Gita 03.06 – Outer renunciation with inner sensual contemplation is self-delusion
karmendriyāṇi saṁyamya
ya āste manasā smaran
indriyārthān vimūḍhātmā
mithyācāraḥ sa ucyate
Word-to-word
karma-indriyāṇi — the five working sense organs; saṁyamya — controlling; yaḥ — anyone who; āste — remains; manasā — by the mind; smaran — thinking of; indriya-arthān — sense objects; vimūḍha — foolish; ātmā — soul; mithyā-ācāraḥ — pretender; saḥ — he; ucyate — is called.
Translation
One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.
Explanation
Krishna emphasizes the inappropriateness of inaction, both for Arjuna and for people in general. First, He explains that inaction does not lead to perfection. In verses 3.4 and 3.5 of the Bhagavad Gita, He states that it is impossible to remain completely inactive. Then, in verse 3.6, He highlights that inaction can even be adharmic. How can inaction be adharmic? A person might restrain from physical indulgence through sheer willpower, yet still remain internally attached to sense pleasures. They may mentally dwell on those pleasures—imagining, contemplating, and relishing them—despite outwardly renouncing them. Such internal engagement violates the spirit of true renunciation. Genuine renunciation is not merely about external withdrawal from sense objects; it also requires internal detachment. External distancing—such as avoiding indulgence or keeping sense objects away—is helpful, especially in the early stages of spiritual practice. This is why traditional cultures often emphasized some level of separation, for example, between the genders. Ultimately, for a true renunciate, both external restraint and internal detachment from sense pleasures are essential. Even if there is external renunciation, internal attachment can still remain. A person may distance themselves physically from sense objects, but if the mind remains attached, there is still internal proximity. If someone renounces prematurely—without having developed sufficient inner detachment—they will not be able to sustain that renunciation. The mind will repeatedly return to those sense objects, dwelling on them instead of on Krishna. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna uses the term vimūḍhātmā to describe such a person—someone who is foolish. They may believe, “I have renounced the world, so I must be spiritually advanced,” but they are actually deceiving themselves. True renunciation is not about appearances; it is about removing inner attachments so that one can focus fully on Krishna. The purpose of renunciation is undistracted devotion. While engaging with the world—through work, family, and responsibilities—can be spiritualized to some extent, these obligations often serve as distractions from focused remembrance of Krishna. Therefore, renunciation is meant to help a person concentrate entirely on the Supreme. When renunciation is embraced with the positive intention of deepening one’s devotion and focus on Krishna, it becomes meaningful and transformative. One truly grows through renunciation when it leads to greater absorption in the highest spiritual reality. If one does not know Krishna—if one is not a bhakta or bhakti-yogi—but is at least a karma-yogi, then one’s focus should still be on higher spiritual truths, not on sense objects. A person who continually dwells on sense pleasures instead of spiritual realities is deluding themselves. Krishna uses the word mithyācāraḥ to describe such a person. This is often translated as “hypocrite,” a strong term. Ācāraḥ means behavior, and mithyā means false—so the term literally refers to someone whose behavior is false, a pretender. Such a person deceives both themselves and others. They may imagine, “I am spiritually advanced because I have renounced the world,” but in reality, they are not. And they deceive others who might offer them respect, believing them to be genuinely renounced—when in truth, they are not. What we dwell on in the mind cannot remain there passively for long. As Krishna explains in Bhagavad Gita 2.62–63, whatever one continually contemplates (dhyayato) grows stronger and ultimately leads to destruction (praṇaśyati). If one repeatedly remembers and mentally indulges in sense objects (manasā smaran), it is only a matter of time before that internal attachment manifests as external indulgence—resulting in a tangible spiritual fall. The overall message of the Bhagavad Gita in this section seems to lean toward a denunciation—or strong disapproval—of renunciation. But does that mean the Gita is entirely against renunciation? Not at all. The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, a text in which many great renunciates appear—such as Narada Muni and other revered sages. These renunciates are highly respected by Krishna, the Pandavas, and society at large. Clearly, Krishna is not opposing the principle of renunciation itself. His disapproval is not universal but context-specific—directed toward Arjuna and others in similar situations. Krishna is not rejecting renunciation as a spiritual path. Rather, He is emphasizing that renunciation must be appropriate to one’s nature and stage of life. In Arjuna’s case—as a Kshatriya with responsibilities—it would be inappropriate and even harmful to renounce the world prematurely. Today, someone might wonder: “If even Arjuna wasn’t qualified to renounce, how can I be?” But that is a misunderstanding based on a false comparison. This is what’s called a disanalogy—a misleading comparison between two situations that are not truly alike. Arjuna was a warrior, a Kshatriya. For someone of his nature and duties, renunciation is particularly difficult and potentially irresponsible. Thus, the Gita’s caution is not against renunciation itself, but against misguided renunciation—especially when it neglects one’s responsibilities or lacks inner readiness. A person with a Brahminical temperament—or someone who has a deep desire to serve Krishna by sharing His message and redirecting their emotions toward Him—can rightly take to the renounced order. The Bhagavad Gita does not issue a blanket denunciation of renunciation, nor does it impose a permanent ban on it. At the same time, it does not offer an unqualified endorsement either. There is neither a blanket rejection nor a blanket commendation of renunciation in the Gita. It doesn’t simplistically say, “Oh, you want to become spiritually advanced? Just renounce the world.” That’s not its message. The Gita is not primarily a book about tyaga (renunciation) or vairagya (detachment). It is a book about dharma—and more specifically, about paradharma (the supreme duty) and bhakti (devotion). Whatever is conducive to the cultivation of bhakti is what the Gita ultimately recommends. This is why the Gita concludes with the verse: sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja—“Abandon all varieties of dharma and just surrender unto Me.” Krishna urges us not to get entangled in overanalyzing our external roles or duties, but instead to focus on what will best help us surrender to Him. Whatever course of action facilitates that surrender is what we should adopt. We can apply the same principle to our own lives. Instead of viewing things in rigid, black-and-white terms—thinking, “This is good, and that is bad”—we should consider: What is favorable for my spiritual growth? What supports my bhakti, and what hinders it? Based on this personal and practical evaluation, one can decide the appropriate path—whether to follow the gṛhastha āśrama or the brahmacārī āśrama. Another important point to note is that, in this section of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is not talking about devotional renunciation at all. He is referring to the renunciation of the jñānīs, which is marked by inaction and detachment from worldly duties. In contrast, for devotees—whether brahmacārīs or sannyāsīs—renunciation is not about inactivity. It is filled with purposeful action. In bhakti-yoga, practical service is a central means of expressing and deepening devotion. Bhakti is inherently active and dynamic. Therefore, Krishna’s criticism of renunciation inaction applies to jñāna-based renunciation, not to bhakti-based renunciation. Still, the core principle remains relevant: rather than focusing on external renunciation, we should concentrate on fixing our minds on Krishna and engaging actively in His service. That is the heart of devotional life. If we choose to adopt external renunciation, it should serve as a tool to deepen our internal contemplation on Krishna. It should not become a facade behind which we continue to crave sense objects, secretly dwell on them, or even attempt to indulge in them without being noticed. Such hypocrisy deprives us of spiritual growth and ultimately becomes a disservice to Krishna and His mission. When our actions misrepresent the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, we damage the credibility and sanctity of the Gita’s wisdom tradition. That’s why the Gita warns against superficial renunciation—an external show that hides inner attachment. Krishna cautions Arjuna not to become a renunciate of this kind.
In fact, Krishna presents three clear reasons against such misguided renunciation:
1. In verse 3.4, He explains that renunciation through mere inaction does not lead to perfection or liberation.
2. In verse 3.5, He points out that inaction is unnatural and therefore impossible to sustain.
3. And in verse 3.6, He states that inaction can even become adharmic if it is accompanied by internal attachment.
Thus, renunciation must be genuine—grounded in internal detachment and aimed at deeper connection with Krishna—not a mask worn to hide unresolved desires. Our focus should be: How can I best connect with Krishna? How can I best remember Him? How can I best serve Him? Based on this Krishna-centered perspective, we can make our life decisions.
Renunciation should not be the central goal in itself, nor should external renunciation be mistaken as the ultimate measure of spiritual success. True spirituality lies in deepening our relationship with Krishna.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment