of place, only this redirection carried out inside the very work you already have to do.
Sit with this · sonnet-5-authored
All the translations and commentary
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, open a tradition in the doorways below, or add a voice by name above.
Also hear this verse, tradition by tradition.