Bhagavat said: ‘Now, what do you think, O Subhūti, does a Srota-āpanna think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-āpatti has been obtained by me?’ Subhūti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Srota-āpanna does not think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-āpatti has been obtained by me. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, he has not obtained any particular state (dharma). Therefore he is called a Srota-āpanna. He has not obtained any form, nor sounds, nor smells, nor tastes, nor things that can be touched. Therefore he is called a Srota-āpanna. If, O Bhagavat, a Srota-āpanna were to think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-āpatti 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 Subhūti, does a Sakṛdāgāmin think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakṛdāgāmin has been obtained by me?’ Subhūti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Sakṛdāgāmin
Does a Sakridāgāmin think in this wise: “The fruit of a Sakridāgāmin has been obtained by me”? Subhūti said: “Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Sakridāgāmin does not think in this wise: ‘The fruit of a Sakridāgāmin has been obtained by me.’ And why? Because he is not an individual being (dharma) who has obtained the state of a Sakridāgāmin. Therefore he is called a Sakridāgāmin.”
Bhagavat said: “What do you think, O Subhūti, does an Anāgāmin think in this wise: ‘The fruit of an Anāgāmin has been obtained by me’?” Subhūti said: “Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Anāgāmin does not think in this wise: ‘The fruit of an Anāgāmin has been obtained by me.’ And why? Because he is not an individual being who has obtained the state of an Anāgāmin. Therefore he is called an Anāgāmin.”
Does a Sakridāgāmin think in this wise: “The fruit of a Sakridāgāmin has been obtained by me”? Subhūti said: “Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Sakridāgāmin does not think in this wise: ‘The fruit of a Sakridāgāmin has been obtained by me.’ And why? Because he is not an individual being (dharma) who has obtained the state of a Sakridāgāmin. Therefore he is called a Sakridāgāmin.”
Bhagavat said: “What do you think, O Subhūti, does an Anāgāmin think in this wise: ‘The fruit of an Anāgāmin has been obtained by me’?” Subhūti said: “Not indeed, O Bhagavat, an Anāgāmin does not think in this wise: ‘The fruit of an Anāgāmin has been obtained by me.’ And why? Because he is not an individual being who has obtained the state of an Anāgāmin. Therefore he is called an Anāgāmin.”
Bhagavat said: “What do you think, O Subhūti, does an Arhat think in this wise: ‘The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me’?” Subhūti 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 Tathāgata, as the foremost of those who dwell in virtue. 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 Tathāgata would not have truly prophesied of me, saying: ‘Subhūti, 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!’” (9)