user11541: In MN 28 following was said :

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent
  origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.”

My questions are :
What is meant by the above statement? &
Is dependent origination not a Dhamma ? 

user254: Piya Tan's introduction to MN 28 says this:

The Mahā Hatthi,padopama Sutta contains an interesting statement attributed to the Buddha himself,
  but which is found nowhere else, namely, “He who sees dependent arising sees dharma; he who sees
  dharma sees dependent arising”
  14 (paṭicca,samuppādaṁ passati, so dhammaṁ passati. Yo dhammaṁ
  passati, so paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passatî ti) [§28]. In fact, this quote is untraced in the Pali Canon as we
  have it and possibly belongs to some lost texts. The Sutta goes on to explain that the five aggregates of
  clinging arise interdependently (paṭicca,samuppannā). The Commentary explains the statement thus:
  “One who sees conditionality (paccaya) sees dependently arisen states (paticca,samuppanne dhamme);
  one who sees dependently arisen states see conditionality” (MA 2:230).15
Dependent arising is the most important epistemological model for explaining how our experiences
  arise through conditions and how they are interrelated to events and states around us. Dependent arising is
  the interrelatedness of dharmas, as Rupert Gethin points out:

To see dhammas is to see their interrelatedness; to see their interrelatedness is to see dhamma.
    One might rephrase the Nikāya saying, then, as: “He who sees dhammas sees dhamma; he who
    sees dhamma sees dhammas.” (Gethin 2001:151)

In his article “He who sees dhamma sees dhammas,” Gethin adds:

My suggestion is that this [MA 2:230 above] should be read in part as quite deliberate play on the
    meaning of dhamma, a play, moreover, that is entirely consonant with the Nikāyas. As we have
    seen, dhammas are mental and physical qualities, and seeing these dhammas as dhammas—seeing
    how they arise and disappear, seeing how they are dependently arisen—one sees the ultimate
    truth: he who sees dhammas sees dhamma. (Gethin 2004:536)

Gethin, however, is careful to add a caveat that he is not trying to impute any specific technical Abhidharma
  understanding to the Nikāyas, that he is not suggesting that dhamma is used in early Buddhist
  thought in the sense of an irreducible element. It is just that dhamma here is used in the general sense of a
  mental or physical quality.

Nevertheless, alongside the use of dhamma in the Nikāyas in the senses of the practices, truths
    and teachings that are recommended on the authority of the Buddha, there is a further usage
    already embedded in the Nikāyas: dhammas are the fundamental qualities, both mental and
    physical, that in some sense constitute—or better, support and maintain—experience or reality in
    its entirety. (Gethin 2004:536 f)

That the exact understanding and translation of dhamma in early Buddhist thought should remain
  elusive is understandable. The Dharma is “deep, hard to see, peaceful, sublime, beyond the sphere of
  reasoning [logic], subtle, to be known by the wise,”16 so that they are beyond bookish banter or academic
  pronouncements, but something to be personally and directly experienced leading to a wholesome life
  change. For this reason, even the Buddhas put the Dharma above themselves.17

14 As will be explained below, it is important that “dharma” is here spelt in the lower case. Indeed, Pāli and
  other ancient Indian languages do not have capital letters, the use of which imposes a sense of permanence onto the
  idea that the word refers to—a notion foreign to early Buddhism.
15 Yo paṭicca,samuppādaṁ passatî ti yo paccaye passati; so dhammaṁ passatî ti so paṭicca,samuppanna,-
  dhamme passati. (MA 2:230)
16 Dhammo gambhīro duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkâvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍita,vedanīyo (M 1:167).
17 Dhammañ ñeva sakkatvā garuṁ katvā, Gārava S (S 6.2/1:138-140 = A 4.21/2:20 f) = SD 12.3.

I think Gethin's play on words is based on the fact that "dhamma" has several meanings.
Roughly, when he dhammas he means "things" (and the relationships between things), and when he say "dhamma" he means something like law-of-nature (as discovered by the Buddha) or "Buddhist doctrine" or "the teaching" -- so (my paraphrase), "he who sees things sees dependent arising in the relationships between things, and in that sees the important part of Buddhist doctrine."
Ven. Sujato also translates this as ...

One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching.
  One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.

Sutta Central's dictionary alternatively translates passati as "sees; finds; understands".
Also maybe the "meaning" of the phrase is the sentences which follow it, if the phrase is understood as an introduction to those sentences and the sentences are understood as an explanation. The phrases which follow it are:

And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
  The desire, clinging, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.
  Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.’

That's also the conclusion of the sutta and maybe the point of it.

user8157: "Dhamma" here should be written with a capital "D" and means the core teaching or core truth discovered and taught by the Buddha, namely, what is suffering and what is the cessation of suffering. Therefore, what is meant by statement “the one who sees Dhamma sees dependent origination” is one who sees dependent origination sees the Teaching/Truth of the Buddhas. 

Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
MN 22

Now it is for one who feels that I teach: ‘This is suffering,’ and ‘This is the origin of suffering,’ and ‘This is the cessation of
  suffering,’ and ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of
  suffering.’
AN 3.61

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are
  dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination and holding
  based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of
  suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire
  and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the
  cessation of suffering.’ 
MN 28

Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
  Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.
What do you think, Vakkali, is form permanent or impermanent... suffering...not-self?”— “Impermanent... suffering... not-self, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”
SN 22.87

The word 'dhamma' can have various meanings, such as 'phenomena' (nature), law of nature (truth; law), duty according to law of nature (practise) and results of practise. In this case, it means 'Truth' or 'Law' (as 'Core Teaching/Doctrine'), as explained in SN 12.20. 

“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be’: whether there is an arising
  of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still
  persists, the stableness of the Dhamma (dhammaṭṭhitatā), the fixed course/lawfulness of the
  Dhamma (dhammaniyāmatā), specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to this and
  breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it,
  proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates
  it. And he says: ‘See! With birth as condition, bhikkhus,
  aging-and-death.
SN 12.20


user471: In SN 22.87, the Buddha told Vakkali:

“For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the
  Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”
“Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees
  the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
  Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.
“What do you think, Vakkali, is form permanent or impermanent?”—
  “Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He
  understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”

Vakkali placed too much importance on directly seeing and experiencing the Buddha's physical form and presence, as he felt it is important and great. But the Buddha told him that the body is impermanent and there is nothing important and great about it. If you want to see and experience what is important and great about the Buddha, then understand the Dhamma (the Buddha's teachings) in detail.
Using the similar formula, the Buddha's words was relayed by Sariputta in MN 28:

"One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the
  Dhamma sees dependent origination."

So, what does that mean?
The Dhamma is so important and great. It is vast and deep. As stated in SN 6.1:

"This Dhamma (teachings or truth) that I have attained is deep, hard
  to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.

So, if the Dhamma (teachings) is so vast and deep, how can you learn all of it?
MN 28 provides the "shortcut". The formula "One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination," simply means that when you have thoroughly understood and "could see it through wisdom", then you have completely understood and realized the Dhamma. So, to understand the Dhamma completely, you need to thoroughly see and understand dependent origination through wisdom.
How can you see it through wisdom?
Khemaka explains in SN 22.89 that through the practice of Vipassana, one can see through wisdom:

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
  the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
  desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
  the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
  disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
  fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
  disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
  these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
  'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

So, basically, if you want to know what is important and great about the Buddha, learn the Dhamma. If the Dhamma seems too vast for you, remember that all you need to do is thoroughly understand dependent origination. But to thoroughly understand dependent origination, you need to see it through wisdom using Vipassana.
But to see through wisdom using Vipassana, there are some useful or helpful steps before that as found in AN 10.99, like practising virtues, sense restraint, mindfulness & alertness, abandoning hindrances etc.

user43: This very question is exactly the topic of The Rice Seedling Sutra (Salistamba Sutra), one of the earliest known post-canonical sutras that can be classified as a missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana:

[...] Venerable Śāriputra then said to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, here today, the Bhagavān, gazing at a rice seedling, spoke this aphorism to the bhikṣus: ‘Bhikṣus, [just like this seedling was born from causes and conditions, the twelve nidanas occur in succession to one another. Verily,] whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.’ [...] Maitreya, what is the meaning of this aphorism spoken by the Sugata? 
1) What is dependent arising? 2) What is the Dharma? 3) What is the Buddha? 4) How does one see the Dharma by seeing dependent arising? 5) How does one see the Buddha by seeing the Dharma?”
The bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya then replied to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable Śāriputra, you want to know what dependent arising is in the statement made by the Bhagavān [...]   
Well,   

the phrase dependent arising means that something arises because something else already exists; something is born because something else was already born.  [...]
what is the Dharma? The Dharma is the eightfold path of the noble ones [...] This eightfold path of the noble ones, combined with the attainment of its results and nirvāṇa, is what the Bhagavān has called the Dharma [...]
who is the Bhagavān Buddha, [the Dharma-Born]? A buddha is so-called because of comprehending all dharmas; is endowed with the wisdom eye of the noble ones and the body of Dharma [...]
how does one see dependent arising? On this point the Bhagavān said, ‘One who sees dependent arising as constant, without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled, [...] clearly understands the Dharma of the nobles ones, and
by thus acquiring such right knowledge, sees the Buddha -- the body of unsurpassable Dharma.’  

[...]  
[...] there are four links that serve as the cause for assembling this twelvefold dependent arising. What four links? Namely, 1) ignorance, 2) craving, 3) karma, and 4) consciousness. 

Here, what is ignorance? That which perceives the six elements [earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness] as a unit, a lump, permanent, constant, eternal, pleasurable, a self, a being, a life force, a creature, a soul, a man, an individual, a human, a person, me, and mine, along with the many other such variations of misapprehension, is called ignorance.  [...]
The presence of such ignorance brings desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects. [...] three types of [karmic] tendencies accumulate: those that lead to meritorious states, those that lead to unmeritorious states, and those that lead to neutral states. 
Karma [resulting from karmic tendencies] and afflictions [i.e. ignorance, craving, and pursuit of objects] cause the seed of consciousness to grow [...] [Consciousness dwells in the impressions produced by karma which are then deposited in the consciousness as representation of objects]
That which distinguishes between individual objects is consciousness.  [...] When the seed of consciousness grows, planted in the field of karma, moistened by the water of craving, and strewn with the manure of ignorance, the sprout of name and form manifests.

[...] there is nobody at all who transmigrates from here after death and is born elsewhere, and yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the result of karma nonetheless manifests [...] although things are devoid of owner, devoid of ownership, ungraspable, space-like, and their nature is the mark of illusion, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the seed of consciousness born of karma and afflictions will nonetheless produce the sprout of name and form [...] 
[...]
  “Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and from several different conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without any cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, rolling along like a flowing stream.  
[...]
Venerable Śāriputra, whoever sees with perfect wisdom this dependent arising, perfectly taught by the Bhagavān, as it actually is — as always and forever without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled — whoever fully and truly sees it as unreal, vain, hollow, unsubstantial, as a sickness, a boil, a thorn, as miserable, impermanent, painful, empty, and no-self, [thereby restricting the power of ignorance-produced karmic tendencies] -- such a person does not reflect on the past thinking, ‘Did I exist in the past, or not? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the future thinking, ‘Will I exist in the future, or not? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the present thinking, ‘What is this? How is this? Being what, what will we become? Where does this being come from? Where will it go when transmigrating from here at death?’
  Whichever dogmas mendicants-and-brahmins hold throughout the world, whether they involve belief in a self, belief in a being, belief in a life force, belief in a person, or belief in rites and rituals -- such dogmas, prone to agitation and dullness, are all abandoned at that time. Fully understood as false, these dogmas are severed at the root and wither like the head of a palm tree, never to arise or cease in the future.
[...]

The meaning of this, as I understand it: just as someone looking at a moist seed in the ground sees the potential sprout - same way someone looking at the seeds of ignorant consciousness in the ground of karma sees the inevitable arising of individual experience, and someone who understands this dependent origination of individual experience - necessarily understands ignorance, craving, and origination of suffering. Since s/he understands how it originates -- s/he understands how it can stop. S/he understands the ground, the goal and the path. This understanding is called "seeing the Dharma".
Seeing the Dharma, there is no more ignorance, no craving or aversion, no attachment, no selfish goal-making, no I-projecting, no conflict between "is" and "should", no suffering, no birth and no death. Whatever remains is suchness. 
Seeing the Dharma is seeing Buddha, because Buddha is born from the seeds of Dharma and Dharma is spread by Buddha, just like with rice plant and rice.  

11541: <p>In <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 28</a> following was said :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent
  origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My questions are :</p>

<p>What is meant by the above statement? &amp;
Is dependent origination not a Dhamma ? </p>
 254: <p>Piya Tan's introduction to <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6.16-Maha-Hatthipadopama-S-m028-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 28</a> says this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Mahā Hatthi,padopama Sutta contains an interesting statement attributed to the Buddha himself,
  but which is found nowhere else, namely, “<strong>He who sees dependent arising sees dharma; he who sees
  dharma sees dependent arising</strong>”
  <sup>14</sup> (<em>paṭicca,samuppādaṁ passati, so dhammaṁ passati. Yo dhammaṁ
  passati, so paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passatî ti</em>) [§28]. In fact, this quote is untraced in the Pali Canon as we
  have it and possibly belongs to some lost texts. The Sutta goes on to explain that the five aggregates of
  clinging arise interdependently (<em>paṭicca,samuppannā</em>). The Commentary explains the statement thus:
  “One who sees conditionality (<em>paccaya</em>) sees dependently arisen states (<em>paticca,samuppanne dhamme</em>);
  one who sees dependently arisen states see conditionality” (MA 2:230).<sup>15</sup></p>
  
  <p>Dependent arising is the most important epistemological model for explaining how our experiences
  arise through conditions and how they are interrelated to events and states around us. Dependent arising <em>is</em>
  the interrelatedness of dharmas, as <strong>Rupert Gethin</strong> points out:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>To see <em>dhammas</em> is to see their interrelatedness; to see their interrelatedness is to see <em>dhamma</em>.
    One might rephrase the Nikāya saying, then, as: “He who sees <em>dhammas</em> sees dhamma; he who
    sees <em>dhamma</em> sees <em>dhammas</em>.” (Gethin 2001:151)</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>In his article “He who sees <em>dhamma</em> sees <em>dhammas</em>,” Gethin adds:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>My suggestion is that this [MA 2:230 above] should be read in part as quite deliberate play on the
    meaning of <em>dhamma</em>, a play, moreover, that is entirely consonant with the Nikāyas. As we have
    seen, <em>dhammas</em> are mental and physical qualities, and seeing these <em>dhammas</em> as <em>dhammas</em>—seeing
    how they arise and disappear, seeing how they are dependently arisen—one sees the ultimate
    truth: he who sees <em>dhammas</em> sees <em>dhamma</em>. (Gethin 2004:536)</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Gethin, however, is careful to add a caveat that he is not trying to impute any specific technical Abhidharma
  understanding to the Nikāyas, that he is not suggesting that <em>dhamma</em> is used in early Buddhist
  thought in the sense of an irreducible element. It is just that <em>dhamma</em> here is used in the general sense of a
  mental or physical quality.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Nevertheless, alongside the use of <em>dhamma</em> in the Nikāyas in the senses of the practices, truths
    and teachings that are recommended on the authority of the Buddha, there is a further usage
    already embedded in the Nikāyas: <em>dhammas</em> are the fundamental qualities, both mental and
    physical, that in some sense constitute—or better, support and maintain—experience or reality in
    its entirety. (Gethin 2004:536 f)</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>That the exact understanding and translation of <em>dhamma</em> in early Buddhist thought should remain
  elusive is understandable. The Dharma is “deep, hard to see, peaceful, sublime, beyond the sphere of
  reasoning [logic], subtle, to be known by the wise,”<sup>16</sup> so that they are beyond bookish banter or academic
  pronouncements, but something to be personally and directly experienced leading to a wholesome life
  change. For this reason, even the Buddhas put the Dharma above themselves.<sup>17</sup></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><sup>14</sup> As will be explained below, it is important that “dharma” is here spelt in the lower case. Indeed, Pāli and
  other ancient Indian languages do not have capital letters, the use of which imposes a sense of permanence onto the
  idea that the word refers to—a notion foreign to early Buddhism.</p>
  
  <p><sup>15</sup> Yo paṭicca,samuppādaṁ passatî ti yo paccaye passati; so dhammaṁ passatî ti so paṭicca,samuppanna,-
  dhamme passati. (MA 2:230)</p>
  
  <p><sup>16</sup> Dhammo gambhīro duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkâvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍita,vedanīyo (M 1:167).</p>
  
  <p><sup>17</sup> Dhammañ ñeva sakkatvā garuṁ katvā, Gārava S (S 6.2/1:138-140 = A 4.21/2:20 f) = SD 12.3.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think Gethin's play on words is based on the fact that "<em>dhamma</em>" has <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/dhamma" rel="nofollow noreferrer">several meanings</a>.</p>

<p>Roughly, when he <em>dhammas</em> he means "things" (and the relationships between things), and when he say "dhamma" he means something like law-of-nature (as discovered by the Buddha) or "Buddhist doctrine" or "the teaching" -- so (my paraphrase), "he who sees things sees dependent arising in the relationships between things, and in that sees the important part of Buddhist doctrine."</p>

<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ven. Sujato also translates</a> this as ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching.
  One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sutta Central's dictionary alternatively translates <em><a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/passati" rel="nofollow noreferrer">passati</a></em> as "sees; finds; understands".</p>

<p>Also maybe the "meaning" of the phrase is the sentences which follow it, if the phrase is understood as an introduction to those sentences and the sentences are understood as an explanation. The phrases which follow it are:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
  The desire, clinging, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.
  Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.’</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That's also the conclusion of the sutta and maybe the point of it.</p>
 8157: <p>"Dhamma" here should be written with a capital "D" and means the core teaching or core truth discovered and taught by the Buddha, namely, what is suffering and what is the cessation of suffering. Therefore, what is meant by statement “<em>the one who sees Dhamma sees dependent origination</em>” is one who sees dependent origination sees the Teaching/Truth of the Buddhas. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is <strong>suffering</strong> and the <strong>cessation of suffering</strong>.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>MN 22</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Now it is for one who feels that I teach: ‘This is <strong>suffering</strong>,’ and ‘This is the <strong>origin of suffering</strong>,’ and ‘This is the <strong>cessation of
  suffering</strong>,’ and ‘This is the <strong>way leading to the cessation of
  suffering</strong>.’</em></p>
  
  <p><em>AN 3.61</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
  origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are
  dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination and holding
  based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the <strong>origin of
  suffering</strong>. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire
  and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the
  <strong>cessation of suffering</strong>.’</em> </p>
  
  <p><em>MN 28</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? One who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
  Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>What do you think, Vakkali, is form permanent or impermanent... suffering...not-self?”— “Impermanent... suffering... not-self, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”</em></p>
  
  <p><em>SN 22.87</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The word 'dhamma' can have various meanings, such as 'phenomena' (nature), law of nature (truth; law), duty according to law of nature (practise) and results of practise. In this case, it means 'Truth' or 'Law' (as 'Core Teaching/Doctrine'), as explained in SN 12.20. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be’: whether there is an arising
  of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still
  persists, the <strong>stableness of the Dhamma (dhammaṭṭhitatā)</strong>, the <strong>fixed course/lawfulness of the
  Dhamma (dhammaniyāmatā)</strong>, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to this and
  breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, <strong>teaches it</strong>,
  proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates
  it. And he says: ‘See! With birth as condition, bhikkhus,
  aging-and-death.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>SN 12.20</em></p>
</blockquote>
 471: <p>In <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.87</a>, the Buddha told Vakkali:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the
  Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”</p>
  
  <p>“Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body? <strong>One who sees
  the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma.</strong> For in seeing the
  Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.</p>
  
  <p>“What do you think, Vakkali, is form permanent or impermanent?”—
  “Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He
  understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Vakkali placed too much importance on directly seeing and experiencing the Buddha's physical form and presence, as he felt it is important and great. But the Buddha told him that the body is impermanent and there is nothing important and great about it. If you want to see and experience what is important and great about the Buddha, then understand the Dhamma (the Buddha's teachings) in detail.</p>

<p>Using the similar formula, the Buddha's words was relayed by Sariputta in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 28</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the
  Dhamma sees dependent origination."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, what does that mean?</p>

<p>The Dhamma is so important and great. It is vast and deep. As stated in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 6.1</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"This Dhamma (teachings or truth) that I have attained is deep, hard
  to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, if the Dhamma (teachings) is so vast and deep, how can you learn all of it?</p>

<p>MN 28 provides the "shortcut". The formula "One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination," simply means that when you have thoroughly understood and "could see it through wisdom", then you have completely understood and realized the Dhamma. So, to understand the Dhamma completely, you need to thoroughly see and understand dependent origination through wisdom.</p>

<p>How can you see it through wisdom?</p>

<p>Khemaka explains in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.89</a> that through the practice of Vipassana, one can see through wisdom:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
  the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
  desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
  the phenomena of arising &amp; passing away with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
  disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
  fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
  disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising &amp; passing away of
  these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
  'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, basically, if you want to know what is important and great about the Buddha, learn the Dhamma. If the Dhamma seems too vast for you, remember that all you need to do is thoroughly understand dependent origination. But to thoroughly understand dependent origination, you need to see it through wisdom using Vipassana.</p>

<p>But to see through wisdom using Vipassana, there are some useful or helpful steps before that as found in <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_99.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 10.99</a>, like practising virtues, sense restraint, mindfulness &amp; alertness, abandoning hindrances etc.</p>
 43: <p>This very question is exactly the topic of <em>The Rice Seedling Sutra</em> (<a href="http://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-062-010.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Salistamba Sutra</a>), one of the earliest known post-canonical sutras that can be classified as a missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[...] Venerable Śāriputra then said to the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, here today, the Bhagavān, <em>gazing at a rice seedling</em>, spoke this aphorism to the bhikṣus: ‘<strong>Bhikṣus, [just like this seedling was born from causes and conditions, the twelve <em>nidanas</em> occur in succession to one another. Verily,] whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.’</strong> [...] <strong>Maitreya, what is the meaning of this aphorism spoken by the Sugata?</strong>  </p>
  
  <p>1) What is dependent arising? 2) What is the Dharma? 3) What is the Buddha? 4) How does one see the Dharma by seeing dependent arising? 5) How does one see the Buddha by seeing the Dharma?”</p>
  
  <p>The bodhisattva-mahāsattva Maitreya then replied to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable Śāriputra, you want to know what dependent arising is in the statement made by the Bhagavān [...]   </p>
  
  <p>Well,   </p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>the phrase dependent arising means that something arises because something else already exists; something is born because something else was already born.  [...]</li>
  <li>what is the Dharma? The Dharma is the eightfold path of the noble ones [...] This eightfold path of the noble ones, combined with the attainment of its results and nirvāṇa, is what the Bhagavān has called the Dharma [...]</li>
  <li>who is the Bhagavān Buddha, [the Dharma-Born]? A buddha is so-called because of comprehending all dharmas; is endowed with the wisdom eye of the noble ones and <em>the body of Dharma</em> [...]</li>
  <li>how does one see dependent arising? On this point the Bhagavān said, ‘One who sees dependent arising as constant, without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled, [...] clearly understands the Dharma of the nobles ones, and</li>
  <li>by thus acquiring such right knowledge, sees the Buddha -- <em>the body of unsurpassable Dharma</em>.’  </li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>[...]  </p>
  
  <p>[...] there are four links that serve as the cause for assembling this twelvefold dependent arising. What four links? Namely, 1) ignorance, 2) craving, 3) karma, and 4) consciousness. </p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Here, what is ignorance? That which perceives the six elements [earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness] as a unit, a lump, permanent, constant, eternal, pleasurable, a self, a being, a life force, a creature, a soul, a man, an individual, a human, a person, me, and mine, along with the many other such variations of misapprehension, is called ignorance.  [...]</li>
  <li>The presence of such ignorance brings desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects. [...] three types of [karmic] tendencies accumulate: those that lead to meritorious states, those that lead to unmeritorious states, and those that lead to neutral states. </li>
  <li>Karma [resulting from karmic tendencies] and afflictions [i.e. ignorance, craving, and pursuit of objects] cause the seed of consciousness to grow [...] [Consciousness dwells in the impressions produced by karma which are then deposited in the consciousness as representation of objects]</li>
  <li>That which distinguishes between individual objects is consciousness.  [...] When the seed of consciousness grows, planted in the field of karma, moistened by the water of craving, and strewn with the manure of ignorance, the sprout of name and form manifests.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>[...] there is nobody at all who transmigrates from here after death and is born elsewhere, and yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the result of karma nonetheless manifests [...] although things are devoid of owner, devoid of ownership, ungraspable, space-like, and their nature is the mark of illusion, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the seed of consciousness born of karma and afflictions will nonetheless produce the sprout of name and form [...] </p>
  
  <p>[...]
  “Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and from several different conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without any cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, <em>rolling along like a flowing stream</em>.  </p>
  
  <p>[...]</p>
  
  <p>Venerable Śāriputra, whoever sees with perfect wisdom this dependent arising, perfectly taught by the Bhagavān, as it actually is — as always and forever without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never stilled — whoever fully and truly sees it as unreal, vain, hollow, unsubstantial, as a sickness, a boil, a thorn, as miserable, impermanent, painful, empty, and no-self, [thereby restricting the power of ignorance-produced karmic tendencies] -- such a person does not reflect on the past thinking, ‘Did I exist in the past, or not? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the future thinking, ‘Will I exist in the future, or not? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the present thinking, ‘What is this? How is this? Being what, what will we become? Where does this being come from? Where will it go when transmigrating from here at death?’<br>
  Whichever dogmas mendicants-and-brahmins hold throughout the world, whether they involve belief in a self, belief in a being, belief in a life force, belief in a person, or belief in rites and rituals -- such dogmas, prone to agitation and dullness, are all abandoned at that time. Fully understood as false, these dogmas are severed at the root and wither like the head of a palm tree, never to arise or cease in the future.</p>
  
  <p>[...]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The meaning of this, as I understand it: just as someone looking at a moist seed in the ground sees the potential sprout - same way someone looking at the seeds of ignorant consciousness in the ground of karma sees the inevitable arising of individual experience, and someone who understands this dependent origination of individual experience - necessarily understands ignorance, craving, and origination of suffering. Since s/he understands how it originates -- s/he understands how it can stop. S/he understands the ground, the goal and the path. This understanding is called "seeing the Dharma".</p>

<p>Seeing the Dharma, there is no more ignorance, no craving or aversion, no attachment, no selfish goal-making, no I-projecting, no conflict between "is" and "should", no suffering, no birth and no death. Whatever remains is suchness. </p>

<p>Seeing the Dharma is seeing Buddha, because Buddha is born from the seeds of Dharma and Dharma is spread by Buddha, just like with rice plant and rice.  </p>
