清辨（Bhāviveka, 500-570）所著之《般若燈論》（Prajñāpradīpa）存有漢藏二譯本，學界雖多重視藏譯本，然漢藏譯本的傳譯時間不同、形成的翻譯背景與環境不同，語言的本質與使用上亦有所差異，因此，本文將以《般若燈論》第一品〈觀緣品〉中「緣起」一詞的定義為例，比對相應內容與譯詞，試圖釐清兩者之差異與原因。兩譯本最明顯的差別在於緣起定義的不同，同時此二定義在兩譯文中也恰巧互相疏漏，藏譯本甚至是不贊同漢譯本對緣起的定義或認為此定義不夠清楚，而前者的解釋更推導出「因不成因直到果成」的二諦合觀概念，此是理解清辨緣起觀的關鍵說明，亦是了解其如何說明緣起與無自性關係的重要內容。

Bhāviveka's Prajñāpradīpa was translated from the original Sanskrit into Chinese by Prabhākaramitra in the seventh century. A Tibetan version by Jñānagarbha and Cog-ro Klu'i rgyal mtshan also appeared in the ninth century. Many scholars following Kenryu Tsukinowa consider the Tibetan version to be more reliable than the Chinese one. However, the two versions date from different periods and have dissimilar backgrounds. Moreover, the structures of Tibetan and Chinese language are different. Tibetan was created to conform to the grammatical model of Sanskrit whereas Chinese was not. These differences naturally affect the translations. The present study looks into the Chinese and Tibetan translations of Chapter One for definitions of the term pratītyasamutpāda (dependent-arising). In the Chinese version the definition is ＂things are produced by the combination of causes and conditions.＂ On the other hand, the definition in the Tibetan version is explained by idaṃpratyayatā and in doing so refutes competing Buddhist assertions, including one similar to the Chinese version. Since the expounding mentioned in the Chinese version is omitted in the Tibetan version, and vice versa, it is unclear how translators interpret their original meaning respectively. This study proposes that a statement derived from the Tibetan version, ＂the causes cannot be determined until the result is done,＂ is the key to Bhāviveka's understanding of the relation between the meaning of dependent-arising and that of emptiness. In contrast, the definition presented in the Chinese version does not contain this concept.