Lecture on the Diamond Sutra: Why Can an Anāgāmin of the Third Fruit Not Harbor the Thought That He Is a Third-Fruit Person?

One Mark No-Mark, Nine. Original text: 须菩提。于意云何。阿那含能作是念。我得阿那含果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。阿那含名为不来。而实无不来。是名阿那含。

Explanation: Subhūti, what do you think of this matter? Can a non-returner (Anāgāmin) have the thought, "I have attained the fruit of a non-returner"? Subhūti replied: A non-returner cannot have such a thought. Why is this said? Because the non-returner is named "one who does not come," yet in reality there is no such dharma-mark of "not coming," that is, there is no such thing as attaining the fruit of a non-returner; "non-returner" is merely an expedient name.

One who has attained the third fruit has a mind even emptier than that of a second-fruit practitioner, and has no thoughts of "I am such and such"; therefore they would not constantly think, "I am a non-returner." If it were otherwise, the mind would not be empty, and the fruit of non-returner would not have been realized. Because a non-returner possesses meditative concentration (dhyāna) at the level of the first dhyāna and above, after death they are reborn among the five Pure Abodes (five Never-Returning heavens) in the form realm to continue cultivating the path. There they attain the fourth fruit of arhatship and directly enter nirvāṇa without remainder (anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa), no longer returning to the human world; hence it is called the fruit of never-returning, also called the fruit of not coming. In reality, there is no such thing as "not coming to the human world"; neither coming nor not coming actually occurs—both are illusory, expedient appearances. Giving such an illusory appearance a name, it is called "non-returner" (Anāgāmin), called the third fruit. Therefore one must not think that there truly is a fruit of non-returner to be attained, must not think that a third-fruit practitioner is a truly existent being, and must not give rise to grasping (upādāna) or arrogance; otherwise, one is not a third-fruit practitioner.

Why can an arhat not have the thought, "I have attained the fruit of arhatship"?

Original text: 须菩提。于意如何。阿罗汉能作是念。我得阿罗汉道不。不也。世尊。何以故。实无有法。名阿罗汉。世尊。若阿罗汉作是念。我得阿罗汉道。即为著我人众生寿者。

Explanation: Subhūti, what do you think of this matter? Can an arhat have the thought, "I have attained the fruit of arhatship"? Subhūti replied: An arhat cannot have such a thought, World-Honored One. Why is this said? Because in truth there is no dharma that can be named "arhat." World-Honored One, if an arhat were to think in his mind, "I have attained the fruit of arhatship," then he would be attached to the mark of self, the mark of person, the mark of sentient beings, and the mark of life span, and he would no longer be an arhat.

Anyone who has the thought, "I am such and such now," and believes there truly is an "I" who has become such and such, is attached to the mark of self, and the other three marks then appear in succession. It is the same with an arhat: if he believed he had attained the fruit of arhatship, there would be the mark of self in his mind, and the marks of person, sentient beings, and life span would also clearly exist; such a person would not be an arhat. In this world, there truly is no dharma called "arhat." The five aggregates (pañcaskandha) composed of an arhat's physical body and conscious mind are subject to arising, ceasing, change, and illusion; they are 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 obtained or seen. The matter of attaining arhatship is an illusory dharma of arising, ceasing, change, and transformation, and is not a truly existent dharma. If it were a truly existent dharma, it would exist eternally, and one would constantly be attaining the fruit of arhatship without any cultivation.

Therefore an arhat has no such thought as "I have attained the fruit of arhatship." After attaining the fruit of arhatship, the mind is empty and tranquil, without even a shadow of the four marks; walking in the human world as if a mere shell, without any conflicts or disputes. Ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) are just the opposite: due to the mischief of self-view (ātma-dṛṣṭi), the four marks flourish, and they are constantly mired in afflictions and disputes. The heavier a person's self-view, the heavier their mark of self, the less pure their mind, the heavier their afflictions, and the more their conflicts and disputes; conversely, the purer and freer from disputes they are.