g.' Practically, the explanations are
identical.

955. What is meant by the objects of the senses residing within the
bodies of living creatures is that (as the commentator explains) their
concepts exist in 'the cavity of the heart' (probably, mind) so that when
necessary or called for, they appear (before the mind's eye). Swabhava is
explained as 'attributes' like heat and cold, etc.

956. This is a very difficult verse. I have rendered it, following
Nilakantha's gloss. In verse the speaker lays down what entities dwell in
the body. In the rest he expounds the nature of Sattwa which the
commentator takes to mean buddhi or knowledge. He begins with the
statement that Sattwasya asrayah nasti. This does not mean that the
knowledge has no refuge, for that would be absurd, but it means that the
asraya of the knowledge, i.e., that in which the knowledge dwells, viz.,
the body, does not exist, the true doctrine being that the body has no
real existence but that it exists like to its image in a dream. The body
being non-existent, what then is the real refuge of the knowledge? The
speaker answers it by saying Gunah, implying that primeval Prakriti
characterised by the three attributes is that real refuge. Then it is
said that Chetana (by which is implied the Soul here) is not the refuge
of the knowledge for the Soul is dissociated from everything and
incapable of transformation of any kind. The question is then mentally
stated,--May not the Gunas be the qualities of the knowledge (instead of
being, as said above, its refuge)? For dispelling this doubt, it is
stated that Sattwa is the product of Tejas (Desire). The Gunas are _not_
the product of Tejas. Hence the Gunas, which have a different origin
cannot be the properties of Sattwa. The Gunas exist independently of
Desire. Thus the knowledge, which has Desire for its originating cause,
rests on the Gunas or has them for its refuge. In this verse, therefore,
the nature of the body, the knowledge, and the Gunas, is expounded. The
grammatical construction of the first line is exceedingly terse.

957. Such men behold Brahma in all things. Abhijanah is explained by the
commentator as sishyakuladih. This seems to be the true meaning of the
word here.

958. In rendering this word tatam (where it occurs in the Gita), it has
been shown that to take it as equivalent to 'spread' is incorrect. In
such connections, it is evident that it means 'pervaded.'

959. If I have understood the