2.58 When, like the tortoise which withdraws on all sides its limbs, he withdraws his senses from the sense-objects, then his wisdom becomes steady.

2.58 Yada samharate etc. the nomenclature is not an expression having a composite of both the forces of etymological and traditional meanings, like the word pankaja 'a lotus'. But it has only the etymological force like the word pacaka 'a cook'. Whenever he (the sage) withdraws just in his own self-just as a tortoise keeps its limbs in its bossom-from the sense-objects i.e., warding off from the sense-objects, then and then [only] he is man-of-stabilized-intellect. Or [the passage may mean :] Whenever he withdraws, within his own Self, [all], beginning from the sense-objects upto sense-organs i.e., when he approprites in his own Self all in the form of sense-objects and sense-organs. But, how is it that the nomenclature 'a man-of-stabilized-intellect' does not hold good in the case of an ascetic ? It is answered-

2.58. Just as a turtle withdraws its limbs from all sides, so when this Karmayogi completely withdraws the senses from their objects, his wisdom becomes firmly established. Commentary: The purpose of giving the example of the turtle here is that when a turtle moves, its six limbs are visible—four legs, one tail, and one head. But when it withdraws its limbs, only its back is seen. Similarly, the Sthitaprajna withdraws these six—the five senses and the mind—from their respective objects. If even the slightest mental connection with the senses and their objects remains, he is not a Sthitaprajna. The use of the verb 'withdraws' here means that the Sthitaprajna fully retracts the senses from their objects; that is, he does not even contemplate the objects with his mind. In this verse, the word 'when' is given, but the word 'then' is not given. Although according to the rule 'the words 'when' and 'then' have a constant relationship', wherever 'when' appears, 'then' is understood to be implied. However, the non-use of the word 'then' here has a profound meaning: the experience of the self-evident Reality that occurs upon completely withdrawing the senses from their objects is not subject to time, nor is it bound by the limits of time. The reason is that this experience is not the result of any action or renunciation. It is not something that is produced. Therefore, there is no need for the time-indicating word 'then' here. That need arises only where something is dependent on something else. For example, even when the sun is in the sky, if one closes one's eyes, the sun is not seen, and upon opening the eyes, the sun is immediately seen. Here, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between the sun and the eyes; that is, the sun is not produced by the opening of the eyes. The sun remains exactly as it was before. It is the same before closing the eyes and even after closing the eyes. Only, by closing our eyes, we did not experience it. Similarly, here, the experience of the self-evident Supreme Reality that occurs upon withdrawing the senses from their objects is not an object of the senses, including the mind. The meaning is that this self-evident Reality remains exactly the same even while being associated with enjoyments (objects) and even while experiencing them. However, due to the veil of association with enjoyments, it is not experienced, and as soon as this veil is removed, it is experienced. Connection: The mere withdrawal of the senses from their objects is not the only characteristic of a Sthitaprajna; this is explained in the subsequent verses.