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. Aranâvihârin. Rana is strife, then sin, therefore arana might be peace and virtue, only the a would be short. Probably aranavihârin was formed with reference to âranya-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 Aranyaka (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!”‘
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm From Section IX.