MN101 mentions Issaranimmānahetu (God Almighty’s creation)

The Watercooler
1

Hi :slightly_smiling_face:,

Today I was reading MN101 and came across this paragraph:

The Realized One deserves praise whether or whether not sentient beings experience pleasure and pain because of past deeds, or God Almighty’s creation(issaranimmānahetu), or circumstance and nature, or class of rebirth, or exertion in this life. Such is the doctrine of the Realized One. Saying this, the Realized One deserves praise on these ten legitimate grounds.

In this paragraph, the sutta states that Buddha states that these are legitimate grounds for praise of Realized One. That is, the following two are legitimate grounds for praise:

The Realized One deserves praise whether or whether not sentient beings experience pleasure and pain because of God Almighty’s creation.

Now, this kind of statement might be perplexing to many, mainly those who believe that there is no creation, neither a creator and who think Buddha taught that way.
I decided to share it so that others may think twice about it.

What are your thoughts about it?

  • If you were to repeat the teaching of MN101 would you too remember to state it as its stated or say that there is no creator, no creation, and neither this legitimate ground for praise. But doing so would contradict this sutta.
  • Or would you rather consider it stated in a speculative manner such that: “if there were the case that sentient beings experience pleasure and pain because of God Almighty’s creation” (eg.: without actually stating whether there is or is not but in case there is say it like that). But do you think Buddha would speak here in such speculative way and call the above “doctrine of the Realized One” and “legitimate ground”?
  • Or something else?

Personally, I have no issue with this sutta as I do believe in Bible, Creator and creation.

Finally, let’s check the Pali word issaranimmānahetu in dictionary:

Digital Pāḷi Dictionary
issaranimmānahetu
1. ind. due to god’s design; by creation of god almighty [issara + nimmāna + hetu]

And the words issara + nimmāna + hetu separately:

New Concise Pali English Dictionary
issara
adjective and masculine

  1. (adjective) in authority, empowered; in charge; powerful, rich
  2. (masculine) one in authority, with power; a lord, a king; a chief; a master
  3. the Lord; the supreme deity; a creator god
  4. (neuter) supremacy, kingship; royal power

PTS Pali English Dictionary
nimmāna

  1. (neuter) measuring; production, creation, work; issara-n-hetu caused by God
  2. (adjective) free from pride, humble

Digital Pāḷi Dictionary
hetu

  1. adj. because (of); by virtue (of) [√hi + *tu]
  2. masc. reason (for); cause (for); condition (for); sake (of) [√hi + *tu]
  3. ind. by means of; according to [√hi + *tu]
  4. ind. for; for the purpose (of); for the sake (of); lit. reason [√hi + *tu]
  5. masc. root-cause [√hi]

Thank you for reading!
And happy new year!

1 Like
2

Hi,

In this sutta the Buddha is recounting the various doctrines/beliefs of people and in each case the Buddha is praised as experiencing undefiled pleasure.

Note that each line begins with “If”, sace, and not “since”, for example. This indicates that each doctrine is a supposition, not a statement of fact.

Included in these doctrines/beliefs is a belief in an almighty god.
Again, this is not a definitive statement of the reality or truth of such a doctrine – it’s just presented as one among many in the sutta.
To pick this one out would be no different than picking out any of the others and stating them to be categorically true.

Also, you changed the translation by adding :“of”. This grammatically changes the import of the statement.

We’re free to believe what we wish, but trying to fit a doctrine of an almighty god as the creator of the cosmos into the teachings of the Buddha is not tenable.

SN15.3:
“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.
Anamataggoyaṁ, bhikkhave, saṁsāro.
No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving.
Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ taṇhāsaṁyojanānaṁ sandhāvataṁ saṁsarataṁ.

Pretty clear statements.

:pray:

3 Likes
3

Do you know who is Īśvara/Issara ‘God’ in the text?

4

AN 3.61 importantly provides context, here.

Having a quick browse, my reading finds the Buddha is saying here if a God causes happiness & suffering (pleasure & pain is incorrect translation) then this God must love the Buddha because the Buddha always dwells in undefiled happiness. Apart from this, the Buddha is actually not affirming any belief in a creator God. The Buddha reads to simply be praising himself (or showing off, a little). :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
5

Thank you for reply!

“of” hasn’t been added. Feel free to check the original sutta.

It might not be possible to define what an infinite concept “Almighty” exactly means. However, to completely state there there is no single creator or creation is not tenable either. For example, humans have created many things, even birds create nests. Humans have even managed to modify DNA. Surely, devas then can too accomplish that and do they not create items as well? And for those with more power, can they not form planets, such as we form many things?

Personally, I would expect for those who base their argument on Suttas to argue that creation happened over and over again rather than that there is no creation. Eg. there is the teaching of the aeon that is contracting and expanding.

The text states that word and no more in that particular sutta. If you are asking me personally, since I believe in Bible, I’d say there is one God Almighty. Suttas also mention Brahmas, Pajāpatī, Abhibhū but those use different words.

Thank you for the reference. I’ve read it, but the way I understand it is that the sutta is against a categorical exclamation of “everything this individual experiences is because of …”:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.’

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of God Almighty’s creation.’

There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—has no cause or reason.’

This can be seen in later paragraph which talk about people who believe in such a way that they no longer have enthusiasm, effort, idea what to do or not to do - which seems a very reasonable teaching.

Those who believe that God Almighty’s creative power is the most important thing have no enthusiasm, no effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done. Since they don’t actually find that there are things that should and should not be done, they’re unmindful and careless, and can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my second legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view.

6

Hi,

Regarding “of” I now see it in another phrase, so thanks. But it doesn’t change the essential point about there being no teaching of an Almighty God-Creater, in the Abrahamic sense, in the Nikāyas.

Also see AN3.61:
" Regarding this, I went up to the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that everything that is experienced is because of God Almighty’s creation, and I said to them: ‘Is it really true that this is the venerables’ view?’ And they answered, ‘Yes’. I said to them: ‘In that case, you might kill living creatures, steal, be unchaste; use speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical; be covetous, malicious, or have wrong view, all because of God Almighty’s creation.’

Those who believe that God Almighty’s creative power is the most important thing have no enthusiasm, no effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done. Since they don’t actually find that there are things that should and should not be done, they’re unmindful and careless, and can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my second legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view.

This is a metaphysical assumption that the Buddha teaches is not conducive to the ending of dukkha. People have been debating and arguing over this for millennia and there’s never been and end to it.
But there can be an end to dukkha. :slightly_smiling_face:

Also, those who believe in a supreme almighty God-Creator suddenly stop there when they’re ask about prior causes. When asked what the cause of God is they decline to answer, bypass the issue by saying “it’s unknowable” or assert that somehow God is the First Cause – which doesn’t solve the problem.

Again, this is not to say that people can’t choose to believe what they wish.
Just saying this doesn’t mesh with the Dhamma – except for the the unknowable part, which the Buddha asserted regarding saṁsāra.
But notice the Buddha doesn’t add any metaphysical assumptions after this assertion.

It’s not saying that there hasn’t been creation in the sense of experiences and various processes called beings.
But your assertion is putting a metaphysical First Cause Creator Almighty God into the mix and it isn’t what the Buddha taught.

And what’s your response to:

Again, sending you best wishes! :pray:

7

Yes, I’ve commented on this point above. However, this refutation is only for those who lack enthusiasm, effort, idea what to do and what to no do, who are unmindful and careless. If there is God Almighty’s creative power that does not mean one gets a free ticket to do what they wish/be lazy/place all responsibility on them and hope they will be cared for.

I am not sure what is the argument with this sutta. Nevertheless, let’s analyze it. The first thing is to check the translation:

Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati
No first point is found …

Digital Pāḷi Dictionary
pubbā

  1. adj. before; previous; earlier; former
  2. adj. going before; been before
  3. adj. eastern
  4. masc. pus; suppuration [√pūy + a]
  5. fem. east

Digital Pāḷi Dictionary
koṭi

  1. card. ten million (10 000 000) [√kuṭ + *i]
  2. fem. point; end point [√kuṭ + *i]
  3. fem. top, summit [√kuṭ]

Based on the dictionary could we arrive at translation such as:

Before 10 000 000(years?) it is not clearly known … ?

Such translation would subtly change the meaning in the way that it would:

  • remove the categorical statement that it cannot be known
  • state that it is difficult to clearly know

Digital Pāḷi Dictionary
anamataggoyaṃ
sandhi. this (has) an inconceivable beginning [anamataggo + ayaṃ]

Anamataggoyaṁ, bhikkhave, saṁsāro.
“Mendicants, transmigration has an inconceivable beginning.

Regarding “anamataggoyaṃ” a different translation would too provide a subtle difference:

  • instead of no known beginning, it states it has an inconceivable beginning

That’s it for checking the translation. Placing the focus on what is common in both types of translations. Whether we say that “transmigration has no known beginning” or “transmigration has an inconceivable beginning”, in both cases we are affirming that “transmigration has a beginning”, right? (otherwise there would be no transmigration)

In Suttas there is the phrase that “whatever has beginning has an end”. (eg.: Arahants ended their transmigration)

Those who believe such generally believe that God is the prior cause for sentient beings( if transmigration has beginning & end, then there is most likely a prior cause ) and with regards to God - if God does not have beginning & end, prior cause would not apply, otherwise the correct answer for them to say is that they don’t know if they in fact don’t know or state what is their belief.
On other hand, the same argument can be made for all the sentient beings: what is the prior cause of sentient beings? And similarly you will not be able to answer other than: “Mendicants, transmigration has an inconceivable beginning.”

Another interesting question about transmigration would be whether the number of beings transmigrating is increasing or decreasing. If it were increasing - what would be the cause. However, we do know that is has a beginning - but an inconceivable/not-knowable beginning.

Best Wishes as well! :pray:

8

I think it says that people who believe all is the will of God, might tend to become fatalist. Not using vaccines, for example, because becoming ill or not, that is Gods will. It also really happens here in the Netherlands, not at large but there are people who see it like this.

I have difficulty with this. Meister Eckhart even goes that far that no person does ever have to wonder or doubt that if one becomes ill, for example, this is or is not the will of God. In some of his preaches he says that if is not the will of God it would not happen. I feel such is extreme. Like @Jasudho shows Buddha commented on this idea in AN3.61. In fact thinking this way there is no difference anymore between God and Devil?

By the way, many christians and even preachers here in the Netherland have left this image of God as a Superior Being on a Cloud or somewhere, behind.
I think for many people worshipping God is like buddhist do; worshipping what is pure, reliable, entirely wholesome, unmade, uncreated, making this the central focus in their lifes and trying to live that way. Abandoning evil, doing good and purifying their hearts.

Buddhist are inclined to make the mistake that Dhamma is about knowledge and vision but the suttas reject this. Dhamma is really about a totally pure heartedness, being empty, desireless, unbiased, pure, detached. The rest is all means.
But Buddhist are inclined to see the doctrine as the goal in stead of a means to a goal. Then all goes wrong.

9

Sorry, but the sutta states that “those who believe…have no enthusiasm, etc.” Not the other way around.
And the Buddha specifically rejects

Not just their responses to it.

All we know is that saṁsāra is experienced now.
The Buddha is sidestepping metaphysical rumination about beginnings and first causes, including by an Almighty Creator God.

All metaphysical speculation and belief. Not in the Buddha’s teachings.

No we don’t. What we know is conditional experiences and “external” reality, whatever it may be, are present.
No astrophysicist, for example, will assert a definitive beginning to the universe – even the initial singularity apparently present before the Big Bang is not cited as the “beginning” .
These again become metaphysical speculations – which folks are of course welcome to believe or not.

But these discussions, the Buddha said, are speculative and not conducive to the cessation of dukkha.
Again, the main point is that it appears you’re trying to fit an Abrahamic Creator God into the Dhamma teachings.

All best wishes!

10

I do not see what is there to disagree with the sutta state “Those who believe that God Almighty’s creative power is the most important thing have no enthusiasm, no effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done.” If a person believes in that (but not in the way this is the most important thing now there’s nothing else to do) but on other hand also has commandments such as “do not kill, do not steal, love, forgive, make effort to give up unskillful qualities” then such refutation does not at all applies to them. How could it? They are enthusiasm, produce effort and know what to do and not to do.

Okay you can state that you do not know. But you do believe that transmigration - or at least sentient beings exist right now as you have stated:

You also believe it has an end (eg. extinguishment in present life for Arahants)
If it did not however have a beginning that would mean that past of beings would be infinite.
I understand the SN15.3 such that it mentions that there is a beginning but it was so long ago it is inconceivable.
Buddha also makes a similie that a being transmigrating shed more tears then there is water in the oceans. It is clearly not an infinite similie.

PS: If one tried to use AI to estimate just how many years it would be - with a 1 liter of tears per year on average and the estimate of water in oceans the answer of AI was:
1 350 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years. That is clearly a long time.

11

The point is not that people who believe in an all-powerful god are necessarily unethical.
The point I’ve been sharing is that an unconditional Almighty Creator God is not in the Buddha’s teachings.

Maybe.
Again, the point is that these philosophical musings are not a skillful way to practice for the complete cessation of dukkha.
And that, the Buddha taught many times, is the purpose and goal of the Teachings.

:pray:

12

I think it’s cool that you’re finding sutta content to study further :grinning:

In MN101 (and AN3.61), isn’t the Buddha refuting the Jain (and potentially Ājīvika) doctrines that were circulating at the time? Like Jasudho said:

In Basham’s Doctrines of the Ājīvikas (1951), the author states:

Thus Śīlāṅka [a Jaina commentator] in his commentary to the Sūtrakṛtāṅga, quotes the arguments of the niyattivādins, who, although not expressly identified with them, must surely have been Ājīvikas.

“If happiness is experienced as a result of human activity there should be no difference in the reward (of equal exertion), nor should there be lack of reward when equal effort is exerted…”

…Śīlāṅka considers the theistic explanation from the Ājīvika point of view.

“Likewise happiness and grief do not come about through the agency of God…If [God] is formless, his inactivity must be greater than that of empty space…”

And so on and so forth.

Jayatilleke in Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (1963) notates the formula in Sanskrit as:

Īśvarakartṛke’pi sukhadukkhe ne bhavataḥ…

The formula in MN 101 and AN 3.61 is:

…paṭisaṁvedeti sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā sabbaṁ taṁ issaranimmānahetū

…“[whatever] is experienced as happiness or sorrow, or not-happiness or sorrow – all of this is caused by God Almighty’s creation”

Even in MN 101 the Buddha states he is refuting the doctrine of the Nigaṇṭhas, whom I believe were considered Jains. (I’d have to verify.) In any case, the Buddha’s must be re-stating the competing doctrines to say they are all false because they don’t generate right effort in any way (my take).

Just like you say:

All this gets to the point:

The Buddha seems to be refuting that doctrine because it was already circulating amongst people who called themselves true ascetics (i.e., the Jains). It doesn’t appear he was introducing a new concept:

issaranimmānahetū

That term was likely already in circulation.

By the way, Bhante Sujato has lots of great notes for MN101 that speak to the Jain doctrines.

13

To me, this reads as “Even if a God creates anything, they wouldn’t be able to behave in any way beyond the underlying conditionality”.

Even if assuming a god exists that creates things, neither the god nor his creations can behave in any way beyond the conditions that enable them. That’s what I read it as. :slight_smile:

The suttas are full of such dares and challenges concerning beings that fancy themselves creator gods.

1 Like
14

The Bible has ‘two’ one God Almighty, i.e. two major religions: Jewish God: Yahweh, and Chirstian God: Trinity. The Jewish God does not accept the Christian God.

I just checked the Chinese version, MA 19 of MN101. The corresponding term is not found in MA 19.

1 Like
15

I agree this is a way to read it, especially valid considering the pāli word sace. Bhante Sujato’s translation uses the English word “if” earlier in the sutta to correspond to sace but it makes more sense how he literally translates it here:

The Realized One deserves praise whether or whether not sentient beings experience pleasure and pain because of God Almighty’s creation.

There may be a typo with “whether or whether not” where it should be “whether or not”…I’ll submit in the Bless Our Heart thread.

That is, I think sace can be used in the sense of “whether or not” in English. Or “even if” per Dogen’s reading.

@thomaslaw I haven’t followed you sufficiently to know what conclusion this is supporting.

1 Like
16

DN1- Brahmajālasutta (The Net of Brahma) see 3.1.2 on how the belief in an Almighty Creator arises in the world.

Brahmanimantanikasutta MN49 The Invitation of a Brahma the Buddha confronts a Brahma that thought himself was the Almighty Creator.

DN11 Kevaḍḍha Sutta see 4. On the Mendicant in Search of the Cessation of Being, about a monk who approached the Great Divinity (Mahā Brahma) in search of Nibbāna.

1 Like
17

I refer to the term in MN101, issaranimmānahetū (‘the creative act of a supreme god’/ ‘God Almighty’s creation’; ‘主宰者的創造’ in the Chinese translation), is not found in its corresponding Chinese counterpart MA 19:

我聞如是：

一時，佛遊釋羇瘦，在天邑中。

爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「諸尼乾等如是見、如是說，謂人所受皆因本作，若其故業因苦行滅，不造新者，則諸業盡，諸業盡已，則得苦盡，得苦盡已，則得苦邊。我便往彼，到已，即問：『尼乾！汝等實如是見、如是說，謂人所受皆因本作，若其故業因苦行滅，不造新者，則諸業盡，諸業盡已，則得苦盡，得苦盡已，則得苦邊耶？』彼答我言：『如是。瞿曇！』我復問彼尼乾：『汝等自有淨智，我為本有，我為本無，我為本作惡，為不作惡，我為爾所苦盡，為爾所苦不盡，若盡已，便得盡，即於現世斷諸不善，得眾善法，修習作證耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』

「我復語彼尼乾：『汝等自無淨智，我為本有，我為本無，我為本作惡，為不作惡，我為爾所苦盡，為爾所苦不盡，若盡已，便得盡，即於現世斷諸不善，得眾善法，修習作證，而作是說，謂人所受皆因本作，若其故業因苦行滅，不造新者，則諸業盡，諸業盡已，則得苦盡，得苦盡已，則得苦邊。尼乾！若汝等自有淨智，我為本有，我為本無，我為本作惡，為不作惡，我為爾所苦盡，為爾所苦不盡，若盡已，便得盡，即於現世斷諸不善，得眾善法，修習作證。尼乾！汝等可得作是說，謂人所受皆因本作，若其故業因苦行滅，不造新者，則諸業盡，諸業盡已，則得苦盡，得苦盡已，則得苦邊。』

「尼乾！猶如有人身被毒箭，因被毒箭則生極苦，彼為親屬憐念愍傷，欲饒益安隱故，即呼拔箭金醫。箭金醫來，便以利刀而為開瘡，因開瘡時，復生極苦，既開瘡已，而求箭金，求箭金時，復生極苦，求得金已，即便拔出，因拔出時，復生極苦，拔金出已，薄瘡纏裹，因裹瘡時，復生極苦，彼於拔箭金後，得力無患，不壞諸根，平復如故。尼乾！彼人自有淨智，便作是念：『我本被毒箭，因被毒箭，則生極苦，我諸親屬見憐念愍傷，欲饒益安隱我故，即呼拔箭金醫，箭金醫來，便以利刀為我開瘡，因開瘡時，復生極苦，既開瘡已，而求箭金，求箭金時，復生極苦，求得金已，即便拔出，因拔出時，復生極苦，拔金出已，薄瘡纏裹，因裹瘡時，復生極苦，我於拔箭金後，得力無患，不壞諸根，平復如故。』

「如是，尼乾！若汝等自有淨智，我為本有，我為本無，我為本作惡，為不作惡，我為爾所苦盡，為爾所苦不盡，若盡已，便得盡，即於現世斷諸不善，得眾善法，修習作證。尼乾！汝等可得作是說，謂人所受皆因本作，若其故業因苦行滅，不造新者，則諸業盡，諸業盡已，則得苦盡，得苦盡已，則得苦邊，我問如是，不見諸尼乾能答我言：『瞿曇！如是，不如是。』

「復次，我問諸尼乾曰：『若諸尼乾有上斷、上苦行，爾時諸尼乾生上苦耶？』彼答我言：『如是。瞿曇！』『若有中斷、中苦行，爾時諸尼乾生中苦耶？』彼答我言：『如是，瞿曇！』『若有下斷、下苦行，爾時諸尼乾生下苦耶？』彼答我言：『如是，瞿曇！』是為諸尼乾有上斷、上苦行，爾時諸尼乾則生上苦；有中斷、中苦行，爾時諸尼乾則生中苦；有下斷、下苦行，爾時諸尼乾則生下苦。若使諸尼乾有上斷、上苦行，爾時諸尼乾止息上苦；有中斷、中苦行，爾時諸尼乾止息中苦；有下斷、下苦行，爾時諸尼乾止息下苦。若如是作、不如是作，止息極苦甚重苦者，當知諸尼乾即於現世作苦。但諸尼乾為癡所覆，為癡所纏，而作是說：『謂人所受皆因本作，若其故業因苦行滅，不造新者，則諸業盡，諸業盡已，則得苦盡，得苦盡已，則得苦邊。』我問如是，不見諸尼乾能答我言：『瞿曇！如是，不如是。』

「復次，我問諸尼乾曰：『諸尼乾！若有樂報業，彼業寧可因斷、因苦行，轉作苦報耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』『諸尼乾！若有苦報業，彼業寧可因斷、因苦行，轉作樂報耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』『諸尼乾！若有現法報業，彼業寧可因斷、因苦行，轉作後生報耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』『諸尼乾！若有後生報業，彼業寧可因斷、因苦行，轉作現法報耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』『諸尼乾！若有不熟報業，彼業寧可因斷、因苦行，轉作熟報耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』『諸尼乾！若有熟報業，彼業寧可因斷、因苦行，轉作異耶？』彼答我言：『不也。瞿曇！』『諸尼乾！是為樂報業，彼業不可因斷、因苦行，轉作苦報。諸尼乾！苦報業，彼業不可因斷、因苦行，轉作樂報。諸尼乾！現法報業，彼業不可因斷、因苦行，轉作後生報。諸尼乾！後生報業，彼業不可因斷、因苦行，轉作現法報。諸尼乾！不熟業，彼業不可因斷、因苦行，轉作熟報。諸尼乾！熟報業，彼業不可因斷、因苦行，轉作異者。以是故，諸尼乾！虛妄方便，空斷無獲。』

「彼諸尼乾便報我言：『瞿曇！我有尊師，名親子尼乾，作如是說：「諸尼乾！汝等若本作惡業，彼業皆可因此苦行而得滅盡，若今護身、口、意，因此不復更作惡業也。」』我復問彼諸尼乾曰：『汝等信尊師親子尼乾，不疑惑耶？』彼答我言：『瞿曇！我信尊師親子尼乾，無有疑惑。』我復語彼諸尼乾曰：『有五種法現世二報，信、樂、聞、念、見善觀，諸尼乾！人自有虛妄言，是可信、可樂、可聞、可念、可見善觀耶？』彼答我言：『如是。瞿曇！』我復語彼諸尼乾曰：『是虛妄言，何可信，何可樂，何可聞，何可念，何可善觀？謂人自有虛妄言，有信、有樂、有聞、有念、有善觀。』

「若諸尼乾作是說者，於如法中得五詰責，為可憎惡。云何為五？今此眾生所受苦樂皆因本作，若爾者，諸尼乾等本作惡業。所以者何？因彼故，諸尼乾於今受極重苦，是謂尼乾第一可憎惡。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因合會，若爾者，諸尼乾等本惡合會。所以者何？因彼故，諸尼乾於今受極重苦，是謂尼乾第二可憎惡。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因為命，若爾者，諸尼揵等本惡為命。所以者何？因彼故，諸尼乾於今受極重苦，是謂尼乾第三可憎惡。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因見也。若爾者，諸尼乾等本有惡見。所以者何？因彼故，諸尼乾於今受極重苦，是謂尼乾第四可憎惡。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因尊祐造，若爾者，諸尼乾等本惡尊祐。所以者何？因彼故，諸尼乾於今受極重苦，是謂尼乾第五可憎惡。若諸尼乾因本所作惡業、惡合會、惡為命、惡見、惡尊祐，為惡尊祐所造，因彼故，諸尼乾於今受極重苦，是謂因彼事故，諸尼乾等為可憎惡。

「我所自知、自覺法為汝說者，若沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵及餘世間皆無能伏，皆無能穢，皆無能制。云何我所自知、自覺法為汝說者，非為沙門、梵志，若天、魔、梵及餘世間所能伏、所能穢、所能制？若有比丘捨身不善業，修身善業，捨口、意不善業，修口、意善業，彼於未來苦，便自知我無未來苦，如法得樂而不棄捨。彼或欲斷苦因，行欲，或欲斷苦因，行捨欲，彼若欲斷苦因，行欲者，即修其行欲，已斷者，苦便得盡。彼若欲斷苦因，行捨欲者，即修其行捨欲，已斷者，苦便得盡。若彼比丘便作是念：『隨所為、隨所行，不善法生而善法滅，若自斷苦，不善法滅而善法生，我今寧可自斷其苦。』便自斷苦。自斷苦已，不善法滅而善法生，不復斷苦。所以者何？比丘！本所為者，其義已成，若復斷苦，是處不然。

「比丘！猶如箭工用檢撓箭，其箭已直，不復用檢。所以者何？彼人本所為者，其事已成，若復用檢，是處不然。如是，比丘便作是念：『隨所為、隨所行，不善法生而善法滅，若自斷苦，不善法滅而善法生，我今寧可自斷其苦。』便自斷苦。自斷苦已，不善法滅而善法生，不復斷苦。所以者何？本所為者，其義已成，若復斷苦，是處不然。比丘！猶如有人愛念、染著、敬待彼女，然彼女人更與他語，共相問訊，往來止宿，其人因是身心生苦惱，極憂慼耶？」

比丘答曰：「如是。世尊！所以者何？其人於女愛念、染著，極相敬待，而彼女人更與他語，共相問訊，往來止宿，其人身心何得不生苦惱憂慼？」

「比丘！若使其人而作是念：『我唐愛念、敬待彼女，然彼女人更與他語，共相問訊，往來止宿，我今寧可因自苦自憂故，斷為彼女愛念、染著耶？』其人於後因自苦自憂故，便斷為彼女愛念、染著。若彼女人故與他語，共相問訊，往來止宿，其人於後，身心寧當復生苦惱，極憂慼耶？」

比丘答曰：「不也。世尊！所以者何？其人於女無復愛念、染著之情，若彼女人故與他語，共相問訊，往來止宿，若使其人因此身心復生苦惱極憂慼者，是處不然。」

「如是，比丘便作是念：『隨所為、隨所行，不善法生而善法滅，若自斷其苦，不善法滅而善法生，我今寧可自斷其苦。』便自斷苦。自斷苦已，不善法滅而善法生，不復斷苦。所以者何？本所為者，其義已成，若復斷苦，是處不然。

「彼復作是念：『若有所因，斷其苦者，我便已斷，然我於欲猶故未斷，我今寧可求斷於欲。』便求斷欲。彼為斷欲故，獨住遠離，在無事處，或至樹下空安靜處，山巖石室、露地穰積，或至林中，或在塚間，彼已在無事處，或至樹下空安靜處，敷尼師檀，結加趺坐，正身正願，反念不向，斷除貪伺，心無有諍，見他財物諸生活具不起貪伺，欲令我得，彼於貪伺淨除其心。如是，瞋恚、睡眠、掉悔，斷疑、度惑，於諸善法無有猶豫，彼於疑惑淨除其心。

「彼已斷此五蓋、心穢、慧羸，離欲、離惡不善之法，至得第四禪成就遊。彼得如是定，心清淨，無穢無煩，柔軟善住，得不動心，趣向漏盡智通作證，彼便知此苦如真，知此苦習、知此苦滅、知此苦滅道如真，亦知此漏如真，知此漏習、知此漏滅、知此漏滅道如真，彼如是知、如是見已，則欲漏心解脫，有漏、無明漏心解脫，解脫已，便知解脫，生已盡，梵行已立，所作已辦，不更受有，知如真。

「如來如是正心解脫，得五稱譽，如法無諍，可愛可敬。云何為五？彼眾生者，所受苦樂皆因本作，若爾者，如來本有妙業，因彼故，如來於今聖無漏樂，寂靜止息而得樂覺，是謂如來得第一稱譽。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因合會，若爾者，如來本妙合會，因彼故，如來於今聖無漏樂，寂靜止息而得樂覺，是謂如來得第二稱譽。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因為命，若爾者，如來本妙為命，因彼故，如來於今聖無漏樂，寂靜止息而得樂覺，是謂如來得第三稱譽。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因見也，若爾者，如來本妙見，因彼故，如來於今聖無漏樂，寂靜止息而得樂覺，是謂如來得第四稱譽。復次，眾生所受苦樂皆因尊祐造，若爾者，如來本妙尊祐，因彼故，如來於今聖無漏樂，寂靜止息而得樂覺，是謂如來得第五稱譽。是為如來本妙業、妙合會、妙為命、妙見、妙尊祐，為妙尊祐所造，因彼故，如來於今聖無漏樂，寂靜止息而得樂覺，以此事故，如來於今得五稱譽。

「有五因緣，心生憂苦。云何為五？婬欲纏者，因婬欲纏故，心生憂苦。如是，瞋恚、睡眠、掉悔、疑惑纏者，因疑惑纏故，心生憂苦。是謂五因緣，心生憂苦。有五因緣，心滅憂苦。云何為五？若婬欲纏者，因婬欲纏故，心生憂苦，除婬欲纏已，憂苦便滅，因婬欲纏，心生憂苦，於現法中而得究竟，無煩無熱，常住不變，是聖所知、聖所見。如是，瞋恚、睡眠、掉悔，若疑惑纏者，因疑惑纏故，心生憂苦，除疑惑纏已，憂苦便滅，因疑惑纏，心生憂苦，於現法中而得究竟，無煩無熱，常住不變，是聖所知、聖所見。是謂五因緣，心滅憂苦。

「復次，更有現法而得究竟，無煩無熱，常住不變，是聖所知、聖所見。云何更有現法而得究竟，無煩無熱，常住不變，是聖所知、聖所見？謂八支聖道，正見乃至正定，是為八。是謂更有現法而得究竟，無煩無熱，常住不變，是聖所知、聖所見。」

佛說如是。彼諸比丘聞佛所說，歡喜奉行。

18

May I ask: is this term, issaranimmānahetū, found in SN (and SA)? Thanks for helps.

19

If there was a creator God in Buddhism, you would have to look for him in the figure of Mara.