Arjuna’s plan, in his own words in the first chapter, was to escape from the battlefield in order to live the Samnyasa-life. He did not know that a truly selfless worker is the greatest Samnyasi, for, without renunciation, his action would become, at best, only a mischievous meddling with the harmony of the Universe.

To escape from the buzz of life in our present state of unpreparedness into the quiet atmosphere of the banks of the Ganges, is only the fall of an average good man to the level of the insentient stone in the very Ganges. At the close of this verse, Krishna laughs at Arjuna’s sad misconceptions. There is no bitterness in the irony of the Lord. Soon we shall find that Arjuna also comes to laugh at his own misunderstandings.

The whole chapter is so fully and entirely dedicated to expounding the technique of cultivation, direction and application of the inner forces of thoughts and feelings, that it is very appropriate for Krishna to indicate the greater importance of revolutionising our inner motives and mental attitudes before we enter the path of spirituality.

AS AN ELUCIDATING ANNOTATION FOR THE QUIBBLE WHICH THE LORD HAD DECLARED IN THE STANZA, WE HAVE HIS ADDED EXPLANATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING, WHICH SHOW HOW SAMNYASA ITSELF IS YOGA:

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: