Traditions: Bhagavad Gītā Sanskrit Hindu tradition,Bahá’í interpretation in Some Answered Questions Motif: reincarnation and continuity after death Connection verdict: substantive doctrinal disagreement; no direct citation of the Gītā established Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-11-04
Summary
Both texts consider whether a person continues beyond the death of the body.
Read the two scenes
The garment simile in Bhagavad Gītā 2:22 reassures Arjuna that death of a body does not destroy the embodied self; old bodies are exchanged for new ones. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s chapter is not a commentary on this verse. It first distinguishes people who make rebirth the only reward and punishment from those who combine rebirth with a next world, then argues against repeated bodily return. Its opening expressly says the purpose is not to denigrate another belief. Reading the two together reveals a real difference over the mode of continuation, not a disagreement about whether human life has spiritual consequence.
What connects—and what does not
The Gītā pictures the embodied self taking new bodies like changing clothes; ‘Abdu’l-Bahá rejects repeated earthly return while affirming spiritual life beyond death.
The Bahá’í chapter describes several reincarnationist positions and explicitly asks not to denigrate adherents; it does not identify Gītā 2.22 as its direct target.
Why read them side by side?
The comparison prevents “immortality” from obscuring a major difference between transmigration and progressive life in a spiritual realm.
Sources and reading notes
- Bhagavad Gītā 2.22, Sanskrit and Swami Adidevananda English, IIT Kanpur Heritage Gita portal — The verse compares discarding worn garments with the embodied self taking new bodies.
- ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, ch. 81, Reincarnation (2014 English edition) — The talk distinguishes material-return theories, rejects reincarnation, and affirms a spiritual next world.
- Bahá’í Reference Library, Some Answered Questions publication overview — Official overview dates the ‘Akká table talks to 1904–06, first publication to 1908, and extensively retranslated English edition to 2014.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.