3.6 He who, restraining the organs of action, sits thinking of the sense-objects in mind, he of deluded understanding is called a hypocrite.

3.6 Karmendriyani etc. If he does not act with his organs of action, then he necessarily acts with his mind. At the same time he is the man of deluded action; For, the mental actions can never be avoided totally.

3.6: He who forcibly restrains the organs of action (all the senses), yet dwells in mind on the objects of the senses, is said to be a man of deluded intellect and a hypocrite. Commentary: Here, the term 'organs of action' (karmendriyāṇi) does not refer only to the five organs of action (speech, hands, feet, genitals, and anus), but also includes the five organs of perception (ears, skin, eyes, tongue, and nose) along with them; because without the organs of perception, action cannot be performed by the organs of action alone. Moreover, merely restraining the hands, feet, etc. (the organs of action) externally, while not restraining the eyes, ears, etc. (the organs of perception), does not fully establish hypocrisy either. In the Gita, the organs of perception are considered to be included within the organs of action. Therefore, while the word 'organs of action' appears in the Gita, the word 'organs of perception' is not found anywhere. In verses 8 and 9 of the fifth chapter, activities like seeing, hearing, touching, etc., which are functions of the organs of perception, are also grouped together with the activities of the organs of action, proving that the Gita considers the organs of perception to be organs of action as well. The Gita also considers the activities of the mind to be action—"Whatever action a man performs by his body, speech, and mind" (18.15). The essence is that merely because nature is active, all its functions are active. Although the word 'restraining' (saṁyamya) generally means properly regulating the senses, i.e., bringing them under control, here in this context, the meaning of this word is not bringing the senses under control, but forcibly restraining them externally. The reason is that if the senses are under control, calling such a person a hypocrite would not be appropriate. A man of deluded intellect (devoid of discrimination between right and wrong) forcibly restrains the activities of the senses externally, but continues to dwell in mind on the objects of those senses, and considers such a state to be free from action. Therefore, he is called a hypocrite, i.e., one who practices false conduct. Although he has externally renounced the objects of the senses and thinks, "I do not perform action," even in such a state, he has not truly become free from action. The reason is that even though he appears inactive externally, due to egoism, possessiveness, and desire, action in the form of enjoyment of objects is indeed occurring through the form of dwelling on objects with attachment. Worldly enjoyments can be indulged in externally as well as mentally. Just as impressions of enjoyments are formed in the inner being by indulging in enjoyments externally with attachment, similarly, impressions are also formed by indulging in enjoyments mentally, i.e., by dwelling on enjoyments with attachment. Externally, a person may renounce enjoyments due to reasoning, social propriety, or fear of disruption in worldly affairs, but there is no external obstacle to indulging in enjoyments mentally. Therefore, he continues to indulge in enjoyments mentally and falsely prides himself, thinking, "I am a renouncer of enjoyments." Indulging in enjoyments mentally is especially harmful because it provides ample opportunity for such indulgence. Therefore, a spiritual aspirant should, just as he protects himself from external enjoyments and renounces them, also renounce dwelling on enjoyments mentally with special vigilance. Arjuna also wishes to renounce actions in their very essence and asks the Lord, "Why do You engage me in this terrible action?" In response, the Lord here says that the conduct of a person who, while retaining egoism, possessiveness, attachment, desire, etc., merely renounces actions externally and considers himself inactive, is false. The essence is that a spiritual aspirant should not renounce actions in their very essence, but should continue to perform them diligently, free from desire and attachment. Connection: In the fourth verse, the Lord stated that renunciation of actions is unnecessary from the perspectives of both Karmayoga and Sankhyayoga. Then, in the fifth verse, He said that no person in any state can remain even for a moment without performing action. In the sixth verse, the conduct of one who forcibly restrains the activities of the senses and considers himself inactive is declared false. This proves that mere external renunciation of actions does not constitute their true renunciation. Therefore, in the following verse, the Lord explains the mark of true renunciation.