Why Can't an Arhat Have the Thought "I Have Attained Arhatship"?

Original text: Subhuti, what do you think? Can an arhat have the thought, "I have attained arhatship"? "No, World-Honored One. Why? Because truly there is no dharma called arhat. World-Honored One, if an arhat were to think, 'I have attained arhatship,' then he would be attached to the notion of a self, a person, sentient beings, or a lifespan."

The Buddha said to Subhuti: What do you think of this matter? Can an arhat have the thought, "I have attained the fruit of arhatship"? Subhuti replied: An arhat cannot have such a thought, World-Honored One. Why is this so? Because truly there is no dharma that can be named arhat. World-Honored One, if an arhat were to think in his mind: "I have realized the fruit of arhatship," then he would be attached to the notions of a self, a person, sentient beings, and a lifespan. Then he would not be an arhat.

Anyone who has the thought: "I am such and such," believing there truly exists a "me" that is such and such, is attached to the notion of a self, and the other three notions immediately arise as well. The same applies to an arhat: if he believes he has attained the fruit of arhatship, the notion of a self arises in his mind, and thus the notions of a person, sentient beings, and a lifespan clearly exist. Such a person is not an arhat. Truly, in the world, there is no dharma whatsoever called arhat. The five aggregates of form and consciousness that constitute an arhat are subject to birth, death, change, and transformation—they are illusory, not truly existent dharmas, and cannot be called arhat. The fruit of arhatship is merely a state and a realm; there is no substantial fruit to be attained or seen. The act of realizing arhatship is an illusory dharma subject to birth, death, change, and transformation; it is not a truly existent dharma. If it were a truly existent dharma, it would exist eternally, and one would constantly realize arhatship without any need for cultivation.

Therefore, an arhat does not have the thought, "I have realized the fruit of arhatship." After realizing arhatship, the mind is empty and still, without even a trace of the four notions. Moving through the world is like being an empty shell, entirely free from disputes and conflicts. Ordinary people are the opposite: troubled by self-view, the four notions are in constant turmoil, and they are often mired in afflictions and disputes. The heavier the self-view, the stronger the notion of self, the more impure the mind, the heavier the afflictions, and the more disputes and conflicts arise. Conversely, the lighter the self-view, the purer and more free from disputes the mind becomes.

Sages from the first fruit to the fourth fruit of the Hinayana path are free from the four notions. Mahayana bodhisattvas should likewise not cling to the four notions. They also do not have thoughts such as "I have realized the enlightened mind," "I have seen the true nature," "I have attained the ten abodes, ten practices, ten transferences," nor would they proclaim everywhere, "I am a first-ground bodhisattva," "I am a second-ground bodhisattva," "I am a third-ground, fourth-ground, or even an eighth-ground bodhisattva." Even less would they declare, "I am the rebirth of such-and-such a sage," or "I am the rebirth of such-and-such a Buddha." The mind of a bodhisattva is purer than that of a śrāvaka, having ultimately realized the emptiness of both Mahayana and Hinayana. Śrāvakas have only realized the emptiness of worldly phenomena and have not realized the inherently pure mind; they do not know why worldly empty phenomena and empty dharmas are empty, so their realization of emptiness is not yet perfectly pure. Bodhisattvas will not have such impure or unreasonable thoughts, nor will they engage in extensive self-promotion to attract followers. Those who have genuine realization have empty and pure minds, unattached to any dharma notions. They are truly worthy of our respect and emulation.