Krishna Explains the Soul in Chapter 2 of the Bhagavad Gita

Krishna’s basic claim: the soul outlasts the body

In the Bhagavad Gītā, Krishna addresses Arjuna’s fear of death directly. The central claim is succinct: the true self — called the ātman (soul, self) — is not born and does not die. It is permanent, imperishable and beyond the reach of weapons, fire or waters. This teaching appears most clearly in Chapter 2 (for example verses often cited around 2.20–2.22), where Krishna contrasts the transient body with the immutable inner self and uses familiar images (like changing clothes) to make the point accessible.

How Krishna explains immortality — three linked arguments

Krishna’s explanation in the Gītā can be read as three overlapping moves rather than a single proof:

• Ontological distinction: The body (the visible, changing organism) and the ātman (the inner, conscious principle) are different categories. The body is mutable; the ātman is constant and witnesses change.
• Analogy of garments: Just as a person discards old clothes and puts on new ones, the soul passes from an old body to a new one. Death is a transition for the embodied self (jīva), not annihilation of the ātman.
• Practical moral view: Actions (karma) bind or release the soul. If the ātman could be destroyed at death, moral responsibility and the continuity that grounds liberation (moksha) would be unintelligible.

What the scriptures and commentators add

Upanishadic passages earlier than the Gītā — such as in the Katha, Chandogya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣads — make similar claims about the immortality or transcendence of the self. Classical Gītā commentators read Krishna through their own philosophical lenses:

• Adi Śaṅkarācārya (Advaita Vedānta): emphasizes identity — the individual self (ātman) is not essentially different from Brahman (the ultimate reality). Realizing that identity removes ignorance and ends rebirth.
• Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita): accepts the soul’s eternal reality but describes it as a real, qualified part of God; liberation is communion with the divine, not absorption into impersonal Brahman.
• Madhva (Dvaita): insists on an eternal difference between individual souls and God; the soul survives always and attains its destiny through devotion and God’s grace.
• Sāṃkhya and classical Sāṅkhya–Yoga: treat puruṣa (pure consciousness) as distinct from prakṛti (matter); liberation involves disentangling puruṣa from prakṛti’s transformations.

These are broad labels; Śaiva, Śākta and Smārta traditions have their own nuanced readings but often accept some form of persistent selfhood while differing on its relation to the supreme reality and on how liberation is achieved.

Practical and ethical consequences of the teaching

Krishna’s insistence on the imperishability of the soul is not merely metaphysical. It shapes ethics and practice in several ways:

• Action without attachment: If the self endures beyond any given body, one is urged to perform duty (dharma) without clinging to results (a central Gītā exhortation).
• Attitude to death and grief: Rituals around death (cremation, śrāddha) and philosophical reflections on rebirth (samsāra) rest on the assumption that the social and spiritual life continues beyond the corpse.
• Moral responsibility: Karma theory connects actions to future embodiments; continuity of a responsible agent makes moral causation intelligible.

Where interpretive caution is needed

Scholars and teachers emphasize humility about claims that go beyond the texts. Krishna’s language is poetic and didactic; commentators translate it into metaphysical doctrines that are not uniform. Some careful points:

• The Gītā speaks from a worldview in which rebirth and moral continuity are real; not all modern readers accept the metaphysical premises uncritically.
• Different schools disagree about the ultimate relation between ātman and Brahman — whether the soul is identical, similar, or forever distinct from God.
• Scriptural sayings are often aimed at changing a person’s orientation toward duty and suffering; they are part of a practice tradition (study, meditation, devotion) rather than a scientific treatise.

How people use this teaching today

Believers draw comfort and moral resolve from Krishna’s message: death need not be final, and the self’s continuity frames ethical living. Teachers in temples, yoga schools and philosophical circles continue to read the Gītā’s chapters (especially Chapter 2’s discussion of the self and Chapter 18’s summary) as a resource for confronting fear, loss and moral choice.

If someone approaches practices such as sustained breathwork, intensive meditation or prolonged fasting while exploring these teachings, it’s wise to do so under experienced guidance and with attention to health and safety.

Conclusion

Krishna’s explanation — that the soul cannot be destroyed — combines metaphysics, analogy and ethical purpose. The claim is central to classical Hindu understandings of birth, death and liberation, but how it is read depends on philosophical allegiance and lived tradition. Whether one treats it as literal metaphysics, powerful metaphor, or spiritual practice, the teaching has served for millennia as a way to orient action, face mortality and imagine continuity beyond the present body.