So far, two currents of thought were discussed viz. 1. `Renunciation of the sense of agency’ (Sanyas) and 2. `Renunciation of attachment to the fruits of actions’ (Yoga).
The Sanyasi is himself the Yogi and the seekers must therefore engage themselves in noble works renouncing both their sense of doership and attachment to the fruits of their actions. Sanyasa or renunciation has little to do with outward works. It is an inward attitude. It is mental purity and intellectual equipoise.

Arjuna thought Sanyasa as mere abandonment of all activities, symbolized here by the word `fire’. To become a Sanyasi, it is not necessary to give up the daily sacrificial fire and other rituals. To abstain from these without the spirit of renunciation is futile.

The commentary on this verse and the rest, is avaialble for free as:
Kindle eBook
Google Play Book
Apple Books

Anasritah, without depending on;-on what?-on that which is karma-phalam, the result of action- i. e. without craving for the result of action-. He who craves for the results of actions becomes dependent on the results of actions. But this person is the opposite of such a one. Hence (it is said), ‘wihtout depending on the result of action. Having become so, yah he who; karoti, performs accomplishes; (karma, an action;) which is his karyam, duty, the nityakarmas such as Agnihotra etc. which are opposed to the kamya-karmas-. Whoever is a man of action of this kind is distinguished from the other men of action. In order to express this idea the Lord says, sah, he ; is a sannyasi, monk, and a yogi. Sanyyasa, means renunciation. he who is possessed of this is a sannyasi, a monk. And he is also a yogi. Yoga means concentration of mind. He who has that is a yogi. It is to be understood that this man is possessed of these qualities. It is not to be understood that, only that person who does not keep a fire (niragnih) and who is actionless (akriyah) is a monk and a yogi. Niragnih is one from whom the fires [viz Garhapatya, Ahavaniya, Anvaharya-pacana, etc.], which are the accessories of rites, have bocome dissociated. By kriya are mean austerity, charity, etc. which are performed wityout fire. Akriyah, actionless, is he who does not have even such kriyas.Objection: Is it not only with regard to one who does not keep a fire and is acitonless that monasticsm and meditativeness are well known in the Vedas, Smrtis and scriptures dealing with meditation? Why are monasticism and meditativeness spoken of here with regard to one who keeps a fire and is a man of action-which is not accepted as a fact?Reply: This defect does not arise, because both are sought to be asserted in some secondary sense.Objection: How is that?Reply: His being monk is by virtue of his having given up hankering for the results of actions; and his being a man of meditation is from the fact of his doing actions as accesories to meditation or from his rejection of thoughts for the results of actions which cause disturbances in the mind. Thus both are used in a figurative sense. On the contrary, it is not that monasticism and meditativeness are meant in the primary sense. With a veiw to pointing out this idea, the Lord says: