विषया विनिवर्तन्ते निराहारस्य देहिनः।
रसवर्जं रसोऽप्यस्य परं दृष्ट्वा निवर्तते।।2.59।।
।।2.59।।निराहारी (इन्द्रियोंको विषयोंसे हटानेवाले) मनुष्यके भी विषय तो निवृत्त हो जाते हैं पर रस निवृत्त नहीं होता। परन्तु इस स्थितप्रज्ञ मनुष्यका तो रस भी परमात्मतत्त्वका अनुभव होनेसे निवृत्त हो जाता है।
2.59 Although visayah, the objects, (i.e.) the organs, figuratively implied and expressed by the word objects, or, the objects themselves; vinivartante, recede; niraharasya dehinah, from an abstinent man, from an embodied being, even from a fool who engages in painful austerity and abstains from objects; (still, they do so) rasavarjam, with the exception of the taste (for them), with the exception of the hankering that one has for objects. The word rasa is well known as referring to the sense of taste (hankering), as in such expressions as, sva-rasena pravrttah, induced by his own taste (i.e. willingly), rasikah, a man of tastes, rasajnah, a connoisseur (of tastes), etc. Api, even that; rasah, taste of the nature of subtle attachment; asya, of this person, of the sannyasin; nivartate, falls away, i.e. his objective perception becomes seedless; when drstva, after attaining; param, the Absolute, the Reality which is the supreme Goal, Brahman, he continues in life with the realization, I verily am That (Brahman). In the absence of full realization there can be no eradication of the hankering. The idea conveyed is that, one should therefore stabilize ones wisdom which is characterized by full realization. [If it be held that attachment cannot be eliminated without the knowledge of Brahman, and at the same time that the knowledge of Brahman cannot arise until attachment is eradicated, then we get involved in a vicious circle. In answer it is said that gross attachments are eliminated through discrimination which restrains the senses from being overpowered by objects. And the full Knowledge arising thereof eliminates the subtle inclinations as well. Hence there is no vicious circle involved.] Since the organs have to be first brought under his own control by one who desires to establish firmly the wisdom which is characterized by full realization, therefore the Lord speaks of the evil that arises from not keeping them under control:
2.59 Visayah etc. Of course, in his (ascetics) case there is no contact with sense-objects, colour and the rest that are enjoyable. Yet, the sense-obects retreat [from him] leaving a taste in the form of longing that exists in his internal organ. Hence he is not a man-of-stabilized-intellect. Some (commentators) say that taste denotes the sweetness etc., of the objects of experience. But, in the case of a man of Yoga there exists no longing as he has seen the Supreme Lord. On the other hand, in the case of the other, i.e. an ascetic, this does not retreat (disappear).
2.59 The sense objects are the food of the senses. From the abstinent embodied being, i.e., from one who has withdrawn his senses from objects, these sense-objects, being rejected by him, turn away, but not the relish for them. Relish means hankering. The meaning is that the hankering for the sense-objects does not go away by abstinence alone. But even this hankering will go away, when one sees that the essential nature of the self is superior to the sense-objects and that the realisation of this self gives greater happiness than the enjoyment of sense-objects.
Vishayaa vinivartante niraahaarasya dehinahRasavarjam raso’pyasya param drishtwaa nivartate.
viṣhayāḥ—objects for senses; vinivartante—restrain; nirāhārasya—practicing self restraint; dehinaḥ—for the embodied; rasa-varjam—cessation of taste; rasaḥ—taste; api—however; asya—person’s; param—the Supreme; dṛiṣhṭvā—on realization; nivartate—ceases to be