यं संन्यासमिति प्राहुर्योगं तं विद्धि पाण्डव।
न ह्यसंन्यस्तसङ्कल्पो योगी भवति कश्चन।।6.2।।
6.2. What [the learned] call renunciation, O son of Pandu, know that to be [the same as] the Yoga. For without renouncing intention [for fruit], one does not become a man of Yoga.
6.1-2 The subject matter that has been thus established in the series of the preceding chapters is summarised by a couple of verses. Anasritah etc. Yam etc. Bounden : Ordained [in the law books] according to ones caste etc. [Thus] man-lf-renunciation and man-of-Yoga are synonyms. That is why [the Lord] says, what [the learned] call renunciation etc. Therefore, without Yoga no renunciation is possible. Similarly Yoga is not possible without renouncing the intention [for fruit]. Conseently, the Yoga and renunciation are ever interlinked. The idea, suggested by not he who remains [simply] without his fires etc. is this : He remains neither without fires, nor without actions and yet he is man of renunciation, Hence this is strange. Of course, following the principle [involved in the statement] Playing dice is the kingship, without throne, and following logic it has been asserted already that renunciation is not possible for a person who remains simply without actions. Yet-
Yam sannyaasamiti praahuryogam tam viddhi paandava; Na hyasannyastasankalpo yogee bhavati kashchana.
yam—what; sanyāsam—renunciation; iti—thus; prāhuḥ—they say; yogam—yog; tam—that; viddhi—know; pāṇḍava—Arjun, the son of Pandu; na—not; hi—certainly; asannyasta—without giving up; saṅkalpaḥ—desire; yogī—a yogi; bhavati—becomes; kaśhchana—anyone