Manava Dharmashastra 2.96

2.96

yadya vamaraṇyavāsa eva tarhi prāptam | na hi tatra viṣayā sannidhīyante | asannihitāśca na seviṣyante | tadarthamāha-nāsevayā indriyāṇi niyantavyānīti | niḥsukhaḥ syāt | atha ca smaranti na pūrvāhnamadhyandināparāhlānaphalānkuryādyathāśakti dharmārthakāmebhyaḥ | na ca śarīradhāraṇamasevayā bhavati | kiṃ tu gardhaniṣedho'yamucyate | sa ca garddhaḥ-satyāmapi sevāyāṃ-jñānena--viṣayagatadoṣajñānena-asthisthūṇāṃsnāyuyutamityādiśāstroktena, svasaṃvidā ca vipākavirasatayā, kiṃ vipākaphalamevāddidoṣabhāvanayā vairāgyābhyāsena krameṇa spṛhā nivartate | na tu sahasaiva tyaktuṃ śakyate | kintu nityaśaḥ nityakālaṃ, jñānaviśeṣaṇametat | 'praduṣṭāni' pravṛttāni | doṣavattvāt pravṛttānyeva praduṣṭānyucyante | ayaṃ śastatra tatra nityaśaḥ anuparvaśaḥ sarvvaśaḥ pūrvaśa iti vyāsamamuprabhṛtibhirmahāmunibhiḥ prayujyate | tasya sādhutve yatnaḥ kartavyaḥ | tatra śasvidhau | "ekavacanācca vīpsāyāmiti" (vyā. sū. 5|

These (organs), being contaminated with objects, are not capable of being subjugated by mere abstinence, as they are by ever present knowledge.—(90)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
“Well, if this is so, then the right course, would appear to be that one should retire to the forest; as there will be no objects within reach; and being beyond reach, they would naturally never be sought after.”—With a view to such notions, the text adds that the organs should not be subjugated by mere abstinence; as in that case the man would have no pleasures at all, while the Smṛti has distinctly declared that—‘Acquiring merit, wealth and pleasures, one should see that his mornings, mid-days and evenings are not useless’ (Gautama, 9.46); and further, the continuance of the body itself would become impossible, by total abstinence. What therefore is meant is to prohibit excessive longing; and even though one may enjoy pleasures, this excessive longing ceases under the influence—(a) of ‘knowledge,’ of defects in the objects, as described in the scriptures, such for instance as in 6.76 below,—(b) of one’s own experience, whereby the said pleasures are found to be unpleasant in their consequences,—and (c) of the constant and gradual practice of nonattachment arising from the due examination of the effects of the pleasures. It is not possible for the said longing to be renounced all at once..

‘Ever present’;—this qualifles ‘knowledge.’

‘Contaminated’—active, since objects are beset with defects, the addiction to them is called ‘contamination.’

The ‘śas’ used here is one that is frequently used by Vyāsa, Manu and other great sages,—in such expressions as‘nityaśaḥ,’ ‘anupūrvaśaḥ,’ ‘sarvaśaḥ,’ ‘pūrvaśaḥ,’ and so forth. But exceptional efforts have to be made in order to establish the correctness of such usage. And in as much as the rule regarding the use of the affix ‘śas’ as laid down in Pāṇini 5. 4. 43, is that it is added to singular nouns, in the sense of repetition,—it is necessary to make the words in question imply, somohow or other, the notion of repetition. Other people have explained the expression ‘ś as’ as a noun formed from the root ‘ś as’ to stand, with the affix ‘kvip’; and the word thus formed would be neuter and would be treated as an adverb, the meaning being—‘by knowledge which is ever-standing.’—(96)

‘Asevayā”—‘avoidance of excessive longing for pleasures’—(Medhātithi); ‘avoidance of places where pleasures are to be obtained’ (Kullūka);—‘abstinence from pleasures’ (Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Bālambhaṭṭi (Vyāvahāra, p. 606).

Comparative notes by various authors
Śaṅkha-smṛti (7. 10-11).—‘That man the Gods regard as a Brāhmaṇa, who is disgusted with birth, with death and with mental and physical ailments. The impurity of the body, the reversal of pleasure and pain, residence in the womb,—from all this one becomes freed.’