He is the seed of every being, and nothing whatever stands without him.

Read as the one Self, where a thing drawn away from it is not lesser but void.

Shankara reads the seed and the dependence at the deepest level: every being has Krishna for its very self, so anything imagined apart from him would be selfless, and therefore void, with no being of its own to stand on. What is drawn away was never a separate thing sustained on its own footing. Nothing is added to the world's glory by this claim; rather, the world's apparent independence is exactly what dissolves when you see clearly. All things, without exception, have him for their self, and that has been the whole of their reality from the start.

For beings that stay real and distinct, yet exist only as the Lord's ensouled body.

Ramanuja reads the dependence as the inseparable bond of self and body, not as difference dissolving away. Krishna abides as the inner self of every being, in every state it holds, and this is exactly what he told Arjuna a few verses earlier: I am the self, seated in the seat of all beings. So nothing exists without him means nothing exists apart from the one who indwells it as its self. Beings remain real and distinct. They exist as his body, joined to him as their indwelling self, never absorbed into him without remainder.

For a world that depends on him totally while he stays forever distinct from it.

Madhva reads the dependence as pervasion by the Lord's infinite forms, never as identity with them. Nothing exists apart from him because he, of universal form, runs through everything by his endless forms, a claim he grounds in scripture's naming of the Lord as endless, beginningless, of endless portion. The world leans on him completely for its very being, the way an effect leans on its cause. But dependence, however total, is never identity; the pervasion is still the pervasion of an other, and that otherness never disappears.

Source is thin here; the extant material brackets rather than glosses this verse.

Honestly stated: Abhinavagupta's surviving commentary treats 10.19 through 10.42 as a single continuous unit and offers no discrete remark fixed to this verse. What survives is his reading of the unit's opening, where I am the Self guards against mistaking any one glory for the whole of the divine, and its closing turn toward undivided pervasion. On a Kashmir Saiva reading, one would extend this, as a flagged conditional rather than his own recorded words, to say the seed named here is that same undivided pervasion, consciousness recognizing itself as the ground from which every being arises.

For the reader following the chapter's long catalogue to its close.

Sridhara closes the long roll exactly on the axis he opened it on at verse eight, where Krishna named himself the source, prabhava, of everything. What was said there of the world as a whole is here repeated of every distinct being found within it. No further additions to the catalogue are ever needed after this. Whatever is met, whether it was named in this chapter or not, traces back to the identical seed, and that single fact settles the question the whole list was building toward.

Read as a structural claim: the cause of existence cannot be absent from what it causes.

Madhusudana stays close to the verse's own plain words and reads the seed-claim as closing off a specific misunderstanding: that divinity might be distributed unevenly, richly present in what was named in the catalogue and thin or missing everywhere else. Because the cause of a being's existence cannot be absent from the being it causes, nothing whatever stands outside this relation. The claim needs no embellishment beyond what the verse already states; its force is in its exactness, not in any added elaboration.