Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 59

व्याख्या-- 'विषया विनिवर्तन्ते निराहारस्य देहिनः रसवर्जम्'-- मनुष्य निराहार दो तरहसे होता है--(1) अपनी इच्छासे भोजनका त्याग कर देना अथवा बीमारी आनेसे भोजनका त्याग हो जाना और (2) सम्पूर्ण विषयोंका त्याग करके एकान्तमें बैठना अर्थात् इन्द्रियोंको विषयोंसे हटा लेना।
यहाँ इन्द्रियोंको विषयोंसे हटानेवाले साधकके लिये ही 'निराहारस्य' पद आया है।
रोगीके मनमें यह रहता है कि क्या करूँ, शरीरमें पदार्थोंका सेवन करनेकी सामर्थ्य नहीं है, इसमें मेरी परवश्ता है; परन्तु जब मैं ठीक हो जाऊँगा, शरीरमें शक्ति आ जायगी, तब मैं पदार्थोंका सेवन करूँगा। इस तरह उसके भीतर रसबुद्धि रहती है। ऐसे ही इन्द्रियोंको विषयोंसे हटानेपर विषय तो निवृत्त हो जाते हैं, पर साधकके भीतर विषयोंमें जो रसबुद्धि, सुखबुद्धि है, वह जल्दी निवृत्त नहीं होती।
जिनका स्वाभाविक ही विषयोंमें राग नहीं है और जो तीव्र वैराग्यवान् हैं, उन साधकोंकी रसबुद्धि साधनावस्थामें ही निवृत्त हो जाती है। परन्तु जो तीव्र वैराग्यके बिना ही विचारपूर्वक साधनमें लगे हुए हैं; उन्हीं साधकोंके लिये यह कहा गया है कि विषयोंका त्याग कर देनेपर भी उनकी रसबुद्धि निवृत्त नहीं होती।
'रसोऽप्यस्य परं दृष्टा निवर्तते'-- इस स्थितप्रज्ञकी रसबुद्धि परमात्माका अनुभव हो जानेपर निवृत्त हो जाती है। रसबुद्धि निवृत्त होनेसे वह स्थितप्रज्ञ हो ही जाता है-- यह नियम नहीं है। परन्तु स्थितप्रज्ञ होनेसे रसबुद्धि नहीं रहती--यह नियम है।
'रसोऽप्यस्य' पदसे यह तात्पर्य निकलता है कि रसबुद्धि साधककी अहंतामें अर्थात् 'मैं' -पनमें रहती है। यही रसबुद्धि स्थूलरूपसे रागका रूप धारण कर लेती है। अतः साधकको चाहिये कि वह अपनी अहंतासे ही रसको निकाल दे कि 'मैं तो निष्काम हूँ; राग करना, कामना करना मेरा काम नहीं है'। इस प्रकार निष्कामभाव आ जानसे अथवा निष्काम होनेका उद्देश्य होनेसे रसबुद्धि नहीं रहती और परमात्मतत्त्वका अनुभव होनेसे रसकी सर्वथा निवृत्ति हो जाती है।

विषयोंका ग्रहण न करनेवाले रोगी मनुष्यकी भी इन्द्रियाँ तो विषयोंसे हट जाती हैं यानी कछुएके अङ्गोंकी भाँति संकुचित हो जाती हैं परन्तु विषयसम्बन्धी राग ( आसक्ति ) नष्ट नहीं होता। उसका नाश कैसे होता है सो कहते हैं यद्यपि विषयोंको ग्रहण न करनेवाले कष्टकर तपमें स्थित देहाभिमानी अज्ञानी पुरुषकी भी विषयशब्दवाच्य इन्द्रियाँ अथवा केवल शब्दादि विषय तो निवृत्त हो जाते हैं परंतु उन विषयोंमें रहनेवाला जो रस अर्थात् आसक्ति है उसको छोड़कर निवृत्त होते हैं अर्थात् उनमें रहनेवाली आसक्ति निवृत्त नहीं होती। रस शब्द राग ( आसक्ति ) का वाचक प्रसिद्ध है क्योंकि स्वरसेन प्रवृत्तो रसिको रसज्ञः इत्यादि वाक्य देखे जाते हैं। वह रागात्मक सूक्ष्म आसक्ति भी इस यतिकी परमार्थतत्त्वरूप ब्रह्मका प्रत्यक्ष दर्शन होनेपर निवृत्त हो जाती है अर्थात् मैं ही वह ब्रह्म हूँ इस प्रकारका भाव दृढ़ हो जानेपर उसका विषयविज्ञान निर्बीज हो जाता है। अभिप्राय यह कि यथार्थ ज्ञान हुए बिना रागका मूलोच्छेद नहीं होता अतः यथार्थ ज्ञानरूप बुद्धिकी स्थिरता कर लेनी चाहिये।

Even if the senses are turned away from objects, if the attachment (raga) for those objects persists, how can the attainment of wisdom occur? He raises this doubt with 'tatra' etc. The meaning of the locative case (tatra) is the plane of empirical conduct. 'Vishayan anaharatah' means of one who is averse to their enjoyment. And if attachment is not withdrawn, then the attainment of wisdom is not possible, thinking that attachment is an enemy to that, he says 'sa katham' (how is that...) etc.

Teaching the means for the cessation of attachment, he answers with 'uchyate' (it is said). Anticipating the doubt—'For one averse to sense-enjoyment, how/why is the turning away from objects [mentioned], and that turning away is not the current topic?'—he says 'yadyapi' (even though) etc. The explanation of 'niraharasya' is 'of one by whom objects are not being grasped.' He who is not inclined towards objects, who is established in extreme penance consisting of hardship, even if devoid of knowledge—although his senses are withdrawn from the presence of objects, still attachment remains; and that (attachment) is cut off by the knowledge of Truth—this is the meaning.

He negates that the word 'rasa' refers to the six tastes like sweetness etc., with 'rasashabda' etc. Anticipating the doubt—'Without the usage of the elders/ancients, how is this meaning well-known?'—he says 'svarasena' (by own inclination). Meaning, by one's own will. 'Rasika' is one who acts according to his own will, a knower of taste, a knower of what is desired and sought—this is the meaning. Then how does its cessation occur? To that, he says 'so 'pi' (that too) etc. He clarifies 'drishti' (vision) itself, which is a synonym for realization (upalabdhi), with 'aham eva' (I alone am He). He states the established meaning upon the departure of attachment with 'nirbijam' (seedless).

[Objection:] If attachment does not depart without right knowledge, and without the departure of that (attachment), right knowledge cannot arise in one possessing attachment, then there is the defect of mutual dependence (itaretarashraya)? He says 'No' to this with 'nasati' etc. When the subjection of the senses to objects is removed through discrimination (viveka), the 'gross attachment' turns away; thereafter, by the arising of right knowledge, the 'subtle attachment' too is completely removed; therefore, there is no mutual dependence—this is the meaning.

The stability of wisdom having been established as fruitful, he states the conclusion with 'tasmat' etc.

[Objection:] "For a sick person abstaining from food (nirahara) or for one observing a vow, the senses also turn away from objects; therefore, this characteristic is found even in the deluded?"—anticipating this doubt, He answers with "vishayah" etc.

"Vishayah" (objects)—metaphorically implying the senses or sound etc.—turn away "rasavarjam"—excluding "rasa", meaning "raga" (attachment); excluding that, they turn away even for the foolish "dehinah" (embodied one) who is "niraharasya"—liberated from intake, not grasping objects, and established in penance with difficulty.

But having seen the "Param"—the Supreme Self—having directly realized "I am Brahman", even the "rasa"—which is of the nature of coloring/delight and is subtle—turns away for this ascetic.

The meaning is that the knowledge of objects becomes seedless. Therefore, for the cutting off of "rasa", the stability of wisdom, which is of the nature of right vision, must be practiced—this is the intention.

And this characteristic—knowledge—does not occur without effort; He states this in the subsequent verses.

By "niraharatva" (abstinence), there occurs only the absence of capacity for sense-enjoyment, or the absence of desire for other objects; but the desire for "rasa" (taste/pleasure) does not cease. That, however, ceases only through direct realization (aparoksha jnana)—He states this with "vishayah".

As per the statement in the Bhagavata (11.8.20): "The wise who abstain quickly conquer the senses, except for the tongue (rasanam); for that (desire) increases regarding what is to be tasted," and also because the word "rasa" is expressive of "raga" (attachment).

[Objection:] If the withdrawal of senses from objects is the cause of being a sthitaprajna, then that exists even in sleep, fainting, dissolution, possession by spirits, etc.; so everyone would indeed be a sthitaprajna? Anticipating this doubt, He says "vishayah" etc.

True, for the "dehinah"—the deluded one possessing body-identification—in sleep etc., who is "niraharasya"—not gathering objects with the senses, not enjoying—the objects indeed turn away; yet "rasavarjam"—excluding "rasa", meaning "raga" (attachment); excluding that, they turn away. Even then, attachment exists in a subtle form; since the self-ignorance which is the root of attachment is not burned, he is not a sthitaprajna—this is the meaning.

But for this very person, having seen the "Param"—having directly realized the Self—when he is "nirahara" (abstaining) and not grasping sound etc., even the "rasa" turns away, due to the burning of the root ignorance. Thus, there is a great distinction between one in sleep etc. and one established in Samadhi—this is the sentiment.

However, the ancients [earlier commentators] explained it as: for a sick person or a rigid ascetic, even if deluded, who does not grasp objects, the objects turn away excluding the "rasa"; and for him alone, having seen the Supreme and being established, even the "rasa" turns away.

The food of the senses is "vishayah" (sense-objects). For the "nirahara"—the embodied soul who has withdrawn his senses from objects—the objects turn away, but "rasavarjam"—they turn away excluding the "rasa".

"Rasa" means "raga" (attachment); the meaning is that the attachment to objects does not turn away.

However, even that attachment turns away after having seen the nature of the Self, which is "Param" (superior) to objects and "sukhataram" (more blissful).

[Objection:] "Non-engagement of the senses in objects cannot be the characteristic of a sthitaprajna. For there is no difference in the non-engagement in objects observed in dullards, sick people, and those observing fasts." To this, He says "vishayah" (objects) etc.

"Ahara" is the gathering or grasping of objects by the senses. For the "nirahara"—the "dehin" (body-identified/ignorant one) not performing the grasping of objects by the senses—the objects turn away. The meaning is that the experience of them ceases.

But "rasavarjam"—excluding "rasa", i.e., "raga" (attachment) or desire. The meaning is that the desire indeed does not cease.

Even the "rasa"—even the attachment—turns away, i.e., perishes, automatically for this sthitaprajna after having seen the "Param" (Supreme Self).

Alternatively: For the "nirahara"—one intent on fasting—objects mostly turn away, because one tormented by hunger has no regard for sound, touch, etc. But "rasavarjam"—excluding the rasa. The meaning is that the expectation/desire for taste (rasa) does not cease. The rest is the same.

प्रत्याहार या उपरति की क्षमता के बिना कभी कोई व्यक्ति किसी रोग के कारण या क्षणिक दुख के आवेग में अथवा व्रत आदि कारणों से विषय उपभोग को छोड़ देता है। उस समय ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि विषयों से वैराग्य अथवा द्वेष हो गया है किन्तु उनके प्रति मन में स्थित राग केवल कुछ समय के लिये अव्यक्त अवस्था में रहता है। अर्जुन के मन में शंका उत्पन्न होती है कि संभवत योगी का इन्द्रिय संयम भी क्षणिक अनित्य ही हो जो अनुकूल या प्रलोभनपूर्ण परिस्थितियों में टूट जाता हो। उसकी इस शंका का निवारण यहाँ किया गया है।यदि आप दुकानों से ग्राहकों तक उपभोग के विषय की गति का अवलोकन करें तो इस सिद्धांत को स्पष्ट रूप में समझ सकते हैं। उपभोग की वे वस्तुयें केवल उन्हीं लोगों के घर पहुँचती हैं जो उनकी तीव्र इच्छा किये हुये उन वस्तुओं को पाने के लिये प्रयत्न कर रहे होते हैं। मद का भण्डार तब खाली हो जाता है जब बोतलें चलकर मद्यपियों की आलमारियों को भर देती हैं लुहार के बनाये हल केवल किसान के घर जाते हैं और न कि किसी कलाकार कवि चिकित्सक या वकील के घर में। इसी प्रकार उन विषयों के इच्छुक लोगों के पास ही वे विषय पहुँचते हैं। भोगों के त्यागी व्यक्ति से भोग की वस्तुयें दूर ही रहती हैं।निराहार रहने से विषय तो दूर हो जायेंगे परन्तु उनके प्रति मन में पूर्वानुभवजनित रस अर्थात् स्वाद या राग निवृत्त नहीं होता। भगवान् यहाँ आश्वासन देते हैं कि परम आत्मतत्त्व की अपरोक्षानुभूति होने पर यह राग भी समाप्त हो जाता है या भुने हुये बीजों के समान मनुष्य के मन में विषय प्रभावहीन हो जाते हैं।इस तथ्य को समझना कठिन नहीं क्योंकि हम जानते हैं कि अनुभव की एक अवस्था विशेष में प्राप्त अनिष्ट वस्तुयें और दुख दूसरी अवस्था में उसी प्रकार नहीं रहते। स्वप्नावस्था का राज्य मेरी जाग्रदवस्था के दारिद्र्य को दूर नहीं करता किन्तु जाग्रदवस्था का दारिद्र्य भी स्वप्न के राज्य का उपभोग करने से मुझे वंचित नहीं कर सकता जाग्रत् स्वप्न और सुषुप्ति अवस्था में रहते हुए अहंकार ने असंख्य विषय वासनायें अर्जित कर ली हैं। परन्तु अवस्थात्रय अतीत शुद्ध चैतन्य स्वरूप को पहचान कर अहंकार ही समाप्त हो जाता है तब ये वासनायें किस पर अपना प्रभाव दिखायेंगी।आत्मप्रज्ञा प्राप्त करने के इच्छुक साधक का सर्वप्रथम उसकी इन्द्रियों पर संयम होना आवश्यक है अन्यथा

And this is appropriate, because [as stated in] "yah sarvatra" (he who everywhere...) etc. [Verse 2.57].

Upon the attainment of good and evil, he does not experience delight or distress.

Since the phrase "his wisdom is established" (2.61) is stated even at the end of the three verses beginning with "vishaya vinivartante," there might be a delusion that this is also just a description of the characteristic (laksana). To refute that, he says "Na cha" (Not so...). That from which this characteristic arises, is this [instruction on practice]. "Effortlessly" implies "with little effort"—analogous to the phrase "anudara kanya" (a girl with no waist/stomach, meaning a slender one).

If knowledge possessed such a characteristic [of being easy], then why wouldn't every person accomplish it to remove the afflictions of desire etc.? "Does a man with a burning head wander about aimlessly?" (Implying: No, he acts immediately). Therefore, [thinking] "this characteristic does not exist in the wise"—to remove such a doubt is the implied purpose. "Tribhih" (With three verses)—this continues. Fearing that the fact that knowledge is not achievable by little effort is not apparent here, and with the intention that the conquest of the senses is achievable only by great effort—which is stated by the first verse via the method of introduction—he explains it with "niraharatvena" etc. By this, the meaning of the sentence ending with "rasavarjam" is stated.

With the word "eva", he explains "rasavarjam". It is thus: "Niraharasya dehinah"—meaning, due to abstinence; "vishayah"—objects like form etc.; or by this, the senses possessing the capacity to enjoy them are implied—they turn away. "Rasavarjam"—excluding "rasa", i.e., "raga" (attachment); excluding that. Meaning, due to abstinence, the mental desire for objects does not cease. He gives another interpretation of this same point with "itara" etc. By the word "akanksha" (expectation/craving), the powers of enjoyment are also implied. The meaning of "rasavarjam" is the expectation of taste (rasa), etc. And then, this is the construction: Due to abstinence, objects other than taste (rasa)—meaning their powers of enjoyment and the craving for them—turn away. But excluding "rasa"—the mind's craving for objects of taste and the tongue's capacity to enjoy them do not cease.

He explains the meaning of "raso'pi" with "sa tu" etc. In the first interpretation, that "rasa" is "raga" (attachment) regarding all objects. In the second interpretation, that "rasa" is the capacity to enjoy taste and the craving for it. He mounts the stated meaning onto the verse with "ityaha". He cites authority for the second interpretation with "indriyani" etc. (Bhagavata 11.8.20). "Jayanti" (They conquer)—by the destruction of the capacity to enjoy and by the destruction of attachment. "But that tongue (rasana) increases in the object to be tasted (rasye)" in both ways (craving and capacity). He substantiates the first interpretation with "rasa" etc. "What is stated is appropriate"—this is implied in both cases. That the word "rasa" denotes "raga" should be understood from the aforementioned lexicon. It is appropriate to say "rasa turns away after seeing the Supreme," attributing consciousness to the insentient (rasa) metaphorically.

The summary of the meaning is this: When external senses come into contact with objects, through them the mind engages there; when the mind engages, attachment arises; from that comes the agitation of the self. This is "non-conquest of the senses." For he who distracts another is said to have conquered him. But when external senses, even in the proximity of objects, do not contact them; or even if contacted, do not draw the mind towards them; and even if the mind is drawn, if attachment to the object does not arise, then the agitation of the self does not occur—this is "Sense-Conquest" (Indriya-jaya). This is briefly twofold: through the destruction of the power of the external senses and through the destruction of the attachment of the mind. And these two occur through the two methods mentioned, based on the distinction of the person (ignorant vs. wise)—namely, through abstinence (niraharatva) and through Brahman-realization. Thus, the conquest of the senses is achievable only by great effort.

[Objection:] "Even for a deluded person (mudha), due to disease etc., the withdrawal of senses from objects occurs; so how is it said 'his wisdom is established'?"—Regarding this, He says "vishayah" etc.

For the "nirahara"—one who does not gather objects with the senses—for the "dehinah", meaning the deluded one possessing body-identification, or a sick person, or a rigid ascetic, "vishayah"—objects like sound etc.—turn away; but "rasavarjam"—excluding "rasa", meaning thirst (trishna); excluding that. The meaning is that for the ignorant, objects turn away, but the attachment (raga) regarding them does not turn away.

However, for this sthitaprajna, having seen the "Param"—the Supreme Goal—and remaining established having realized "I am That very One", even the "rasa"—even the attachment to petty pleasures—turns away. By the word "api" (also), the objects also (turn away). And "similarly"—this has been explained in "yavan artha" (2.46) etc. Thus, "cessation of objects along with attachment" is the characteristic of the sthitaprajna; therefore, there is no deviation (vyabhichara) regarding the deluded one—this is the meaning.

Since without the right vision (samyag-darshana) of the Supreme Self, the cutting off of "objects with attachment" does not happen, therefore, one should accomplish with great effort the stability of "wisdom" (prajna), which is of the nature of right vision and which cuts off "objects with attachment"—this is the intention.

[Objection:] "In the absence of food etc., how can there be engagement of the senses in sense-objects? (It cannot). Then why is the state of sthitaprajna not present in them (those starving/fasting) as well?"—Anticipating this doubt, He says "vishayah" etc.

For the "nirahara" (abstinent) embodied one, objects turn away; that is true—this is the meaning. However, "rasavarjam"—

"rasa" means the desire (abhilasha) for the experience of that (object); excluding that, they are grasped (as turned away)—this is the meaning. By the word "dehinah" (of the embodied), it is indicated that their "dehadhyasa" (superimposition of the body as the Self) has not ceased.

But for this sthitaprajna, even the "rasa"—even that desire—turns away after seeing the "Param", the excellent "Divine Essence" (Bhagavadiya-rasa). There is this much distinction—this is the sentiment.

Although "vishayah"—meaning the senses implied by the word objects and denoted by the word objects—turn away even for the "niraharasya"—one who is not grasping objects, who is established in painful penance, even a fool; for the "dehinah"—the embodied one—they turn away "rasavarjam"—excluding "rasa", i.e., excluding the "raga" (attachment) that exists regarding objects.

The word "rasa" is well-known in the sense of attachment, as seen in usages like "proceeding by 'svarasa' (own inclination/attachment)", "rasika" (man of taste/desire), "rasajna" (connoisseur), etc.

Even that "rasa"—which is of the nature of coloring/delight and is subtle—turns away for "asya" (this) ascetic, "drishtva" (having seen)—having realized—the "Param"—the Supreme Reality, Brahman—and abiding in the state of "I am That very One". The meaning is that the cognition of objects becomes seedless.

Without right vision (samyag-darshana), the cutting off of "rasa" does not occur. Therefore, the stability of wisdom, which is of the nature of right vision, must be accomplished—this is the intention.

[Introduction to next verse:] By one wishing to accomplish the stability of wisdom characterized by right vision, the senses must first be established under one's own control; because He states the defect in not establishing them (under control).

Because for the "niraharasya"—for one who has withdrawn the senses from objects—the "vishaya" (objects) turn away, not for anyone else. Or, for the abstainee, the objects turn away "rasavarjam"—excluding the "rasa"; but the "rasa" does not (turn away), because that sense is the strongest of all and attracts the aspirant.

He states the means for the cessation of "rasa": "raso'pi"—even the rasa turns away for this perfected one of steady wisdom, having experienced the Supreme Self as Bliss; due to the rule that it is impossible for anyone to engage in an object of petty happiness in the presence of Great Bliss.

And ahead, his sitting, speaking, contemplating, and vows—endowed with steadfastness in the Self—are indicated.

विषयाः the objects of senses? विनिवर्तन्ते turn away? निराहारस्य abstinent? देहिनः of the man? रसवर्जम् leaving the longing? रसः loving (taste)? अपि even? अस्य of his? परम् the Supreme? दृष्ट्वा having seen? निवर्तते turns away.Commentary Knowledge of the Self alone can destroy in toto the subtle Vasanas (latent tendencies) and all the subtle desires? all subtle attachments and even the longing for objects. By practising severe austerities? by abandoning the sensual objects? the objects of the senses may turn away from the ascetic but the relish or taste or longing for the objects will still remain.

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 one's 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:

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.