Reincarnation isn’t just some mystical belief tucked away in the East, it’s a serious topic that has fascinated thinkers, seekers, and skeptics for centuries. It raises tough, unavoidable questions: What happens after we die? Is this life all there is? Can someone actually know what lies beyond death?

For many, these are blanks on the map of understanding. Atheists or hardcore materialists may reject the discussion outright.

Fair enough.

This article may not even reach them. But for others, for those who leave space for “maybe,” for the possibility that consciousness isn’t entirely snuffed out at death, this topic lands squarely in the category of reasonable doubt. And when something qualifies as reasonable doubt, brushing it aside isn’t critical thinking. It’s avoidance.

Now, can science answer these questions? In its current form, probably not. The tools of science are sharp but limited, they operate within the bounds of what can be observed and measured. Reincarnation, by its very nature, falls outside that framework. But calling it pseudoscience simply because it doesn’t fit into a lab experiment is premature. There are other methods of inquiry, rational reflection, inner observation, experiential evidence, that are valid in their own right.

Let’s step into ancient territory for a moment, texts that dared to answer these questions with clarity and conviction.

The Bhagavad Gita.

Hard facts and translation errors

Here are some verses from Chapter 2, with direct translations, not through the lens of commentary , but as directly as possible.

Verse 12

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः।
न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम्॥

“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor these rulers. And never shall we cease to be in the future.”

Verse 13

देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति॥

“Just as in this body of the embodied one (dehinaḥ), there is childhood, youth, and old age, in the same way, there is attainment of another body. The wise one is not deluded by this.”

Verse 16

नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः॥

“There is no existence for the unreal; there is no non-existence for the real. The seers of truth have understood the distinction.”

Verse 17

अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं ततम्।
विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित्कर्तुमर्हति॥

“Know that which pervades all to be indestructible. No one can cause the destruction of this imperishable reality.”

Verse 20

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचि न्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे॥

“It is never born, and never dies. Having once existed, it never ceases to be. Unborn, eternal, constant, and ancient, it is not killed when the body is killed.”

Verse 22

वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि।
तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णान्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही॥

“Just as a man, having discarded worn-out clothes, takes on other new ones, so the embodied one (dehī), having abandoned worn-out bodies, takes on new ones.”

Verse 27

जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च।
तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि॥

“For the born, death is certain; and for the dead, birth is certain. Therefore, over the unavoidable, you should not grieve.”

And here’s a crucial point: Krishna doesn’t refer to the eternal principle as “soul” the way we casually toss the word around. The concept he uses is Sat, or Tat that which is, the unchanging, ever-existent truth. This isn’t about some ghost of personality floating around after death. It’s about continuity of being, of existence itself.

Though movies might have muddled the picture, a narrative has taken root in common understanding: that an aatma leaves the body, wanders, becomes a ghost, and eventually enters another body. That’s the version most people imagine. But this is absolute fiction, nothing more.

This simplistic take was, and continues to be, amplified by countless TV serials including that of Mahabharatas/Ramayana/Puranas, especially from the 90s onwards (embedded in background music that attracts). In the name of “creative liberty” and the demand for easy-to-digest narratives, these shows have often prioritized simplistic explanation over real philosophical insights, further cementing a distorted, almost cartoonish version of reincarnation in the public consciousness.

Lets be very clear, its not easy to understand these things in simplistic sense.

Complex philosophical ideas are sacrificed for simplistic plot devices, ensuring the “ghostly transmigration” tale remains the most accessible, if utterly misleading, version.

What Krishna points to in the Gita is something far more refined, something far more intelligent. He never says that the soul changes the body in the way people assume. In fact, if we closely read the second chapter of the Gita, the word aatma isn’t used the way modern interpreters use “soul.”

Wherever Krishna does use the word aatma, it appears in compounds like kāmātma, someone whose self is ruled by desires, or ātma as “self,” not some mystical spirit.

So then the question arises, why do we keep translating aatma as “soul”?

The answer may be uncomfortable: because it’s convenient.

Because “soul” is a word that fits into a Western theological template. But the Gita doesn’t follow that template. The direct translation of aatma is “Self,” not “soul,” and that’s a crucial difference.

And this distinction is not just linguistic; it changes everything. When you say “soul,” you already imagine a personality continuing after death, like a ghost that remembers things, carries impressions, seeks revenge, or waits to be reborn. But when Krishna speaks, he’s not talking about a ghost or a personal ego that migrates. He’s pointing to something deeper: the unchanging reality behind all change. A substratum. The Sat.

Let’s pause here. Krishna says: na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin… na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre”It is never born, never dies… it is not slain when the body is slain.” (2.20)

He doesn’t say you, as in your memory or your name, continue. He’s not indulging that kind of comfort story. He’s describing something beyond personality. Beyond name and form.

And that aligns beautifully with the Upanishads:

“From that very Self (Ātman), space emerged. From space, air. From air, fire. From fire, water. From water, earth. From earth, plants. From plants, food. From food, the person. Indeed, this person is food-made.” The person, is an outcome. Not a soul-locked identity, but a result of layered manifestation. From subtle to gross. From formless to formed. From Self (Ātman) to food.

No ghosts needed.

Bigger picture

The law of conservation of energy states: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another.”

Now here’s the intriguing part, this idea isn’t foreign to Hindu thought. In fact, it finds a striking echo in the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna says: jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur, dhruvaṁ janma mṛtasya ca “For one who is born, death is certain; and for one who dies, birth is certain.” (Gita 2.27). There is a continuity of being, not necessarily of identity.

Just as energy moves between forms, fire to ash, ash to soil, soil to tree, karma, in this view, moves between lives, experiences, and outcomes.

Karma and Karmic Impressions

So then the question arises: What is karma, really? We often reduce karma to a moral scoreboard, do good, get good. But that’s a shallow version. At its core, karma is the conservation of intentional action. Every thought, word, and deed is a movement of energy, subtle, but real. And the cosmos, according to this view, does not allow anything to vanish unaccounted. Just as energy leaves a trace, karma leaves an imprint.

The Sanskrit word saṁskāra literally means a “residual impression.”

These impressions are not carried by a so called “soul” as in a fixed entity, but by a stream of conditions. The personality dies, but the tendencies continue. Much like a flame lighting another, no single flame is carried over, yet the fire remains unbroken.

Is there any evidence for this? Not in the way we demand from material science. But also, what kind of evidence are we seeking?

If we demand a visible trail for an invisible process, we’re already asking the wrong question. Instead, look at your own life. Isn’t it true that your current tendencies didn’t appear out of nowhere? Your likes, fears, inclinations, do they all originate in this single lifetime? Think of an evolutionary perspective too, you carry on your ancestors, read our previous article on it for more detailed view.

The Gita and Upanishads aren’t saying, “Believe this.” They’re saying, “Observe this.”

So is karma punishment?

Not at all. Karma isn’t judgment. There’s no divine courtroom. It’s cause and effect, unattached, precise, and sometimes, yes, difficult. But not unfair. Karma doesn’t moralize. It simply reflects. You throw a stone in a still pond; ripples return. That’s not punishment. That’s response. That’s law. That’s conservation.

What does this understanding give us? It offers a different way to relate to suffering, not as random cruelty or divine punishment, but as a ripple in a larger field, one that may extend beyond what our memory can hold. It also gives us a way to act, with clarity, because no action is lost. No effort is in vain.

Krishna tells Arjuna in another verse nehābhikrama-nāśo ’sti pratyavāyo na vidyate: “No effort on this path is ever wasted, nor is there any negative consequence [if one makes a beginning].” (Gita 2.40) Even the smallest action, done with sincerity, remains. Just like energy. It transforms. It returns. It builds.

Till here, everything discussed stays within the realm of the scientific, or at least the logically observable. The law of conservation, karma as cause and effect, the persistence of impressions, these are all grounded in principles we can understand, analyze, and relate to experience. Now, when we step into the untested territory, things change.

Loop or union, what you truly want?

The transformation of your karmic impressions into another body, whether it’s a piśācha body, a deva body, a pitṛ body, or a new human incarnation, this process remains beyond scientific validation. It’s speculation as far as modern empirical methods go, and quite possibly will remain so.

“Here’s the crucial insight: this transformation is not about the Ātman and never will be.

Contrary to popular belief, the Ātman as reality is unchanging, eternal essence that does not switch bodies like a traveler changing clothes. The Ātman remains immutable, beyond birth and death. What migrates, transforms, and reincarnates is something else entirely: these are solely the Karmic Impressions, which must be worked upon to become one with the Ātman. This very process is Yoga (Union).”

So, it’s up to you: keep thinking about fictionalized ghosts, or start observing the reality of “Sat” as an observer.

Tattvam Asi