user-1: I prefer the phrase "Connected Causes" to Dependent Origination or the alternatives such as Dependent Arising, Dependent Co-arising and so on, I feel that it is more direct and understandable. But I am not sure if it means exactly the same thing? I do not see this phrase on this site.
Here is a quote from The Biography of Milarepa, I do not have that book anymore, but found this online:  
"The clear perception of the Mind Unmodified, and the noble impulse to serve others, appear to be alike, but beware, and confuse them not.
"The spiritual boon which shineth on one as a resultant of Connected Causes, and merit temporal, which bringeth much of worldly goods, appear alike, but beware, and confuse them not."  

user254: I suppose they're similar but not the same.

One difference is, the difference between "cause" and "condition". For example, for a plant to grow, it needs a seed, rain, sun, soil, to be undisturbed, and so on. Is it true to say, for example, that "the soil caused the plant to grow"? I'd say maybe not: instead of the soil being the cause, maybe the seed was the cause ... or maybe the sun ...
To avoid that kind of [slight] misunderstanding, I think it might be more accurate to say that these are "conditions" rather than "causes": that the plant grows "on condition that" it's sunny, that it rains, that the soil is good, that there's a seed, and so on.
So I prefer "condition" instead of "cause".
I find that people also sometimes use "condition" as a verb, even though that's slightly inelegant or uncommon in normal (non-Buddhist) English: they say for example, "the rain conditions the growth of the plant" (instead of "the rain causes").
For I think a similar reason people say "depends on" rather than "caused by": i.e. a plant's growth (and thus the plan't origin or coming-into-being) depends on sunshine, even if it isn't caused by sunshine.

The second difference is, what is it that is being caused or conditioned? When people talk about "dependent origination" based on the Pali canon, I think they're often talking about the 12 Nidanas (the topics of which include Ignorance as a condition of Birth of Death), or maybe the 4 Noble Truths (including craving as a condition of, or origin of, suffering, ad the origin of cessation of suffering).
Conversely I suspect that in a biography of Milarepa, it might be that the term is used to describe the causes or cultivation of boddhicitta.
If that's so then perhaps the "cause" that's mentioned is closer in meaning to the Pali word Bhavana.

user11330: In discussing things with people it helps to use the terminology they use. So even if 'connected causes' is a better way to explain 'dependent origination' - the latter has become a common phrase in English Buddhism. The former is rare. 
Without the precise quote it is impossible to determine whether the two are precisely the same thing. However, if the source is a biography, I would think that the meaning is likely close enough within that context. 



edited in response to elaborated question:



In this case I would understand the phrase 'Connected Causes' as very simply all the causes that  create good circumstances (aka 'worldly good'). The sentence merely states that while it is great to experience the result of good karma, that doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels.
In other words: 'Connected Causes' is simply karma here, I think. And while the spiritual boon may seem the same thing as those great circumstances, it's not. For one thing: good circumstances are rarely used to good spiritual effect. 

-1: <p>I prefer the phrase "Connected Causes" to Dependent Origination or the alternatives such as Dependent Arising, Dependent Co-arising and so on, I feel that it is more direct and understandable. But I am not sure if it means exactly the same thing? I do not see this phrase on this site.</p>

<p>Here is a quote from <em>The Biography of Milarepa</em>, I do not have that book anymore, but found this online:  </p>

<p>"The clear perception of the Mind Unmodified, and the noble impulse to serve others, appear to be alike, but beware, and confuse them not.<br>
"The spiritual boon which shineth on one as a resultant of <em>Connected Causes</em>, and merit temporal, which bringeth much of worldly goods, appear alike, but beware, and confuse them not."  </p>
 254: <p>I suppose they're similar but not the same.</p>

<hr>

<p>One difference is, the difference between "cause" and "condition". For example, for a plant to grow, it needs a seed, rain, sun, soil, to be undisturbed, and so on. Is it true to say, for example, that "the soil caused the plant to grow"? I'd say maybe not: instead of the soil being the cause, maybe the seed was the cause ... or maybe the sun ...</p>

<p>To avoid that kind of [slight] misunderstanding, I think it might be more accurate to say that these are "conditions" rather than "causes": that the plant grows "on condition that" it's sunny, that it rains, that the soil is good, that there's a seed, and so on.</p>

<p>So I prefer "condition" instead of "cause".</p>

<p>I find that people also sometimes use "condition" as a verb, even though that's slightly inelegant or uncommon in normal (non-Buddhist) English: they say for example, "the rain <em>conditions</em> the growth of the plant" (instead of "the rain <em>causes</em>").</p>

<p>For I think a similar reason people say "depends on" rather than "caused by": i.e. a plant's growth (and thus the plan't <em>origin</em> or coming-into-being) <em>depends on</em> sunshine, even if it isn't <em>caused by</em> sunshine.</p>

<hr>

<p>The second difference is, what is it that is being caused or conditioned? When people talk about "dependent origination" based on the Pali canon, I think they're often talking about the 12 Nidanas (the topics of which include Ignorance as a condition of Birth of Death), or maybe the 4 Noble Truths (including craving as a condition of, or origin of, suffering, ad the origin of cessation of suffering).</p>

<p>Conversely I suspect that in a biography of Milarepa, it might be that the term is used to describe the causes or cultivation of <em>boddhicitta</em>.</p>

<p>If that's so then perhaps the "cause" that's mentioned is closer in meaning to the Pali word <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavana" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhavana</a>.</p>
 11330: <p>In discussing things with people it helps to use the terminology they use. So even if 'connected causes' is a better way to explain 'dependent origination' - the latter has become a common phrase in English Buddhism. The former is rare. </p>

<p>Without the precise quote it is impossible to determine whether the two are precisely the same thing. However, if the source is a biography, I would think that the meaning is likely close enough within that context. </p>

<blockquote>
  <blockquote>
    <blockquote>
      <p>edited in response to elaborated question:</p>
    </blockquote>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>In this case I would understand the phrase 'Connected Causes' as very simply all the causes that  create good circumstances (aka 'worldly good'). The sentence merely states that while it is great to experience the result of good karma, that doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels.</p>

<p>In other words: 'Connected Causes' is simply karma here, I think. And while the spiritual boon may seem the same thing as those great circumstances, it's not. For one thing: good circumstances are rarely used to good spiritual effect. </p>
