In plain words
Sense objects fall away from one who abstains, though the taste for them remains; even that taste disappears on seeing the Supreme.
Word for word
Objects fall away from the embodied one who does not feed [on them], except the taste; his taste too falls away, having seen the Supreme.
The commentators
Bhagavadgītābhāṣyam
तत्र विषयाननाहरतः आतुरस्यापि इन्द्रियाणि कूर्माङ्गानीव संह्रियन्ते न तु तद्विषयो रागः स कथं संह्रियते इति उच्यते —
यद्यपि विषयाः विषयोपलक्षितानि विषयशब्दवाच्यानि इन्द्रियाणि निराहारस्य अनाह्रियमाणविषयस्य कष्टे तपसि स्थितस्य मूर्खस्यापि विनिवर्तन्ते देहिनो देहवतः रसवर्जं रसो रागो विषयेषु यः तं वर्जयित्वा । रसशब्दो रागे प्रसिद्धः, स्वरसेन प्रवृत्तः रसिकः रसज्ञः, इत्यादिदर्शनात् । सोऽपि रसो रञ्जनारूपः सूक्ष्मः अस्य यतेः परं परमार्थतत्त्वं ब्रह्म दृष्ट्वा उपलभ्य ‘अहमेव तत्’ इति वर्तमानस्य निवर्तते निर्बीजं विषयविज्ञानं सम्पद्यते इत्यर्थः । न असति सम्यग्दर्शने रसस्य उच्छेदः । तस्मात् सम्यग्दर्शनात्मिकायाः प्रज्ञायाः स्थैर्यं कर्तव्यमित्यभिप्रायः ॥ ५९ ॥
In plain words
Take someone ill. He is not reaching for sense objects at all, and his senses fold in like a tortoise pulling its limbs under its shell. But the rāga, the craving still aimed at those objects, does not fold in with them. So how does that get withdrawn? Here is the answer —
Even a fool practicing severe austerities, who has stopped taking in sense-objects, finds that the objects — meaning, really, the senses themselves — withdraw. But this happens only 'except for the relish' — that lingering attachment toward objects still remains. 'Relish' is a well-known way of naming attachment; we speak this way in ordinary language too, calling someone 'a connoisseur' or 'one who knows relish' because he acts on his own taste. And even that subtle attraction, that fine tinge of relish left in the striver, disappears only once he has actually seen, actually perceived, the highest truth of ultimate reality, Brahman, and knows 'I alone am That.' Only then does his awareness of objects become seedless — with nothing left in it that could ever sprout again. That's the meaning here. Without that right vision, this relish simply never gets cut off. That is exactly why the wisdom that consists in right vision has to be made firm and unshakeable.
Close to the Sanskrit
There, even of a sick person who is not taking in objects, the senses are withdrawn like the limbs of a tortoise; but not the attachment whose object is those things. How is that withdrawn? Thus it is said —
Although 'objects,' indicated by, denoted by, the word 'object' — [meaning here] the senses — 'turn back' [i.e. withdraw] even for a fool who is situated in severe austerity, one who abstains, one whose objects are not being taken in — of the embodied one, of the one possessing a body — this happens 'except for the relish': the relish, the attachment, toward objects, which one, excepting that. The word 'relish' is well established in the sense of attachment, as seen in usages such as 'one motivated by his own taste,' 'a connoisseur,' 'one who knows relish.' That relish too, subtle, in the form of a [lingering] attraction, of this striver — having seen, having perceived the supreme truth of ultimate reality, Brahman, [thinking] 'I alone am That' — for one who abides thus, it turns back [i.e. ceases]; a seedless awareness of objects results: such is the meaning. In the absence of right vision, there is no cutting off of that relish. Therefore the firmness of the wisdom consisting in right vision must be cultivated: such is the intent. [End of commentary on verse 59.]