唯識二十論述記 1.165

1.165

述曰：自下別破，於中有二：初破獄卒等非地獄趣；後破獄卒等非是餘趣。就破非彼地獄趣中，略有四義。此即第一，兼破餘趣，先破當趣。簡略為言故云「且此」。「且此不應那落迦攝」通下四義。此獄卒等不應是彼惡者所攝。此等不受如彼惡者所受苦故，若獄卒等惡者所攝，如餘惡者，應受彼苦。量云：彼獄卒等非惡者攝；不受如彼所受苦故；如人、天等。或獄卒等應受彼苦；許那落迦攝故；如彼受罪者。《俱舍》第十一，若是有情，此果何處。彼復救言：即地獄中。彼論即以此第四難，難破彼宗。而彼但有一義破之，謂火應燒，同此第四。

The Commentary says: From this point onward is the specific refutation, in which there are two parts: first, refuting that the wardens and the like are not of the hell destiny; second, refuting that the wardens and the like are not of other destinies. Regarding the refutation that they are not of that hell destiny, there are briefly four points. This is the first: concurrently refuting other destinies, while first refuting the destiny at hand. To speak concisely, it says "To begin with, these...". "To begin with, they should not be subsumed under the narakas" applies down through all four points. These wardens and the like should not be subsumed under those evil-doers. This is because they do not experience suffering as those evil-doers experience it. If the wardens and the like were subsumed under those evil-doers, like the other evil-doers, they ought to experience that suffering. The inference runs: "Those wardens and the like are not subsumed under evil-doers; because they do not experience suffering as those do; like humans, devas, and the like." Or: "The wardens and the like ought to experience that suffering; because they are accepted to be subsumed under the narakas; like those sufferers of retribution." In the Kośa, chapter eleven, [it asks]: If they are sentient beings, where is this retribution? They again rescue by saying: right within hell. That treatise then uses this fourth objection to press and refute their tenet. But that text has only one point to refute it—namely that fire ought to burn them—which is identical to this fourth point here.