俱舍論疏 9.178

9.178

論「所引非證至無復有餘」，經部破所引經非成證也。經以髮、毛分別地界者，經云「云何內地界」，此問地界。「謂髮、毛等」，此將髮、毛分別地界內外別也。非是經說云何髮、毛謂內地界。若以此言出髮、毛體，可說髮、毛實具四大四境，就勝唯說地界。經將髮、毛出地界體，地界不越髮、毛故，成具足說，非從勝說。

On the Śāstra's statement: 'What was cited does not constitute proof, up to: there is nothing remaining': the Sautrāntikas refute that the cited sūtra constitutes proof. Where the sūtra distinguishes the earth element by means of hair and bodily hair, the sūtra says: 'What is the internal earth element?'—this asks about the earth element. 'It refers to hair, bodily hair, and so on'—this uses hair and bodily hair to distinguish the earth element as internal versus external. It is not that the sūtra says 'What is hair and bodily hair? It refers to the internal earth element.' If these words were defining the entity of hair and bodily hair, one could say that hair and bodily hair actually possess the four great elements and four sense-fields, and only according to predominance are spoken of as the earth element. But the sūtra uses hair and bodily hair to define the entity of the earth element; since the earth element does not exceed hair and bodily hair, it constitutes a complete explanation, not an explanation based on predominance.