Krishna Explains the Five Causes of Action

Introduction — why five causes?

Classical Hindu texts do not present a single uniform doctrine called “the five causes of action,” but many schools and scriptures analyse action (karma) by breaking down what brings any deed into being. One useful and widely found heuristic speaks of five proximate causes — the actor, the will, the intellect/skill, the instruments, and the surrounding condition. Reading Krishna’s teaching in the Bhagavad Gītā alongside Purāṇic and darśana literature makes this fivefold picture both practical and metaphysical: it helps explain how choice and character meet bodily means and world-situation to produce results.

The five proximate causes (concise list)

• Kartā — the agent or doer (who acts)
• Sankalpa — intention, will or resolution (why one acts)
• Buddhi/*vidyā* — intellect, knowledge, skill (how wisely one acts)
• Karmendriyas — organs and instruments (with what one acts)
• Prakṛti/*saṃskāra* — circumstances, nature and past impressions (the context that enables or constrains action)

1. Kartā — the agent (who)

Kartā normally refers to the immediate doer: the embodied person whose mind and body produce action. In the Bhagavad Gītā Krishna repeatedly addresses Arjuna as the agent who must decide and act; yet Krishna also teaches that the modes of nature (the guṇas) operate on the body-mind so that “ prakṛti-sthāni bhūtāni” (the entities established in nature) do actions and the soul mistakenly claims authorship. Some commentators (for example later Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva exegetes) distinguish proximate agency — the human ego/agent — from ultimate agency, where God or Śakti is the supreme cause.

2. Sankalpa — intention or will (why)

Sankalpa is the felt resolve or desire that directs action. Classical texts and commentators insist that intention shapes moral responsibility: two physically identical acts differ ethically if intention differs. Krishna’s ethical teaching of karma-yoga (selfless action) emphasises disinterested intention — acting without attachment to the fruit — even while encouraging firm resolve. Different schools stress intention’s primacy (Mīmāṃsā on ritual correctness; many bhakti traditions on loving motive).

3. Buddhi/vidyā — intellect, discernment and skill (how)

Buddhi — intelligence, discrimination and technical skill — converts will into effective action. The Gītā links right discrimination (buddhi) with steady action: a clear intellect reduces error, improves timing and selects appropriate means. In practical contexts this includes ethical learning, technical competence and situational judgement. Traditions differ about how much buddhi is natural and how much is cultivated through śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana (study, reflection, meditation).

4. Karmendriyas — organs and instruments (with what)

Classical Indian theory distinguishes knowledge-sense organs (jñānendriyas) from action-organs (karmendriyas such as hands, speech, legs) and internal faculties (mind, prāṇa). Action requires organs to be operative. Krishna’s battlefield counsel implicitly acknowledges this: Arjuna’s chariot, weapons and body are part of the causal chain. In ritual settings the right instrument, place, and performance — physical means — matter to whether an action succeeds.

5. Prakṛti/saṃskāra — circumstances, nature and past impressions

“Circumstances” brings together several classical ideas: the material and social environment, the play of the three guṇas (sattva, rajas, tamas), and the actor’s stored inclinations or saṃskāras (habitual impressions). The Gītā often stresses that the modes of nature condition behaviour; other texts emphasise how past actions shape present opportunities (prārabdha karma). For practical ethics this invites attention to reforming one’s environment and habits, not only changing isolated acts.

Krishna’s perspective: proximate causes and the ultimate cause

Krishna in the Gītā balances proximate agency with divine sovereignty. He instructs Arjuna to act with courage and right understanding while also explaining that the cosmic order operates through nature’s modes. One famous verse (Gītā 3.27) notes that the embodied modes perform action, yet the self wrongly claims doership. Elsewhere Krishna (Gītā 18.61) speaks of the Lord who dwells in beings, guiding them. Traditions read these sayings differently: some read them as shaping a theology of God as ultimate cause, others as metaphysical analyses of ignorance and freedom.

How different traditions read the five causes

• Advaita Vedānta often treats the individual agent as ultimately illusory; action is analysed as part of māyā and ignorance, and liberation involves negating the agenthood bound to karma.
• Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva schools tend to keep the reality of the individual while assigning a supreme role to God or Śakti as the ultimate cause; they emphasise devotion or grace acting on the other causes.
• Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya focus on proximate causes for ritual efficacy and logical responsibility, paying close attention to intention, instrumentality and correct procedure.

Practical implications

• Ethical responsibility: attention to intention (sankalpa) matters as much as outward deed.
• Skill and discipline: cultivating buddhi and refining the instruments (training, craft) makes action effective and less harmful.
• Environment and habit: changing circumstances and saṃskāras is part of transforming conduct; spiritual practice often works on all five causes together.

Conclusion — a balanced view

Reading “Krishna explains the five causes of action” is best approached as an interpretive synthesis rather than a single verse. The Gītā and related texts encourage attention to the proximate causes of action — the actor, intention, knowledge, instruments and circumstances — while also pointing to a deeper metaphysical ordering in which God, nature or ignorance play an ultimate role. Different sampradāyas frame these relations in varied ways; the practical teaching that emerges across them is sober: act with clarity, discipline and ethically informed intent, recognising both your agency and the larger conditions that enable or limit it.