成唯識論述記 2.652

2.652

述曰：此出非理。人類及猛德等，現見亦有互相離故；如無猛、赤調順之人，但有人類無猛等德。如火及彼似火牛中，雖有猛等而無人類，豈非類、德有互相離？又見貧人先無猛、赤，後富貴已方有猛、赤，或復翻此，豈非相離？故不可說假依類得成，以其人類無猛、赤等德，不可說人定似於火。故知假說不依於類，或復亦有有德無人類，故不可以不相離救。

The Commentary states: This points out the irrationality. The genus of man and qualities such as ferocity are empirically observed to be mutually dissociated. For example, a gentle and compliant person who lacks ferocity and redness has only the genus of man but lacks qualities such as ferocity. As in fire and in a fire-like ox, although there is ferocity and the like, there is no genus of man. How are genus and qualities not mutually dissociated? Furthermore, one sees a poor person who previously lacked ferocity and redness, but only after becoming wealthy and honored comes to possess ferocity and redness; or conversely, the opposite occurs. How is this not dissociation? Therefore, it cannot be said that the conventional designation can be established based on genus, because the genus of man lacks qualities such as ferocity and redness, and it cannot be said that man definitively resembles fire. Hence one knows that the conventional designation is not based on genus; or alternatively, there are also cases where the quality exists without the genus of man. Therefore, one cannot defend [the claim] by non-dissociation.