成唯識論述記 2.664

2.664

述曰：世間但說人似於火，不說德似火。德似火時，應當猛似猛，赤似赤，德是實家德，可依假說。今不在德，唯在於人，乃言假依實說，此既便依假人說實火故。若說火在德，德是實德，以德相似名火依實。既說火在人，應人相似名為火，不說火依實。

The Commentary states: In the world, one only says that the man resembles fire; one does not say that the quality resembles fire. If the quality resembled fire, ferocity should resemble ferocity, and redness should resemble redness. Qualities are the qualities of substance, so they could be the basis for conventional designation. Now it does not reside in the quality, but solely in the man; yet you claim that the conventional designation is based on substance. This would mean basing real fire on conventional man! If you say that 'fire' applies to the quality, since the quality is the quality of substance, the fire would be based on substance by virtue of the quality's similarity. But since one says 'fire' applies to the man, it should be that the man is similar and called 'fire', not that fire is based on substance.