成唯識論演祕 2.778

2.778

破依實云：若謂人、火德相似故等，此即如次破共、似法。何言非理？若言如次舉無共、似以破似、共，理亦不然。文既明言彼無共、似，何故不得名破共、似？故應從前雙破為正。

In refuting that it is based on substance, it says: "If you mean that the qualities of human and fire resemble each other," and so on; this indeed refutes the common dharma and the resembling dharma respectively. How could it be said to be unreasonable? If one claims that it respectively adduces the absence of commonality and resemblance to refute resemblance and commonality, this is also not the principle. Since the text explicitly states that they lack commonality and resemblance, why can it not be called refuting commonality and resemblance? Therefore, following the former [view] of dual refutation is correct.