Vajrakkhedika (Diamond Cutter) · 7 of 19 · tr. E.B. Cowell, F. Max Müller, and J. Kakakusu
Section 1g
Therefore he is called an Anâgâmin.' Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does an Arhat think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me?' Subhûti 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 Tathâgata, as the foremost of those who dwell in virtue[1].
[1.
Ara n âvihârin.
Ra n a is strife, then sin, therefore ara n a might be peace and virtue, only the a would be short.
Probably ara n avihârin was formed with reference to âra n ya-vihârin, living in the forest, retired from the world, and in peace, just as arhan, worthy, was changed into arahan, the destroyer of sin.
Beal translates, 'one who delights in the mortification of an Ara n yaka (forest devotee).' De Harlez: 'chey de ceux qui ne sont plus attachés à la jouissance.'] 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 Tathâgata would not have truly prophesied of me, saying: "Subhûti, 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) X.
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma) which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara[1], the holy and fully enlightened?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat; there is not anything which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara, the holy and fully enlightened.' Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva should say: "I shall create numbers of worlds," he would say what is untrue.
And why?
Because, O Subhûti, when the Tathâgata preached: Numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed!
they were preached by him as no-numbers.
Therefore they are called numbers of worlds.
'Therefore, O Subhûti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva should in this wise frame an independent [1.
A former Buddha.] mind, which is to be framed as a mind not believing in anything, not believing in form, not believing in sound, smell, taste, and anything that can be touched.
Now, for instance, O Subhûti, a man might have a body and a large body, so that his size should be as large as the king of mountains, Sumeru.
Themes
◆Detachment Gelassenheitpraxis
Eckhart's Abgeschiedenheit/Gelassenheit — radical letting-go of will, image, and grasping that opens the soul to God; distinct from inner_silence (quietness) and from material renunciation, and adjacent to Sufi tark and Buddhist non-grasping as a practice rather than a metaphysical claim.
Subhuti emphasizes non-grasping of spiritual attainments, aligning with radical letting-go of will and image.
Eckhart's radical reading of Matthew 5:3 — the saint as one who wants nothing, knows nothing, and has nothing, having emptied even the will and the self with which to receive God; distinct from renunciation_of_wealth (material poverty).
The Arhat claims no possession of the state, reflecting a spiritual poverty of wanting or knowing nothing.
The Buddhist doctrine that all phenomena lack independent self-nature; emptiness as the positive recognition that things arise only in dependence on conditions — distinct from kenoma's mere deficiency.
[auto] The passage explicitly defines enlightenment states by the absence of inherent self-nature or individual being.