大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.32

67.32

疏「若約壞生」下，第二以疏會釋。於中四：一會壞苦，可知。二「若依捨受」下，釋上壞苦。「十一」之言，除老死故。三「以此三苦從三受生」下，釋成老死。無捨受言，即三受分別門也。四「二苦皆言少分」下，釋少分全分。「若是二苦必是行苦」者，諸有漏法剎那性故。「有是」已下，釋二少分，而有二義：一二苦不遍捨受，故名少分；二「又是二苦」下，壞及苦苦各不相攝，兼無捨受，故各不攝二，以壞苦中無有苦受，苦苦之中無樂受故。

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "If in terms of destroying life": second, reconciling and explaining using the Commentary. Within this there are four parts: 1. Reconciling the suffering of change, which is understandable. 2. From "If relying on neutral feeling" onward explains the above suffering of change. The mention of "eleven" is because aging and death are excluded. 3. From "Since these three sufferings arise from the three feelings" onward explains the completion of aging and death. The statement that there is no neutral feeling is precisely the gate of distinguishing by the three feelings. 4. From "Both sufferings are said to be partial" onward explains partial and complete. "That which is the two sufferings must be the suffering of conditioning": because all contaminated phenomena are momentary by nature. From "There are those that are" onward explains the two partial aspects, which has two senses: first, the two sufferings do not pervade neutral feeling, and hence are called partial; second, from "Moreover, these two sufferings" onward, change and the suffering of suffering do not mutually subsume each other, and moreover they lack neutral feeling; therefore, neither subsumes the other two, because within the suffering of change there is no painful feeling, and within the suffering of suffering there is no pleasurable feeling.