Krishna affirms His individuality in the past and confirm
s
 His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality 
in
 so many ways and the impersonal Brahman has been declared as subordinate to Him. Krishna has maintained spiritual individuality all along, and if He is accepted as ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, His Bhagavad 
G
ita has no value for teaching purposes. A common man with all four defects of human frailties is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. Bhagavad 
G
ita is above such literatures. No 
other
 book can compare with the Bhagavad 
G
ita. 
When one accepts Krishna as an ordinary man, the Bhagavad 
G
ita loses its whole importance. The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional. 
The Mayavadi argues that the plurality
 refers to the body. But previous to this verse such bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Krishna to place a conventional proposition on he body again? Therefore, 
the plurality
 is maintained on spiritual grounds as it is confirmed by great 
A
c
h
aryas like Sri Ramanuja and others. 
As it will appear in later chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, it
 is clearly mentioned in many places of the Bhagavad 
G
ita that it is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The non-devotees approach to the teachings of the Bhagavad 
G
ita is something like bees licking on the bottle of honey. One cannot have any taste of honey unless one can taste the content of the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad 
G
ita can be understood only by the devotees and nobody else, as it is stated in the fourth chapter of the book. Nor can the Bhagavad 
G
ita be touched by such person
s
 who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore the Mayavadi explanation of the Bhagavad 
G
ita is the most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden to read any commentar
y
 
made by the Mayavadis and opines that one who
 
takes to such understanding of the Mayavadi philosophy
 
loses all potency for understanding the real mystery of the Bhagavad 
G
ita. If the individuality
 
has any reference to the empirical universe, then there was no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and that of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as mentioned above.