俱舍論疏 1.32

1.32

二、釋通外難者，有人難云：若唯無記不通善者，無色羅漢善心現前應名為佛，爾時不成就不染無知故。通曰：准此難意，不得論意。不染無知佛與二乘有差別者，但論生與不生以釋別相，處處文同，無一文說成不成別。無色羅漢善心現前，雖不成就不染無知與佛是同，然佛不生、羅漢生故，故不名佛。難既非難，文又無文，理全無理，故知不染無知定唯無記。

Second, regarding explaining and resolving external objections: Someone objected: "If it is solely non-defined and does not extend to the wholesome, when an arhat of the formless realm has a wholesome mind manifest before him, he should be called a Buddha, because at that time he does not possess non-defiled unknowing." Resolution: According to the intention of this objection, it fails to grasp the meaning of the treatise. Regarding the difference between the Buddha and the two vehicles in non-defiled unknowing, it only discusses arising and non-arising to explain the distinctive mark; passages everywhere are uniform on this, and not a single text speaks of a difference in possession or non-possession. When an arhat of the formless realm has a wholesome mind manifest before him, although his non-possession of non-defiled unknowing is the same as the Buddha's, yet because it does not arise in the Buddha while it arises in the arhat, he is not called a Buddha. Since the objection is no valid objection, and the texts contain no such text, and principle is completely without such principle, we know that non-defiled unknowing is definitely solely non-defined.