Visuddhimagga XVII-13

 Tattha siyā – ‘‘hoti-saddena saddhiṃ yojayissāma ‘paṭiccasamuppādo hotī’ti’’, taṃ na yuttaṃ.

这里更有以为（缘起一语）可与动词「成」（hoti）字结合，而成为「缘起成」（paṭiccasmuppādo hoti），这也是不合理的！

Ñ(XVII,13): Here it might be [argued]: 'We shall add the words "comes to be" (hoti) thus: "Having depended, arising comes to be" (paṭicca, samuppādo hoti)'. That will not do.

Kasmā?

何以故？

Ñ: Why not?

Yogābhāvato ceva, uppādassa ca uppādapattidosato.

因为不可能这样结合的，并且（如果这样结合）会成为生起的生起的错误。

Ñ: Because there is no instance in which it has been added, and because the fallacy of the arising of an arising follows.

‘‘Paṭiccasamuppādaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo…pe… ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo’’ti (saṃ. ni. 2.1).

即如：「诸比丘，我为汝等说缘起。诸比丘，什么是缘起？……乃至……诸比丘，是名缘起」。

Ñ: For in such passages as 'Paṭicca samuppādaṃ vo bhikkhave desessāmi. Katamo ca bhikkhave paṭicca samuppādo … Ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave paṭicca samuppādo (I shall teach you the dependent origination, bhikkhus. And what is the dependent origination? … This is called the dependent origination, bhikkhus)' (S.ii,1),

Imesu hi padesu ekenapi saddhiṃ hoti-saddo yogaṃ na gacchati, na ca uppādo hoti.

在这些句子中，没有用一个「成」字来结合的，并非是生起的。

Ñ: the words 'comes to be' (hoti) are not added in any single instance. And there is no [such expression as] 'arising comes to be':

Sace bhaveyya, uppādassāpi uppādo pāpuṇeyyāti.

如果是那样结合，则应有一个生起的生起？

Ñ: if there were, it would be tantamount to saying that arising itself had an arising too.