成唯識論述記 2.648

2.648

述曰：顯其非理，共德者即「猛赤」也，雖有同異類而無火德等，亦得說為火者，於水等中應得說為火，亦有同異類無火德故。如似火人，以人例水，亦應不得說為似火。如汝所說人似火，似火應不依類，類無共德故，猶如水等，水等返覆可知。

The Commentary states: This reveals its irrationality. The 'shared quality' is precisely 'ferocity and redness'. If, despite having the generic-cum-particular genus while lacking the qualities of fire and the like, something could still be called 'fire', then water and the like ought also to be called 'fire', since they also possess the generic-cum-particular genus while lacking the qualities of fire. Just like a fire-like man, using the man to draw an analogy with water, he too should not be called 'resembling fire'. According to your claim that a man resembles fire, resembling fire should not be based on genus, because genus lacks the shared quality, just like water and the like. The contraposition with water and the like is evident.