唯識二十論述記 1.167

1.167

述曰：此第二義。此獄卒等與破罪者，互相逼迫，能害眾罪者，若俱是彼趣，應不可說彼是受罪者，此是獄卒等。又俱那落迦即互相逼害，如何可立彼受罪者，此獄卒等。此中二意，後解為勝。量云：汝獄卒等應不可說為獄卒等；許那落迦攝故；如受罪者。汝受罪者應不可說為受罪者；那落迦攝故；如獄卒等。或受罪者應能逼害；那落迦攝故；如獄卒等。或獄卒等應不能逼害；那落迦攝故；如受罪者。此四比量，有所簡過，並無過失，應一一知。

The Commentary says: This is the second point. These wardens and the like and those sufferers of retribution would mutually oppress each other and be able to harm the sinners. If both were of that destiny, one should not be able to say that those are sufferers of retribution and these are wardens and the like. Furthermore, if both were narakas, then they would mutually torment each other; how could one establish those as sufferers of retribution and these as wardens and the like? Between these two meanings, the latter interpretation is superior. The inference runs: "Your wardens and the like should not be called wardens and the like; because they are accepted to be subsumed under the narakas; like the sufferers of retribution." "Your sufferers of retribution should not be called sufferers of retribution; because they are subsumed under the narakas; like the wardens and the like." Or: "The sufferers of retribution should be able to torment; because they are subsumed under the narakas; like the wardens and the like." Or: "The wardens and the like should not be able to torment; because they are subsumed under the narakas; like the sufferers of retribution." These four inferences, with their qualifications, are entirely free of fallacies; one should know them one by one.