अविभक्तं च भूतेषु विभक्तमिव च स्थितम्।भूतभर्तृ च तज्ज्ञेयं ग्रसिष्णु प्रभविष्णु च॥
avibhaktaṃ ca bhūteṣu vibhaktam iva ca sthitambhūta-bhartṛ ca taj jñeyaṃ grasiṣṇu prabhaviṣṇu ca
Word by word
The verse says
Undivided, and yet standing in beings as though divided. It is to be known as what carries beings, and takes them in, and brings them forth.
In plain words
Vibhaktam iva — as though divided. The small word is iva, as if.
The division is real in the sense that you experience it. It is not real in the sense of going all the way down.
And then the three functions: carrying, taking in, bringing forth. All three, one subject.
Where you've felt this · in family life
A family of six in one house has six different versions of the same childhood. Every one of them is honestly reported and no two match. There was one house, one set of years, one mother. The dividing happened in the living, not in the years.
Going deeper
Apparent division is a precise claim and it is easy to flatten in either direction.
Saying the division is only apparent does not mean your separateness is a mistake you should stop making. You do have your own body, your own pain, and nobody else can eat your dinner. The verse grants all of that with the word iva — it stands in beings as though divided, and that as-though is how it actually is for anybody inside it.
What is denied is that the division goes all the way down.
The practical weight of this falls on how you treat people. If the separateness is real but not final, then neither indifference nor fusion is accurate. You are not required to feel other people's pain as your own, and you are also not entitled to treat it as happening somewhere else.