Karma means action — that is the whole of the word. Everything else in the doctrine is a claim about what happens to actions after they are done. The tradition's answer is that they do not simply end: they leave a residue, the residue accumulates, and a portion of it becomes the situation you are currently in. The distinction between the three kinds is what keeps this from collapsing into fatalism.
⚙️ Karma at a Glance
The word: karma — action; from the root kṛi, to do
Earliest statement: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5
Sanchita: the whole accumulated store
Prarabdha: the portion now bearing fruit — this life
Kriyamana / Agami: what is being made now, and its future fruit
What ends it: knowledge, on the Vedantic account; the Gita adds a way of acting
📑 Table of Contents
📜 Where the Doctrine Is First Stated
As a man acts, so he becomes. The doer of good becomes good; the doer of evil becomes evil. He becomes pure by pure deeds and evil by evil deeds. Others say: a person is made of desire. As his desire, so his resolve; as his resolve, so the deed he does; as the deed he does, so is what he attains.
📌 The chain in that passage
Desire → resolve → action → result. The doctrine is not primarily about reward and punishment; it is about continuity of character. The passage says a person becomes what he does. The result is downstream of the desire, and the desire is where the tradition later concentrates its attention — which is exactly what the Gita picks up.
3️⃣ The Three Kinds
| Kind | What it is | Can it be changed? |
|---|---|---|
| Sanchita accumulated | The entire store of karma from all past lives, not yet fruiting | Destroyed by knowledge, on the Vedantic account; otherwise waits |
| Prarabdha begun | The portion that has already begun to bear fruit — the body, circumstances and broad conditions of this life | No — it is already in flight; it must be lived through |
| Kriyamana being made | What is being generated by present action | Entirely — this is where freedom operates |
| Agami coming | The future fruit of present action; often treated as the forward-facing aspect of kriyamana | Determined by present choice |
💡 The archer analogy
The standard illustration: sanchita is the quiver of arrows; prarabdha is the arrow already released, which cannot be recalled; and kriyamana is the arrow being fitted to the string now. All three are yours. Only one is still in your hand.
🔓 Why Karma Is Not Fate
📌 The distinction that does the work
Fatalism says the outcome is fixed and effort is pointless. The karma doctrine says the situation is given and the response is not. Prarabdha supplies the circumstances; kriyamana is generated by what is done in them. A doctrine in which present action creates future condition is the opposite of one in which nothing can be changed.
The Yoga Sutras state the practical consequence at 2.16: heyaṁ duḥkham anāgatam — the suffering that has not yet come is what is to be avoided. Not the past. What has not happened.
What the doctrine should not be used for. Two misuses are common and both are contradicted by the texts:
- Explaining another person's suffering. No one has access to another's sanchita. Using karma to account for someone else's misfortune is a claim about information nobody has, and the tradition's own instruction — that seeing suffering calls for karuna, and that the guest and the destitute are to be received — points the other way.
- Justifying inaction. The Gita's entire occasion is a man proposing to withdraw from action, and the answer occupies eighteen chapters. Chapter 3 states that no one remains even for a moment without acting.
🗡️ What the Gita Adds
The Gita's contribution is not a new mechanism but a way of acting that stops generating residue.
karmaṇy evādhikāras te mā phaleṣhu kadāchana |
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te saṅgo'stv akarmaṇi ||
You have a right to action alone, never to its fruits. Let not the fruit of action be your motive; nor let there be in you any attachment to inaction.
💡 The two clauses matter equally
The verse is usually quoted for its first half. The second half — mā te saṅgo'stv akarmaṇi, nor let there be attachment to inaction — is what prevents the teaching from becoming quietism. Detachment from results is not permission to stop.
| Gita term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Nishkama karma | Action without desire for its fruit — which, on the doctrine, is action that does not bind |
| Karma yoga | Action itself as the discipline; skill in action, yogaḥ karmasu kauśhalam (2.50) |
| Karma / akarma / vikarma | Action, inaction and wrong action — 4.17 says even the wise are confused about these, and 4.18 gives the famous inversion: seeing inaction in action and action in inaction |
| Yajnartha karma | Action done as offering does not bind (3.9); action done otherwise does |
🔐 How It Ends
The three-kind scheme has a precise consequence for liberation, and the schools state it consistently:
| On the arising of knowledge | What happens |
|---|---|
| Sanchita | Destroyed — the whole accumulated store |
| Agami | No longer generated — actions of the liberated do not bind |
| Prarabdha | Continues until exhausted, which is why the liberated person's body persists |
📌 The potter's wheel
The standard image for prarabdha after liberation: a wheel spun by the potter continues turning after his hand is removed, until its momentum is spent. This is the tradition's explanation of jivanmukti — how someone can be liberated and still have a body, an illness, a history and a death. The knowledge does not undo what was already in motion.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
What are the three types of karma?
Sanchita — the whole accumulated store, not yet fruiting. Prarabdha — the portion already bearing fruit, this life's body and conditions, which cannot be recalled. Kriyamana — what present action is generating, which is entirely open (its future fruit sometimes called agami). The archer image: the quiver, the arrow already released, and the arrow being fitted to the string now.
Is karma the same as fate?
No — and the three-kind scheme exists to make the distinction. Fatalism says the outcome is fixed. The karma doctrine says the situation is given and the response is not: prarabdha supplies the circumstances, kriyamana is generated by what is done in them. Yoga Sutras 2.16 states the consequence — the suffering that has not yet come is what is to be avoided.
Where is karma first stated in scripture?
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5 — as a man acts, so he becomes; and, a person is made of desire: as his desire, so his resolve; as his resolve, so the deed; as the deed, so what he attains. The chain is desire → resolve → action → result, and the doctrine is about continuity of character rather than reward and punishment. It is presented as a teaching given privately.
What does the Gita add to the karma doctrine?
Not a new mechanism but a way of acting that stops generating residue. Gita 2.47 — a right to action alone, never its fruits; nor let there be in you any attachment to inaction. The second half is usually dropped, and it is what prevents quietism: detachment from results is not permission to stop. 3.9 adds that action done as offering does not bind.
What happens to karma at liberation?
Sanchita is destroyed, agami is no longer generated, and prarabdha continues until exhausted — which is why the liberated person's body persists. The image is the potter's wheel, still turning after the hand is removed. That is jivanmukti: liberated, and still with a body, an illness, a history and a death. The schools differ on the mechanism — knowledge in Advaita, the Lord's grace on surrender in the other two.
🙏 Conclusion
Karma just means action, and the doctrine is the claim that actions leave residue. Its structure is what makes it livable: the store is large, the portion now bearing fruit cannot be recalled, and the arrow currently on the string is entirely yours. The Gita's addition is a way of acting that stops adding to the store — and its safeguard, in the same verse, is that this is not permission to stop acting.