It is not that at any time, ever, I did not exist; rather, I existed. Through the past arisings and perishings of bodies, as space persists through the arising and perishing of pots, I existed as eternal. So too it is not that you did not exist; you did exist. And it is not that these lords of men did not exist; they did exist. And it is not that we shall not be; we shall all be, even hereafter, even after the perishing of the body. In all three times we are eternal in our nature as the Self. The plural is used following the difference of bodies, not with the intent of a difference of Selves. Here He gives an illustration of how the Self is eternal.

I, the Lord of all, was not non-existent in the beginningless time before the present; rather, I was. And these field-knowers under your rule, with you at their head, were not non-existent; they too were. And I, and you, and all of us, will not be non-existent in the time to come, after this; rather, we shall surely be. Just as there is no doubt that I, the Lord of all, the supreme Self, am eternal, so too are you, the field-knowers, the selves, to be held eternal. Thus the Lord himself has stated that the difference of the selves from the Lord of all, and from one another, is real. For, in the very passage where, to a man deluded by ignorance and for the removal of that ignorance, the teaching of real eternality is given, the words 'I', 'you', 'these', 'all', and 'we' are used. If the difference of selves were merely adventitious, resting on limiting adjuncts, then, that difference being unreal, the pointing-out of difference at the very moment of teaching the truth would not fit. The difference of selves stated by the Lord is their own natural difference, and revelation too says so: 'eternal among eternals, conscious among the conscious, the one who, being one, grants the desires of the many'. The meaning is that, among the many eternal conscious beings, there is one conscious eternal being who grants their desires. On the view that the perception of difference is made by ignorance, the supreme Person, whose vision is of the highest truth and who has the direct realisation of the self as undifferenced, changeless, eternal consciousness, would have ignorance and its effects already removed; and so the perception of difference made by ignorance, and the teaching and other dealings that rest on it, would not fit him. Suppose it be said that, the supreme Person having attained the knowledge of non-duality, this perception of difference is a sublated remnant, like the continued appearance of a burnt cloth, and so does not bind. This does not hold. The cognition of water in a mirage, even when it continues after being sublated, is no cause of any activity such as fetching water; so here too the cognition of difference, sublated by the knowledge of non-duality, even if it continues, is, because of the certainty that its object is false, no cause of any activity such as teaching. And it cannot be said that the Lord, ignorant before, has a sublated remnant after learning the truth from scripture, for that conflicts with revelation and remembered scripture: 'who is all-knowing, who knows all'; 'his supreme power is heard to be manifold, and natural, the power of knowledge, strength, and action'; 'I know the beings gone by, and the present, and those to come, Arjuna, but no one knows Me'. Further, when the certainty of the self as non-dual stands while the cognition of difference continues, it must be told to whom the supreme Person, or the present succession of teachers, teaches the non-dual knowledge of the self that accords with their own certainty. If it be said that he teaches the Arjunas and the rest who appear as reflections, this does not hold; for no one who is not mad, knowing that the reflections of his own self appearing in a jewel, a sword, a mirror, and the like are not other than his own self, teaches any matter to those reflections. And the teachers cannot speak of a sublated remnant here, since the ignorance and the rest that causes the cognition of difference other than the self has been destroyed by the sublating knowledge of the non-dual self. In the case of the cognition of two moons a sublated remnant is fitting, because the real defect, the eye-disorder and the like that causes the cognition of two moons, has not been destroyed by the knowledge of the moon's oneness, and even continuing, it is, being sublated by a stronger means of knowledge, of no effect. But here the cognition of difference, with its object and its cause, being unreal, is destroyed by the knowledge of the true nature of the thing; so a sublated remnant is in no way possible. Therefore, if the Lord of all and the present succession of teachers have knowledge of the truth, the perception of difference and the teaching and the rest that are its effect are impossible; and if the perception of difference is present, then, the ignorance that causes it standing, they are ignorant, and so all the more no teaching is possible. Further, since by the teacher's knowledge of the non-dual self the ignorance of Brahman, with its effects, is destroyed, teaching directed at a disciple is purposeless. If it be said that the teacher and his knowledge are themselves figments, then, the disciple and his knowledge being figments too, that knowledge could remove nothing either. If it be said that, though a figment, it removes ignorance by being contrary to it, the same holds of the teacher's knowledge, so that itself would be the remover, and teaching would be wholly purposeless. Enough, then, of these unsound views, which are refuted.

The verse opens with 'never' (na tv eva). Since the eternity of the Lord is not itself the matter under discussion, Krishna brings in His own eternity only as an illustration when He says 'never indeed was there a time when I was not'. Just as I am eternal, a fact established throughout the Vedanta, so too are you, and all these rulers of men, eternal.