成唯識論演祕 2.788

2.788

詳曰：諸德云云，廣如餘辨，理皆難究。今助一釋，若謂人火德相似，下應有難。救而難彼云：若據相似而假說者，即應說人猛赤等德而似火德，不應說人似火也，以人與火不相似故。他救云：爾實以人上赤急等法以類火故，言人似火舉人取德。故次難云：說火在人不在德也。世間說彼似火之言但目於人，不屬人上猛赤等德，論文隱括而不具言。

In detailed consideration: The various masters say this and that, as broadly discriminated elsewhere, but the principle is in all cases hard to fathom. Now I offer an alternative explanation: If one says that the qualities of human and fire resemble each other, an objection should follow below. Rescuing and objecting against them, one says: If it is designated based on resemblance, then one should say that the human's qualities of fierceness and redness resemble the qualities of fire; one should not say that the human resembles fire, because human and fire do not resemble each other. The opponent rescues it by saying: In reality, it is because properties such as redness and impatience in the human are classed with fire that one says the human resembles fire, mentioning the human to take the qualities. Therefore the subsequent objection says: Fire is said to be in the human, not in the quality. In worldly convention, the expression "resembling fire" refers only to the human and does not belong to the qualities such as fierceness and redness in the human. The Treatise's text is elliptical and does not state this in full.