The three classes of karma
Classical Vedānta — and the Advaita reading the modern non-dual lineage works from — divides *karma* into three operationally distinct classes. Sañcita karma is the accumulated store: the karmic residues of past lives held in the *jīva*'s causal body and awaiting future fructification. Āgāmin karma is the karma being newly generated by the present life's actions, accumulating into the same causal-body store that will condition future lives. Prārabdha karma — from the Sanskrit pra-ārabh, to begin — is the portion of the sañcita store that has already been set in motion in the present life: the karmic trajectory that has produced the present body, the present biography, the present field of conditions the apparent individual is operating inside. The doctrinal point of the three-way split is that the three classes are not on the same footing under the analysis of liberation. Recognition dissolves the sañcita (there is no longer a separate self to whose causal body the residues belong); recognition prevents the further accumulation of āgāmin (there is no longer a separate doer believed to be acting); but the prārabdha — already in motion before the moment of recognition — continues to play itself out until exhausted. The classical metaphor the *jīvanmukti* literature uses is the potter's wheel: once the wheel has been set spinning, removing the hand that started it does not stop the wheel; the residual momentum runs out on its own.
Why the doctrine matters at the moment of recognition
The prārabdha analysis is the Advaita Vedānta school's reply to a question the path-traditions disagree about: when is liberation reachable? The strict Sāṃkhya and Mīmāṃsā positions — and several Buddhist schools in their classical formulations — treat liberation as available only at the body's final dissolution: the karmic momentum of the present lifetime must run out before the realised one is fully released. The *jīvanmukti* doctrine — liberation while living — rests on the prārabdha claim that the body's continued unfolding is no obstacle to recognition because recognition is not an event that happens to the apparent individual but the seeing-through of the assumption that there was a separate one in the first place. The realised one, from the outside, looks much like anyone else: the body still ages, the biography still unfolds, the apparent personality may continue with its recognisable habits and idiosyncrasies. What has changed is the absence, on the inside, of any felt observer to whom the unfolding is happening. Nisargadatta Maharaj's *I Am That* is the closest verbatim English-language record of the prārabdha doctrine pressed past its theoretical interest — half a decade of daily satsang in which questioner after questioner is helped to see that the body's continued existence and the karmic trajectory that produced it are not threatened by, and do not threaten, the recognition the dialogues are pointing at. Rupert Spira's long-form *How the Infinite Knows the Finite* and *Being Aware of Being Aware* carry the same analysis in philosophically careful English: the recognition is structural, the prārabdha of the apparent personality continues, and the two are no longer in tension. Adyashanti's *Do Nothing* treats the question Zen-inflectedly: the felt sense that some further event has to happen for liberation to complete is itself one of the āgāmin-generating activities that recognition undoes. Mooji's satsangs at Monte Sahaja field the prārabdha question in the Ramana-Papaji idiom — who is asking what will happen to the body? is the diagnostic move.
Where it shows up in practice
The doctrine is not only of theoretical interest. It is the structural account the non-dual lineage gives of what the recognised one's life looks like from inside. The body's signals continue to arrive. Hunger arrives, fatigue arrives, the *abhiniveśa* flinch at imminent injury continues to function as the body's pre-cognitive self-protection. The biography continues to be the biography the prārabdha trajectory has set in motion: the relationships the apparent personality has been embedded in, the temperamental habits the body-mind has developed, the cultural and linguistic medium the personality has been formed inside. The prārabdha analysis says that none of this is a problem and none of it requires undoing for recognition to be what it is. Ramana Maharshi's life on the slope of Arunachala from the death-experience at sixteen until the *mahāsamādhi* at seventy is the prārabdha doctrine's textbook case: the recognition did not interrupt the body's continued unfolding, did not dictate the body's trajectory, and the trajectory the prārabdha karma was enacting ran its course in the same physical register any unrecognised body would have.
What it isn't
Prārabdha is not fate in the popular Western sense. The Indian analysis does not assert a script the apparent individual is helpless to alter; it asserts a karmic momentum that has been set in motion and will run its course, the moral content of which is determined by past action rather than by any external authority's design. Within the prārabdha trajectory the apparent individual continues to act and continues to generate āgāmin karma; what the doctrine refuses is the picture in which the present biography could be different by simple wish. The doctrine is also not synonymous with the contemporary Western usage of *karma* as a freestanding metaphysical principle of cosmic justice. The Vedāntic analysis is internal to a particular cosmological and soteriological architecture; lifted out of that architecture, prārabdha loses the structural place it has and becomes the kind of generic what goes around comes around claim the original analysis is more careful than. Finally, the doctrine is not the Buddhist reading. The Buddhist analysis works through the *anattā* lens — what is reborn is not a self because there is no self — and the three-class taxonomy the Vedāntic literature stabilises around does not have a direct Buddhist counterpart. The traditions converge on the operational question — what is the relationship between recognition and the residual karmic momentum of the present body? — and diverge on the technical apparatus through which the question is answered.
— end of entry —