Diamond Sūtra 9

Bhagavat said’: ‘Now, what do you think, O Subhuti, does a Srota-ipanna? think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-Apatti has been obtained by me’ Subhati said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Srota- Apanna does not think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-Apatti has been obtained by me. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, he has not obtained any particular state (dharma). Therefore he is called a Srota-dpanna. He has not obtained any form, nor sounds, nor smells, nor tastes, nor things that can be touched. Therefore he is called a Srota- Apanna. If, O Bhagavat, a Srota-dpanna were to think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-dpatti has been obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe in a person.’

Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhuti, does a Sakrzdâgdmin think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakvzdagdmin has been obtained by me’ Subhuti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Sakvzdagamin does not think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakrzdagamin has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being (dharma), who has obtained the state of a Sakrvzdagdmin. Therefore he is called a Sakzzdagamin.’ Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhuti, does an Anâgamin think in this wise: The fruit of an Anâgâmin has been obtained by me’ Subhuti said: Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Anagâmin does not think in this wise: The fruit of an Anagamin has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being, who has obtained the state of an Anâgâmin. Therefore he is called an Anagamin.’

Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhuti, does an Arhat think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me’ Subhati said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Arhat does not think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being, who is called an Arhat. Therefore he is called an Arhat. And if, O Bhagavat, an Arhat were to think in this wise: The state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe in a person.

‘And why? I have been pointed out, O Bhagavat, by the holy and fully enlightened Tathagata, as the foremost of those who dwell in virtue’. Sigg ea eer ean ere ee eee I, O Bhagavat, am an Arhat, freed from passion. And yet, O Bhagavat, I do not think in this wise: I am an Arhat, I am freed from passion. If, O Bhagavat, I should think in this wise, that the state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, then the Tathagata would not have truly prophesied of me, saying: “Subhhti, the son of a good family, the foremost of those dwelling in virtue, does not dwell anywhere, and therefore he is called a dweller in virtue, a dweller in virtue indeed”’