अनाश्रितः कर्मफलं कार्यं कर्म करोति यः। स संन्यासी च योगी च न निरग्निर्न चाक्रियः॥६-१॥
anāśritaḥ karma-phalaṃ kāryaṃ karma karoti yaḥ | sa sannyāsī ca yogī ca na niragnir na cākriyaḥ || 6.1 ||
Who acts in duty without depending on fruit — that one is the true sannyāsī and yogī, not the fireless or the inactive.
Word by word (7)
- anāśritaḥ
- — without depending on / not taking shelter of (anā = without, āśrita = depending on, seeking refuge in)
- karma-phalam
- — the fruit of action / the result of work (phala = fruit, outcome — what action produces)
- kāryam karma
- — the required action / the action that ought to be done (kārya = that which must be done, obligatory duty; karma = action)
- karoti yaḥ
- — who performs / who does — the one who actually acts, not the one who refrains
- sa sannyāsī ca yogī ca
- — that one is both a sannyāsī (renunciant) AND a yogī (one in yoga) — the double 'ca' is emphatic: both, simultaneously
- na niragnir
- — not the fireless one (niragni = without fire; refers to the Vedic practitioner who has abandoned the sacred fire-rites — external renunciation without inner transformation)
- na ca akriyaḥ
- — nor the inactive one / not the one who has simply stopped acting (a = without, kriyā = activity — one who mistakes inaction for renunciation)
Krishna opens Chapter 6 by demolishing a common misconception: that renunciation means stopping action. The true sannyāsī (renunciant) and yogī is not the one who abandons fire-rites (niragnir) or stops acting (akriyaḥ) — these are only external forms of renunciation. The true renunciant is the one who performs kāryaṃ karma (the required action, the duty) while being anāśrita (without depending on) karma-phala (the fruit). Inner non-attachment, outer full engagement: this is the Gita's definition of renunciation.
A modern analogy
A surgeon who operates with full skill, fully present, fully engaged — but whose sense of worth does not depend on whether the patient survives — is closer to the Gita's true sannyāsī than a monk who sits idle out of fear of making mistakes. The surgeon acts completely; the outcome is released. The monk's inaction is not renunciation — it is avoidance. V1 opens Ch.6 with this distinction sharp and clear.
What it does NOT mean
Niragnir (fireless) and akriyaḥ (inactive) are not criticisms of monastic life or formal renunciation. Krishna is addressing a specific misunderstanding: that sannyāsa = stopping external activity. The truly renounced person may or may not wear robes, light fires, or maintain rituals — what makes them a sannyāsī is the inner quality of anāśrita (not depending on fruit), not any external form.
Take with you
- Anāśritaḥ karma-phalam: the marker of true yoga is not what you do or don't do externally — it is the internal relationship to the fruit of what you do. Do you act from duty (kāryam) or from craving for outcome? The yogi acts from duty; the outcome belongs to the Supreme.
- Na niragnir na cākriyaḥ: two false forms of renunciation are named. Niragnir (abandoning sacred duty without inner transformation) and akriyaḥ (simple inactivity). The Gita has no sympathy for spiritual laziness dressed as renunciation.
- This verse closes the loop between Ch.2 V47 (karmaṇy evādhikāras te — your jurisdiction is action, not fruit) and Ch.6 V1 (the one who acts without fruit-dependence IS the sannyāsī). The whole of Chapters 3-5 has been unpacking what V6.1 now states as a definition: karma-yoga IS sannyāsa.
V1 is the opening verse of Ch.6 (Ātma Saṃyama Yoga — the Yoga of Self-Mastery) and functions as both a continuation of Ch.5 and a redefinition of the entire sannyāsa-yoga debate that opened Ch.5. In Ch.5 V1, Arjuna asked: which is better, sannyāsa or karma-yoga? Krishna spent all of Ch.5 showing they are not opposed. Now V1 of Ch.6 completes the resolution with a definitional statement: the true sannyāsī IS the karma-yogi. Anāśritaḥ karma-phalam (not depending on the fruit) is the precise inner marker that makes an actor a renunciant. The two foils — niragnir (the fireless one) and akriyaḥ (the inactive one) — represent two superficial forms of renunciation that mistake the outer form for the inner substance. Niragnir refers to Vedic householders who abandon their fire-rites (agnihotra) thinking this constitutes sannyāsa; akriyaḥ refers to anyone who stops all activity thinking inaction = renunciation. Krishna rejects both. The true sannyāsī keeps acting — performs kāryam karma — while holding no inner dependence on the result. The opening verse of Ch.6 is thus not about meditation (which the chapter will address from V10 onward) but about establishing the inner condition — anāśrita — that makes all subsequent meditation and self-mastery meaningful.
Advaita lens
From Advaita's standpoint, anāśritaḥ karma-phalam describes the action of one who has recognised that the ātman is not the doer (na kartā — as Ch.5 V8-9 established). When the false identification of the self as the agent of action is seen through, the dependency on the fruit naturally dissolves — because who would depend on the fruit if there is no ego-agent claiming the action as 'mine'? The sannyāsī of V6.1 is therefore not someone practising non-attachment by willpower but someone whose recognition of ātman's non-doership makes the attachment to fruit structurally impossible. The fireless one (niragnir) and the inactive one (akriyaḥ) are both still operating from the ego's perspective — just choosing external withdrawal rather than inner recognition.
Bhakti lens
For bhakti, anāśritaḥ karma-phalaṃ (not depending on the fruit of action) is fulfilled through surrender of all fruits to the Divine. The true sannyāsī (renouncer) and the true bhakta arrive at the same inner state from different directions: the renouncer by dropping the fruit, the devotee by giving the fruit to the Beloved. Both are free from karma-phala-āśrita (dependence on results). For bhakti, V1's conclusion — sa sannyāsī ca yogī ca na niragnir na cākriyaḥ (that one is the renouncer AND the yogi) — reveals that the highest spiritual integration (sannyāsī + yogī) belongs not to those who perform no action, but to those who act in complete offering. The bhakta who acts as seva (service to the Divine) without any claim on the outcome is exactly this: sannyāsī (renounced of results) and yogī (united with the Divine) simultaneously.
Karma-Yoga lens
V6.1 is the culminating definition of karma-yoga stated as renunciation. Tilak's commentary (Gita Rahasya) made much of this verse: it proves that the Gita's fundamental teaching is active engagement in the world, not withdrawal. The karma-yogi who acts in full engagement without fruit-dependency IS the renunciant — not because they renounce action but because they renounce the ego's claim on outcomes. This is the karma-yoga path at its most precisely defined: kāryam karma (required duty performed) + anāśrita karma-phala (without depending on fruit) = sannyāsa + yoga, simultaneously.
Modern parallels
Viktor Frankl's logotherapy distinguishes between two orientations to work: doing something for the result, and doing something because it is meaningful regardless of outcome. The meaning-oriented worker does not depend on the fruit — the work itself carries its value. This is anāśrita karma-phala in psychological language. Research consistently shows that intrinsic motivation (doing because the action itself is meaningful) produces better outcomes, greater wellbeing, and more sustainable engagement than extrinsic motivation (doing for the reward). V6.1 is not just a spiritual prescription — it is a description of psychologically optimal engagement.
Practice
Before beginning today's most significant task, sit for 2 minutes with this question: 'What is the kāryam here — what is actually required of me, independent of outcome?' Feel what it is to orient toward the action itself rather than its fruit. This brief orientation is the beginning of anāśrita karma-phala practice — the inner posture that V6.1 calls both sannyāsa and yoga.
Public-domain translations (6) compare all →
"One who performs the required action without depending on its fruit — that one is a sannyāsī and a yogī — not the fireless one nor the inactive one." [1]
"He who performs the bounden duty without depending on the fruits of action — he is a Sannyasin and Yogi, not he who is without fire and without action." [4]
"He who performeth actions, abandoning attachment, resigning them to the ETERNAL — is not moistened by sin, as the lotus leaf by water." [5]
"He who acts in the performance of his duty, unattached to the fruit thereof — that man is a Yogi and a Sannyasi, and not he who neither lights a fire nor does any work." [6]
"He who performeth without attachment to fruit the work which is his duty — he is a Sannyasi and a Yogi; not the man who lights no fire and does nothing." [7]
"He who performs actions as a duty, without depending on the fruits of action, he is a Sannyasin and a Yogi — not the man who has no fire, and is devoid of action." [9]
This verse speaks to
Where this thread continues
Your right is to act — never to the fruits. Don't act for results. Don't hide in inaction.
Arjuna asks: You praise both renunciation and action — tell me decisively which is truly better.
Freedom from karma's bonds does not come from inaction. Perfection does not come from mere renunciation.
No embodied being can abandon ALL action; the true tyāgī is the karma-phala-tyāgī — the fruit-abandoner.
Some say all karma is faulty and should be abandoned; others say yajña-dāna-tapas must not be abandoned.
Even yajña-dāna-tapas must be performed having abandoned attachment and fruits — my settled, highest opinion.