唯識二十論述記 1.176

1.176

述曰：大眾、正量既見破非捺落迦攝，更不能救，見破非餘趣。第三救言：如上天處處雖是勝，猶有惡趣傍生等生，其下地獄雖惡者處，何妨得有傍生、鬼生，為獄卒等？其人處等，諸趣通生，理極成立，非上勝趣，且舉天中量云：其地獄中應有餘趣生；許善、惡趣隨一攝故；如上天中有傍生等。鬼處有傍生，理無疑難，無不定失。彼師意說：獄卒是鬼，狗烏等是傍生。故論說言：「有傍生、鬼為獄卒等」，舊論無等字，乃云：「畜生、餓鬼別類等生地獄中，名為獄卒者」，不然。

The Commentary says: The Mahāsāṃghika and Saṃmatīya, seeing it refuted that [the wardens] are subsumed under the narakas, can no longer rescue that point; seeing it refuted that they are of other destinies, they offer a third rescue, saying: Just as in heaven above, though the place is superior, there are still animals and the like of the miserable destinies born there, in the hell below, though it is the place of evil-doers, what prevents animals and ghosts from being born there to serve as wardens and the like? The human realm and so forth are commonly born into by various destinies, which is logically thoroughly established; but not being an upper, superior destiny, they cite heaven for the moment. The inference runs: "In that hell there should be beings of other destinies born; because it is accepted to be subsumed under either good or bad destinies; like animals and the like in heaven above." In the ghost realm there are animals; logically there is no doubt or difficulty, and no fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). That master's intent is to say: the wardens are ghosts, while the dogs, ravens, and so forth are animals. Therefore the treatise says: "there are animals and ghosts serving as wardens and the like." In the old translation of the treatise there is no character for "and the like" (等), reading instead: "animals, hungry ghosts, and different kinds being born in hell and called wardens"—which is incorrect.