“It is intention that I call deeds.” If karma is intention, and intention is itself conditioned, is anyone free? The Buddha denied that everything is caused by past deeds, compared karma to salt in a cup and salt in a river, and refused to say whether the one who acts is the one who reaps. This lesson sets his answer beside the Stoic Chrysippus’ rolling cylinder, Kant’s two standpoints, and Galen Strawson’s argument that no one can be ultimately responsible. 「我說思就是業。」如果業就是思（意志），而思本身又是被條件決定的，那有沒有人是自由的？佛陀否認一切都由過去的業所造成；他把業比作一杯水裡的鹽與一條河裡的鹽；他也拒絕說造業的人與受報的人是不是同一個人。這一課把他的答案，與斯多噶學派克呂西波斯的滾動圓柱、康德的兩種觀點，以及蓋倫・斯特勞森「沒有人能負終極責任」的論證並列。
D17 Dharma and the West · 佛法與西方哲學Ethics and Practice · 倫理與修行Advanced · 高級about 30 min
Closest: Chrysippus, who held that every event is caused and still placed the course of an action in the character of the one who acts, as a cylinder rolls by its own shape once it is pushed. The Buddha’s teaching shares that structure. Karma is a condition and does not settle the outcome alone, and what a deed yields depends on who has become what. The likeness ends at two points. The Stoics believed in one rational fate that orders the whole cosmos, and the Buddha denied any creator or ruling order. And the Buddhist account has no lasting self to own the character, only a series that can be trained, and that training is the point of the teaching.
中文翻譯Every paragraph has a Chinese translation. Tap 中譯▾ under a paragraph to open that one, or use Show Chinese · 顯示中譯 at the top to open them all.每一段都有中譯：點段落下方的「中譯」只開那一段，或按上方的「顯示中譯」一次全部打開。
1 · What the Dharma says · 佛法怎麼說
Intention, conditions, and the river 思、條件，與河
The Buddha changed the meaning of karma. In the religion around him the word meant ritual action, the correct performance of a sacrifice. He made it a matter of the mind. In Bhikkhu Sujato’s translation he said, “It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind” (Aṅguttara Nikāya 6.63). The Treasury of Abhidharma puts this in a verse: “The variety of the world is born of action, which is intention and what intention produces.” Its commentary adds a point the Western debate usually takes for granted: the world’s variety is “not produced by a single lord who first had the thought, but arises from the differences in beings’ actions.” There is no God here whose plan might compete with human choice.
The Buddha also denied that karma explains everything. When the wanderer Sīvaka repeats the view that “everything this individual person experiences … is because of past deeds,” the Buddha lists eight sources of feeling: bile, phlegm, wind, their combination, change in weather, “not taking care of yourself, exertion, and the result of deeds is the eighth” (Saṁyutta Nikāya 36.21). Those who blame every experience on past deeds, he said, “go beyond personal experience and beyond what is generally deemed to be true.” Karma is one condition among many. And even where it works, it does not work like a fixed sentence. “Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into a mug of water. Would that mug of water become salty and undrinkable?” Yes. “Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into the Ganges River.” No, “because the Ganges River is a vast mass of water” (Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.100). The same small wrong deed can lead one person to hell and pass almost unnoticed in another, who has developed ethics, mind, and wisdom. The result depends on who has become what.
This raises the question the previous lesson left open. If every moment perishes, who receives the result of a deed? A brahmin asked exactly this: “Are he who does the deed and he who experiences the result one and the same?” The Buddha answered that saying they are the same is one extreme, and saying they are different is the other extreme. “Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way,” and he went on to recite dependent origination, beginning, in Sujato’s rendering, “Ignorance is a requirement for choices” (Saṁyutta Nikāya 12.46). There is no lasting agent who acts and then waits for the bill. There is a causal series in which intentions shape what comes next, including the next intentions. The series is the continuity, and the Buddha would not reduce it to either sameness or difference.
The cylinder, the two standpoints, the impossible self 圓柱、兩種觀點，與不可能的自我
Fate and character · 命運與品格
Chrysippus 克呂西波斯c. 240 BCE
The Stoic Chrysippus held that everything happens by fate, “an orderly series, established by nature, of all events, following one another and joined together from eternity.” His critics said that this made punishment unjust. His reply survives in Aulus Gellius, in J. C. Rolfe’s translation: “If you roll a cylindrical stone over a sloping, steep piece of ground, you do indeed furnish the beginning and cause of its rapid descent.” After that it speeds on “not because you make it do so, but because of its peculiar form and natural tendency to roll.” Fate supplies the push, and the shape of one’s mind decides the course. A well-formed mind meets the same pressure “with little opposition and little difficulty,” while a crude one falls into fault even under slight pressure. This is very close to the salt and the river. In both, the same outside condition yields different results depending on the character it meets. The difference is that for Chrysippus fate is the rational order of a divine cosmos, and the Buddha denied any such order.
斯多噶學派的克呂西波斯主張：一切都依命運而發生；命運是「一個由自然建立的、所有事件的有序系列，彼此相隨，自永恆以來就連結在一起」。他的批評者說：這使得懲罰變得不公正。他的回答保存在格利烏斯的書裡，J. C. Rolfe 的英譯是：「如果你讓一個圓柱形的石頭從陡峭的斜坡上滾下去，你確實提供了它快速下滑的開端與原因；但它很快就自己往前衝，不是因為你使它這樣，而是因為它特有的形狀與天生滾動的傾向。」命運提供那一推；心的形狀決定路線。一顆成形良好的心，面對同樣的壓力，「阻力很小、困難很少」；一顆粗糙的心，即使壓力很輕，也會落入過失。這非常接近鹽與河。在兩者之中，同一個外在條件，依它所遇到的品格而產生不同的結果。差別在於：對克呂西波斯來說，命運是一個神聖宇宙的理性秩序；而佛陀否認任何這樣的秩序。
Kant accepted that every event in nature has a cause, and he still held that a rational being must regard itself as free. His solution was to distinguish two points of view. In T. K. Abbott’s translation of the Groundwork, a rational being “has two points of view from which he can regard himself.” As part of the world of sense, it is “subject to laws of nature.” As a member of the intelligible world, it acts under laws that “have their foundation not in experience but in reason alone.” This resembles the Buddhist two truths applied to action. At one level everything is conditioned, and at another we speak of agents who choose and are responsible. The difference is where the freedom lives. Kant placed it in a self beyond experience that we cannot know but must assume. The Buddha denied any such self. For him the language of the responsible agent is conventional truth, and it is reliable and needed, because it describes a causal series that can be changed. It does not point to a free self standing behind the series.
康德接受自然中的每一個事件都有原因；他仍然主張：一個理性的存有者，必須把自己看成自由的。他的解決是區分兩種觀點。在 T. K. Abbott 翻譯的《道德形上學的基礎》裡，一個理性的存有者「有兩種觀點，可以用來看待自己」。作為感官世界的一部分，它「服從自然的法則」。作為知性世界的一員，它在一些法則之下行動，這些法則「不以經驗為根據，而只以理性為根據」。這很像佛教的二諦用在行為上：在一個層次上，一切都是被條件決定的；在另一個層次上，我們談論會選擇、要負責的行為者。差別在於自由住在哪裡。康德把它放在一個超出經驗的自我裡：我們無法認識它，卻必須預設它。佛陀否認任何這樣的自我。對他來說，「負責任的行為者」這種說法是世俗諦；它可靠而且必要，因為它描述了一個可以被改變的因果相續。它並沒有指向一個站在相續背後的自由自我。
No ultimate responsibility · 沒有終極責任
Galen Strawson 蓋倫・斯特勞森1994
The British philosopher Galen Strawson, son of the P. F. Strawson discussed in the lesson on free will, gave a short argument that he called the Basic Argument. You do what you do because of the way you are. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you would have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are. But to make yourself the way you are, you would already have to be some way, with preferences that guided the making, and you would have to be responsible for those too. The regress never ends, so no one can be ultimately responsible for anything, whether or not determinism is true. A Buddhist can accept almost all of this. There is no self that creates itself, and the Buddha’s account of conditions says much the same. The difference is in what follows. Strawson concluded that deep desert, the idea that people truly deserve heaven or hell, makes no sense. The Buddhist tradition kept karma, and dropped the self that would have to deserve its results. Results follow from intentions as fruit follows a seed. Nobody is sentenced. The practical question is never whether one deserves one’s past, only what to plant now.
英國哲學家蓋倫・斯特勞森（講自由意志那一課談到的 P. F. 斯特勞森之子），提出了一個他稱為「基本論證」的簡短論證。你做你所做的，是因為你是你這個樣子。要對你所做的負終極責任，你就必須對你是你這個樣子負終極責任。但要把自己造成這個樣子，你必須已經是某個樣子，帶著一些引導這個塑造的偏好；而你也必須對那些負責。這個後退永遠不會結束；所以沒有人能對任何事負終極責任，不論決定論是不是真的。一個佛教徒幾乎可以接受這一切。沒有一個創造自己的自我；佛陀對條件的說明，說的也差不多是這個。差別在於接下來的結論。斯特勞森的結論是：深層的「應得」，也就是「人真的應該上天堂或下地獄」這個觀念，是說不通的。佛教傳統保留了業，而丟掉了那個必須「應得」其結果的自我。結果從意志生出，就像果實從種子長出。沒有人被判刑。實際的問題從來不是自己是否應得自己的過去，而只是：現在要種什麼。
4 · Verdict · 判定
Who is closest, and where the likeness ends 誰最接近，相似到哪裡為止
The closest is Chrysippus. Both accept that everything is caused and still find room for responsibility in the character that meets each cause. The cylinder and the river make the same point with different images. Kant is closest on the two levels of description, and Galen Strawson is closest in denying a self that could create itself. In the language of the lesson on free will, the Buddha’s position is a form of compatibilism. Causation and responsible action fit together, and nothing in it depends on an uncaused will.
The likeness ends at two points. The first is the cosmos. The Stoics trusted a rational fate, and Kant needed God and an immortal soul as postulates of morality. The Buddha’s world has neither. Karma is “not produced by a single lord,” and no plan stands behind it. The second is the aim. Western compatibilists want to show that praise and blame are justified. The Buddha wanted to show that change is possible, that a mug can become a river. His teaching on karma is mainly addressed to the person who acts, and it tells that person to train, more than it tells anyone how to judge others. The tradition’s practical summary is a reflection that everyone, lay or ordained, “should often review”: “I am the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds” (Aṅguttara Nikāya 5.57). It is a vow to take care with what one plants, and it makes no verdict on anyone’s past.
Present intention and one’s development當下的思，與自己的修養
Nothing now; it was already fixed現在什麼都不能；早已決定
The shape of one’s mind心的形狀
Reason, from the intelligible standpoint理性，從知性的觀點
The way one already is自己原本的樣子
Is there a self behind the will?意志背後有一個自我嗎？
No, only a series沒有；只有相續
Usually a soul carrying its deeds通常是一個背負業的靈魂
A rational soul, part of the cosmos一個理性的靈魂，宇宙的一部分
Yes, but unknowable有，但不可知
Not one that could create itself沒有一個能創造自己的自我
Is anyone truly deserving?有人真的「應得」嗎？
The question is set aside; results follow intentions這個問題被擱下；結果隨意志而來
Yes, and nothing can be done是，而且什麼也不能做
Yes, punishment is just是；懲罰是公正的
Yes, through free reason是；透過自由的理性
No, never ultimately不；永遠不是終極地
Purpose目的
To show that change is possible and to train顯示改變是可能的，然後去修
Ascetic endurance of past deeds以苦行承受過去的業
To live in agreement with nature與自然一致地生活
To ground morality為道德奠基
To think clearly about responsibility把責任想清楚
5 · The step the Dharma takes further · 佛法多走的一步
From a ledger to a practice 從帳簿到修行
The first further step is that the Buddha took karma out of the accounting room. Western discussions of free will usually begin with blame. Can we punish someone whose act was caused? Popular Western ideas of karma make it a moral ledger, in which every wrong is recorded and repaid. The suttas resist both pictures. The question that interested the Buddha was not whether the past deserves punishment, but how a person can stop producing suffering. The salt and the river put the weight on the present. A person who develops ethics, mind, and wisdom becomes a river, and the same old deed lands differently. This is why the teaching on karma belongs with meditation and ethics and does not stand alone as a theory of justice. Karma explains why practice works.
The second step concerns the one who acts. Galen Strawson showed that no self can create itself, and he concluded that ultimate desert is impossible. Many Western readers find that conclusion bleak, as if it took the meaning out of effort. The Buddhist response is that effort never needed a self-made self. It needs only that intention conditions what comes next, and the suttas say it does. Removing the self also removes something that makes karma heavy, the sense that I am a fixed person who must pay. What remains is a series that can learn. For a teacher this is the most useful thing to say about karma to a Western student: it is not a verdict on who you are. It is a description of how you are becoming, and you have a hand in it.
Many Westerners hear “karma” as cosmic payback, and some hear it as a way of blaming victims. Correct both at once with three short texts. First, the Buddha defined karma as intention, so it is about the mind, not about luck. Second, he listed eight causes of illness and made karma only one of them, so it is wrong to blame anyone’s suffering on their past lives. Third, tell the story of the salt. It turns karma from a sentence into a process, and it puts the weight on what a person does now. If the audience knows the free will debate, add that the Buddha’s position is a kind of compatibilism without a soul and without a God, and that Chrysippus’ cylinder is the nearest Western image.
The Buddha said, “It is intention that I call deeds.” Karma is about the mind.
佛陀說：「我說思就是業。」業關於的是心。
He listed eight causes of what we feel, and past deeds were only one of them.
他列出了我們所感受的八種原因；過去的業只是其中之一。
A lump of salt makes a cup undrinkable, but not the Ganges. The same deed lands differently on different people.
一塊鹽會使一杯水不能喝，卻不會使恆河不能喝。同一個行為，落在不同的人身上就不一樣。
Karma is not a sentence. It is a process that present intention can redirect.
業不是一份判決。它是一個當下的意志可以改變方向的過程。
Asked whether the one who acts is the one who reaps, the Buddha said neither “the same” nor “another.”
被問到造業的人是不是受報的人，佛陀既不說「同一個」，也不說「另一個」。
It is not a verdict on who you are. It describes how you are becoming, and you have a hand in it.
它不是一份關於你是誰的判決。它描述你正在怎麼變成，而你參與其中。
Phrases to avoid 要避開的說法
“Everything that happens to you is your karma.” 「發生在你身上的一切都是你的業。」
The Buddha rejected this view by name. Karma is one condition among eight.
佛陀點名否定了這個見解。業是八個條件之一。
“They must have done something in a past life to deserve it.” 「他們一定是前世做了什麼，才活該如此。」
This goes beyond what anyone can know, and it blames the suffering.
這越過了任何人所能知道的，而且是在責怪受苦的人。
“Karma means we have free will.” 「業表示我們有自由意志。」
Intention is itself conditioned. The claim is that conditioned beings can change.
思本身也是被條件決定的。主張的是：被條件決定的眾生能夠改變。
“Karma is cosmic justice.” 「業是宇宙的正義。」
No judge stands behind it. It works more like a seed and its fruit.
它背後沒有法官。它比較像種子與果實。
Three languages · 三語對照
The vocabulary, in Chinese, Pāli, Sanskrit, and English 術語：中文、巴利文、梵文、英文
中文
Pāli
Sanskrit
English
業
kamma
karman
action; deed
思
cetanā
cetanā
intention; volition
業果・異熟
vipāka
vipāka
the ripening of action; result
思業・思已業
—
cetanā-karman, cetayitvā-karman
intention, and the action that follows it
宿作因論
pubbekatahetu
—
the view that everything is due to past deeds
相續
santati
santāna
the series; the continuum
中道
majjhimā paṭipadā
madhyamā pratipad
the middle way
緣起
paṭiccasamuppāda
pratītyasamutpāda
dependent origination
相容論
—
—
compatibilism
應得
—
—
desert; deserving
Reading check · 理解測驗
Did it land? 讀懂了嗎
1. How did the Buddha define karma in Aṅguttara Nikāya 6.63?
2. What is the point of the eight sources of feeling in Saṁyutta Nikāya 36.21?
3. What does the salt in the Ganges show?
4. What does Chrysippus’ cylinder illustrate?
5. How does the Buddhist response to Galen Strawson differ from his own conclusion?
Write · 你怎麼講？
Recall a habit you changed. Describe it in the language of conditions: what pushed you, what in your character set the course, and what you did to change the shape of the cylinder. About 150 words.
