Within the dualistic realism of Sāṃkhya, karma is understood as a process that belongs wholly to Prakṛti, never to Puruṣa. Actions, their latent impressions (saṃskāras), and their results unfold within the subtle body (liṅga-śarīra or sūkṣma-śarīra), composed of intellect (buddhi), ego (ahaṃkāra), mind (manas), and the subtle elements. Puruṣa, as pure consciousness, is described as inactive, unchanging, and merely the witness of these processes. The appearance that Puruṣa acts or enjoys the fruits of action arises only through its association with Prakṛti and the body–mind complex. Thus, karma is not an attribute of the Self, but a feature of nature’s own transformations.

Karma operates by shaping the unfolding of Prakṛti through the three guṇas—sattva, rajas, and tamas—and by determining the forms and experiences that the subtle body will take on in successive births. The karmic impressions carried in the subtle body condition future embodiments and circumstances, sustaining the cycle of saṃsāra. Because of ignorance and misidentification, the activities and sufferings of Prakṛti are ascribed “as if” to Puruṣa, giving rise to the sense of being a doer and experiencer. In this way, karma becomes the mechanism by which bondage is maintained, even though the witnessing consciousness itself remains untouched.

From a more practical and ethical perspective, Sāṃkhya links karma with the qualitative refinement or coarsening of the inner instrument. Sāttvic actions purify and clarify the intellect, making discriminative knowledge (viveka) more likely, whereas rājasic and tāmasic tendencies bind more strongly through restlessness, attachment, dullness, and suffering. Ethical discipline and mental purification are therefore significant, not because they alter Puruṣa, but because they transform the subtle body in which karmic forces operate. As the inner instrument becomes more transparent, the distinction between Puruṣa and Prakṛti can be seen more clearly.

Liberation (kaivalya or mokṣa) in Sāṃkhya is described as the culmination of discriminative knowledge that firmly recognizes Puruṣa as distinct from all modifications of Prakṛti. When this clear discernment arises, new karma no longer binds, since there is no longer a mistaken doer to whom it can adhere. The already-begun karma associated with the existing embodiment simply continues until its momentum is exhausted, while Puruṣa remains the unaffected witness. At that point, the apparent entanglement between consciousness and nature falls away, and karma, though still a law within Prakṛti, loses all power to obscure the ever-free reality of Puruṣa.