text:
What is meant by statement "the one who sees Dhamma sees dependent origination"?
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 ?

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.

How is dependent origination not arisen ? How is it unborn , uncreated , uncompounded ? Similarly how is Dhamma not arisen , unborn , uncreated and uncomounded ?

According to the commentary, this means Dependent Origination is timeless, continuous, permanent, without beginning or end, not made by a God, did not come from causes and conditions, is not something that can be stopped. In other words, Dependent Origination is a natural law, the way things work. Same applies to Dhamma in general: "Whether Tathagatas arise or not, this nature of Dhamma remains, the stability, the invariable principle, the conformity to dependent origination, suchness, unerring thusness, verity, truth".

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.

Thanks. The bit that struck me as most interesting (and worth quoting) of Piya Tan's was the initial comment, that the "quote is untraced in the Pali Canon as we have it and possibly belongs to some lost texts" (which is relevant to the question if true).

Another bit I found slightly interesting (not really relevant to this question though) was the reminder about capital letters (e.g. translating "self" as "Self" can be misleading). Yes it's conventional though, now, to distinguish "dhammas in general" versus "the Buddha's Dhamma".

I think it means "the Buddha's Dhamma"; as Sujato has translated as "Teaching".

Yes the quote from Gethin doesn't go very far. I like the detail in Andrei's answer. I'm not sure why you dislike "interrelatedness", though, I assume that's some alternate translation of paṭiccasamuppāda, in which the "sam" might mean "together with". Wikipedia says there are several translations, "dependent origination, dependent arising, interdependent co-arising, conditioned arising, etc."

I think it means "the Buddha's Dhamma" I'm sure we all do. But I agree, yes, it's idiosyncratic (maybe confusing) of him to prefer lower case. He mentioned "early Buddhism" in the footnote ... perhaps he has 'a bee in his bonnet' about some later doctrine, perhaps Dhamma becoming reified or akin to deified or something like that.

"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

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.

Dhamma in this clause is fourth Noble truth in meditating minds, the fold-eight-paths-noble-truth of the ordinary practitioner, lokiya-khandha. Because every end of each part of this sutta have the conclusion as 'you have to comprehend your meditation-minds as well, because your comprehending-minds are grasping-aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda, too.Then you will giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.'
The readers have to connect this sutta with KN paṭisambhidāmagga, especially bhaṅgañāṇaniddesa, because both place are the same sāriputta's teaching. You can see in the same chapter of the path of purification as well.
The introduction part of this sutta said "all skillful qualities-all kusala-dhamma":

“The footprints of all creatures that walk (such as paṭiccasamuppāda, catudhātu, ) can fit inside an elephant’s footprint, so an elephant’s footprint is said to be the biggest of them all.
“Seyyathāpi, āvuso, yāni kānici jaṅgalānaṃ pāṇānaṃ padajātāni sabbāni tāni hatthipade samodhānaṃ gacchanti, hatthipadaṃ tesaṃ aggamakkhāyati yadidaṃ mahantattena;
In the same way, ...all skillful qualities... can be included in the four noble truths.
evameva kho, āvuso, ...ye keci kusalā dhammā... sabbete catūsu ariyasaccesu saṅgahaṃ gacchanti.

And what you asking is answered already in the  explanation of that introduction.

But the Buddha has said:
Vuttaṃ kho panetaṃ bhagavatā:
“One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching.
“yo paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati;
One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.”
yo dhammaṃ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passatī”ti.
And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
Paṭiccasamuppannā kho panime yadidaṃ pañcupādānakkhandhā.
The desire, clinging, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.

And this part showing "all ..skillful qualities..." is the fold-eight-paths-noble-truth which enlightening the cessation-noble-truth:

Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chando ālayo anunayo ajjhosānaṃ so dukkhasamudayo.
Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.’
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ, so dukkhanirodho’ti.
At this point, much has been done by that mendicant.
Ettāvatāpi kho, āvuso, bhikkhuno bahukataṃ hoti.

The long sutta often already included the answer, because "svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo-buddha's teaching was the best teaching (because buddha [and his ariya students] connects these 4 subjects of genius [4 paṭisambhidā] together for each listener personally when he taught everything: causes & effects & linguistics of causes+effect & talents of these 4)".
So, when your question is appear almost at the end of Sutta Pitaka Vol 4 : Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāhatthipadopamasuttaṃ, you have to search for the answer at the previous paragraphs first. It is a proving tool you understand or not of each sutta, then you can search for the reference with the other sutta/part/nikāya/piṭaka. By this way, I can connects whole tipitaka together without conflicts.

Dhamma is the truthful recognition of things as they are. Form is not self. Consciousness is not self. Perception is not self. Feeling is not self. Volitional Formations are not self.  Why are they not self ? Because they are impermanent. Why are they impermanent ? They are impermanent because they dependently arisen.When the dependent factors are removed the thing ceases to be.
Below I quote from SN 36.8 describe why 'feeling'(one of the five aggregates) is impermanent :

“Bhikkhus, while a bhikkhu dwells thus, mindful and clearly
  comprehending, diligent, ardent, and resolute, if there arises in him
  a pleasant feeling, he understands thus: ‘There has arisen in me a
  pleasant feeling. Now that is dependent, not independent. Dependent on
  what? Dependent on just this contact. But this contact is impermanent,
  conditioned, dependently arisen. So when the pleasant feeling has
  arisen in dependence on a contact that is impermanent, conditioned,
  dependently arisen, how could it be permanent?’ He dwells
  contemplating impermanence in contact and in pleasant feeling, he
  dwells contemplating vanishing, contemplating fading away,
  contemplating cessation, contemplating relinquishment. As he dwells
  thus, the underlying tendency to lust in regard to contact and in
  regard to pleasant feeling is abandoned by him.

Now that we understand Dhamma let us see what is dependent origination.
Dependent origination is a theory which claims that All things are dependently arisen. The list of things it claims to have dependently arisen are longer. All those things are impermanent. In short ,Dependent origination shows the path impermanent phenomenon take to reach suffering. On this whole journey of dependent origination Self or I is not found at all.
Below I quote from SN 12.20 to support the claim that nowhere in dependent origination idea of self is found:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
  as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
  arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
  past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
  What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
  did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
  future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
  future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
  Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
  now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
  exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
  where will it go?’

In both the cases we have reached the same conclusion that impermanent phenomenon means suffering which means they are not self.
Therefore when one sees dependent origination one sees the Dhamma and vice versa.


text:
Do the Pali suttas teach about "interrelatedness"?
What is "interrelatedness"? Do the Pali suttas teach about "interrelatedness"?

interrelatedness of what..

This question could be improved by adding context to your question. Why you ask, where did you see this term, what does interrelatedness mean to you etc., etc. Otherwise the question can be answered by a search for the word on suttacentral.

This question was further to the comments under this answer.

Here is the literal answer to your question: https://suttacentral.net/search?query=interrelatedness
I assume by your quotes that you are asking the objective question whether any popular translator has used that literal word as a translation of a specific Pali word or phrase of concept. The link above should provide your answer.
If you are asking a different question if the concept conveyed by the imperfect word “interrelatedness” exists in the Pali canon and what the Buddha had to say about it... well I’ll let you rephrase the question I guess.

In this context the word was used to refer to dependent arising:

Dependent arising is the interrelatedness of dharmas

IMO the word paṭiccasamuppāda can be analyzed as:

Paṭicca [ger. of pacceti, paṭi+i; cp. BSk. pratītya] grounded on, on account of, concerning, because (with acc.)
sam

conjunction, closer connection = with, along, together.
  examples:

yutta: yoked, connected > saṃyutta: bound together, grouped.
vasati: to live > saṃvasati: to live together with

completeness, or accentuation of the meaning = thoroughly, quite, fully, perfectly. It often equals pa- with which it gets combined in sampa-.
  examples:

bodhi: awakening > sambodhi: complete awakening
jāna: knowing > sampajāna: knowing thoroughly.

Uppāda coming into existence, appearance, birth

... so literally or etmymologically (beware some people don't like taking etymology as meaning) it means something like, "coming into existence with".
It's not much of a stretch to translate that as "interconnected" or "interrelated".
Wikipedia lists several English translations for paṭiccasamuppāda:

dependent origination,
  dependent arising,
  interdependent co-arising,
  conditioned arising,
  etc.

Encyclopedia Britanicca is one of the first (or few) results returned by Google:

Paticca-samuppada, (Pali: “dependent origination”) Sanskrit pratitya-samutpada, the chain, or law, of dependent origination, or the chain of causation—a fundamental concept of Buddhism describing the causes of suffering (dukkha; Sanskrit duhkha) and the course of events that lead a being through rebirth, old age, and death.
Existence is seen as an interrelated flux of phenomenal events, material and psychical, without any real, permanent, independent existence of their own. These events happen in a series, one interrelating group of events producing another. The series is usually described as a chain of 12 links (nidanas, “causes”), though some texts abridge these to 10, 9, 5, or 3. [etc.]

Incidentally, "interrelated" is used in the English translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra which describes Indra's net:

Indra's net (also called Indra's jewels or Indra's pearls, Sanskrit Indrajāla) is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of Śūnyatā (emptiness),[1] pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination),[2] and interpenetration[3] in Buddhist philosophy.
The metaphor was developed by the Mahayana school in the 3rd century Avatamsaka Sutra and later by the Huayan school between the 6th and 8th centuries.

... though that's off-topic since you asked for Pali suttas (only).
Still I think it's evidence that some people are going to understand or translate, or have seen translations of, "dependent arising" as some "interrelatedness" -- perhaps of dhammas in general, and/or perhaps of nidanas in particular.
I don't think it's the most precise translation, which may be why you don't recognise it.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
If you cannot can save others then why is your practice more worthy than anything else?
If you have doubts on whether your practice (i.e. of the Eightfold Path) will free anyone from saṁsāra in your lifetime, then what reasons can you give for why your practice should take precedence over anything else, namely, alleviating the suffering of others in whatever mundane way you can (even if it does not free anyone from saṁsāra, (e.g. ordinary acts of charity, career in public service, etc.))?

Related: Selfless charity to poor and needy

Related: are mundane acts of compassion meaningful?

Related: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10878/hypocrisy-of-buddhism

Because outer peace begins with inner peace. The Buddha said,

“Monks, there are these four kinds of persons found existing in the world. What four? (1) One who is practicing neither for his own welfare nor for the welfare of others; (2) one who is practicing for the welfare of others but not for his own welfare; (3) one who is practicing for his own welfare but not for the welfare of others; and (4) one who is practicing both for his own welfare and for the welfare of others.
...
The person practicing for his own welfare but not for the welfare of
  others is the more excellent and sublime of the [first] three persons.
  The person practicing both for his own welfare and for the welfare of
  others is the foremost, the best, the preeminent, the supreme, and the
  finest of these four persons...” (AN 4:95, NDB 476–77)

Hence, the Buddha ordered (3) > (2).

I found the following quote useful in seeing this another way,

We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.
King, Martin Luther, Jr.

and I thought this final quote helped to further see this,

I will protect others,’ bhikkhus: thus should the establishments of mindfulness be practised. Protecting oneself, bhikkhus, one protects others; protecting others, one protects oneself.
“And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
“And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, lovingkindness, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
SN 47.19

Generosity, kind words and helpfulness are all meaningful in Buddhism, however small. Every Buddhist and non-Buddhist should practise it. See the next 3 quotes from the suttas.
From Vaccha Sutta:

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

From Itivuttaka 26:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

From Itivuttaka 75:

"And how is a person one who rains everywhere? There is the case where
  a person gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  ointments, beds, dwellings, & lights to all brahmans & contemplatives,
  to all of the miserable, the homeless, & beggars. This is how a person
  one who rains everywhere.
A person responsive to requests,
  sympathetic to all beings,
  delighting in distributing alms:
  "Give to them! Give!" he says.
  As a cloud — resounding, thundering — rains,
  filling with water, drenching
  the plateaus & gullies:
  a person like this is like that.
  Having rightly amassed wealth
  attained through initiative,
  he satisfies fully with food & drink
  those fallen into the homeless state.

The next quote from Iti 100 however shows something different. It says that the gift of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings) is superior to all other types of gifts.
From Itivuttaka 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

Why is this the case? Other types of gifts relieve one's sufferings temporarily. But with the Dhamma, even if one would not become free from samsara in this lifetime, it would still guide them (and us) to cleanse our mind, and at least bring us to happy destinations both in this lifetime and the next.
For according to Dhammapada 1:

"All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
  their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
  mind, suffering follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of
  the ox that draws the cart."

So, even if learning the Dhamma does not free one from samsara in this lifetime, at least it will guide them to be more skillful mentally. Since the mind is the forerunner to all types of sufferings (see MN 135), becoming skillful in mind, will reduce all sufferings in future.
And according to AN 3.99:

'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
  [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
  developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
  the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

This shows how one could reduce his or her suffering by becoming developed in body, virtue and mind.

If you have doubts on whether your practice will free anyone from saṁsāra in your lifetime
Is this an example of an aphorism "the perfect is the enemy of the good" -- which, Wikipedia says, is related to a "Nirvana fallacy" -- i.e. "if you can't be perfect, then no point trying to be good"?
what reasons can you give for why your practice should take precedence over anything else
You probably didn't mean it this way, but "precedence over anything else" may be an exaggeration -- for example it's also important (fundamental) to be harmless.
An example (of your being "harmless") is keeping the four or five precepts.
But perhaps this is part of your practice already.
I think it's generally a mistake to assume that dhamma is only one thing (see also here) -- to assume that you can summarise it as one thing, and ignore everything else.
I think that a generosity too is beneficial, not (or not only) for the sake of "helping others" but (perhaps more importantly for "your practice") for the sake of reducing attachment --  or practising non-attachment -- e.g. a material gift may be a small antidote to a self-view that "this is mine".
Personally I think that a great (or greatest) "gift" (that you can give) is not only dhamma (doctrine) but liberation or liberty -- or at least, help provide an environment in which someone can discover/experience (live) liberty. Perhaps you might read the Therigathas -- many of which praise mutti (in comparison to the life they had previously). Some (many) people feel they must seek seclusion, perhaps the homeless life, to be free -- which I think includes being free of evil or unwise company, free of other people's unreasonable demands and expectations, etc. IMO you might extend this gift towards monastics (by helping to support them materially) and towards laypeople (by being undemanding).
So if "your own practice" results in your own behaviour being a bit less "needy"; skilfully abandoning cravings and attachments; maybe having a better of identity (and so for example not, "he is mine" and "she is mine", and "they owe me") -- maybe that helps to answer your question.
In other words I suppose I'd answer that any of your practice is also important towards liberating others, partly because it's (only) because you practice that you're able to help free others.
Also I find it hard to blame the behaviour described in e.g. A messiah for India's abandoned sick -- that (although not explicitly Buddhist) seems to me a practice for cessation of suffering -- for example as described in the Bikkhuni sutta:

There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume it's an "either/or" decision (i.e., 'either' your practice 'or' alleviating the suffering of others in whatever mundane way you can) -- perhaps an ideal is 'both', a middle way, a doing one by (or while) doing the other -- or one and the other at different times, like walking with the left foot and the right foot.
Also I think that a Buddhist doctrine which says that you don't give material/mundane aid, and/or that immaterial aid is superior, is intended for monks -- who (by their poverty) have a limit to the type of aid that they're able to give (e.g. they can't give money because they don't possess any) -- but who nevertheless ought to know that what they do have (i.e. Dhamma) and can give is important, worthwhile, worth offering, and superior. I think that the expectations or advice (re. generosity) for lay people is slightly different.

Looking again at your quote from the Bikkhuni sutta, maybe we can blame the case of an arahant of practices simply for his own peace, and whose compassion does not take the form of any engagement with the world: how does his taking of food, for the survival & continuance of [his] body, benefit the world moreso than he just letting his body pass away? Even if he abides harmlessly for the rest of his life, how would the world be any worse off without his existence?

@avatarKorra I think the suttas talk about being able to "live the holy life" as if that's good. And I suppose there are forms of Buddhism -- perhaps especially but perhaps not only Mahayana -- which see it as worthwhile to be engaged.

‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’

"If there were no potential for enlightenment, there would not really be such a special point made about living a longer life

First, the correct wording isn't "helping others": the correct wording is "helping somebody to achieve something (which means you have the faculty to help, and more importantly to discriminate between a successful result and a failure of the guy you try to help)".
Everybody knows about the "Four Brahmaviharas" (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha); and indeed they good practices -- but if and only if the person exercising them follows the path in the first place.
For instance, if you practice "metta" without being a noble disciple, that would gets you to a good realm but then get you to a bad realm:

Paṭhamamettāsutta (AN 4.125
“Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four? Firstly, a person meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They enjoy this and like it and find it satisfying. If they abide in that, are committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of Brahmā’s Group. The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Group is one eon. An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is over, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is over, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between an educated noble disciple and an uneducated ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.

Toxic puthujjanas do not worry about the bad realm: they focus on the good realm, and even tell other people to do metta and karuna etc., without even telling them that they will become miserable.
Now on giving: it is the same situation as with metta etc. The sutta on Giving (AN 7.52) explains what is the appropriate way to give to somebody.
There are plenty of bad ways to give to somebody: giving because of tradition or lineage, giving because of "egoism", and of course giving because of "selflessness".
Some puthujjanas dislike reading this, since it goes against their faith in their fantasy that loving people and feeling good about themselves for giving stuff makes them good people!
So what is the right way to give a gift to somebody?
First the right way to give a gift is to give it to a contemplative. Second point is what is the citta and mano doing while giving the stuff to the contemplative':

“Or, instead of thinking, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,’ he gives a gift with the thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.’ He gives his gift—food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp—to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?”
“Yes, lord.”
“Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], ‘I’ll enjoy this after death,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘Giving is good,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘This was given in the past, done in the past, by my father & grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this old family custom be discontinued,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘I am well-off. These are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those who are not well-off,’ nor with the thought, ‘Just as there were the great sacrifices of the sages of the past—Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa, & Bhagu—in the same way this will be my distribution of gifts,’
“—nor with the thought, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,’
“—but with the thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind’—on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma’s Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
“This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit.”

You see the situation is exactly like doing metta, karuna mudita and upekkha without being on the path first (which means at least "doing sense restraint").
Puthujjanas love to claim that it is a good conduct, because it is the actions they already do, and because the person doing them is reborn in some realm qualified as good ... before falling back to a less good realm. The most toxic puthujjanas love to cling to short term "solutions", where they will feel bliss, and they do not care that one day they will be miserable again. What matters for a toxic puthujjanas is to have the good stuff right away even though it will lead to afflictions later on.

'those puthujjanas called humanists and other christians or Mahayanists or vajrayanists', why did you include last two as puthujjanans?

Christians claim that charity is an expression of "loving our neighbor as ourselves" according to the "Great Commandment" (read more about that e.g. here, if you like: Catechism of the Catholic Church - The virtues) but this isn't the right site to discuss (nor to misrepresent) Christian doctrine. Similarly I don't want to read, on this site, your denouncing other schools of Buddhism -- so (instead of deleting this answer completely) I'm going to edit it heavily.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is there a list of things to abandon before abandoning craving?
There are several things which Buddha asked us to abandon before we can abandon craving finally. For example Buddha asks us to abandon five fetters and hindrances.
My question is : Is there a complete list of things to abandon before abandoning craving ?

The mind can crave so many things. It's quite creative. You can see this creativity happen in the evolution of the Vinaya over time, as it has had to handle the rather bizarre cravings and loopholes that arise.
Given that delight is the root of suffering, you may notice the glow of delight and its relationship with cravings to be, cravings that are or cravings that were.
Consider greed, hate and delusion. One can see greed originating in delight. One can see hate as delight in rage. And one can also consider the role of delight in ignorance to be the seed of delusion (just a little bit won't hurt).
And one might consider that having a concrete, comprehensive list of cravings might suffice (e.g., the Vinaya). Yet any such list would still be incomplete. Mara is quite tricky. In mathematics, we can count. However we cannot enumerate the irrational numbers--there are just too many, and certainly an infinity in between. However, we can see delight.
Is there not delight here?

Monks, cultivated in what way does the perception of impermanence, being cultivated, much cultivated, enable abandoning all craving for sensual pleasures, craving for form, craving for the formless, restlessness, conceit, and ignorance

I have prepared a list of 20 unwholesome things to abandon before right concentration can be reached. (Without right concentration craving can not be removed.)
I have taken these 20 unwholesome things from MN 117. They are based upon the Nobel Eight Fold Path.
Following is what Buddha has to say about these unwholesome states:

“Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the
  wholesome, and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome. This
  Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty has been set rolling and cannot be
  stopped by any recluse or brahmin or god or Māra or Brahmā or anyone
  in the world.

Unwholesome factors are :

Abandon the view :There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing
sacrificed.
Abandon the view : There is no fruit or result of good and bad
actions.
Abandon the view :There is no this world, no other world.
Abandon the view :There is no mother, no father.
Abandon the view : There are no beings who are reborn spontaneously.
Abandon the view: There are no good and virtuous recluses and
brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct
knowledge and declare this world and the other world.
Abandon the intention : The intention of sensual desire.
Abandon the intention:the intention of ill will.
Abandon the intention:the intention of cruelty
Abandon the speech : False speech
Abandon the speech : malicious speech
Abandon the speech: harsh speech
Abandon the speech : Gossip
Abandon the action of: Killing living beings
Abandon the action of : taking what is not given
Abandon the action of : misconduct in sensual pleasures.
Abandon the livelihood based on : Scheming
Abandon the livelihood based on : talking
Abandon the livelihood based on: belittling
Abandon the livelihood based on: hinting
Abandon the livelihood based on: pursuing gain with gain
(There is some counting mistake due to translation I guess. Otherwise there are 20 unwholesome factors which must be abandoned.)


text:
How to understand a second order Karma?
If a person B does an intentional harmful action on person A, and so B does a bad karma.
As a result of that karma, it happens that a person C ends up hurting person B, intentionally or unintentionally.
So what is the result of the action of person C?
Does her action account for Karma?
Does she even have any choice to hurt B or not hurt B?
If C hurts B intentionally does that account for bad karma, but C did in because she had to as it was B's karma?
If this continues, this whole sequence will never ever end.

This question would be interesting on Hinduism.SE too.

@ruben2020 hindus believe that gods have power to wipe out karma. That if you worship and please deities your karma can be nullified. This is basically bhakti yog for them. Also taking bath in Ganges wipes out karma. Kind of beliefs I have abandoned.

The Buddha dispelled the superstition of purification by water in SN 7.21 and put a new spin on it, saying, "The teaching (Dhamma) is a lake with shores of ethics (or virtue), unclouded, praised by the fine to the good. There the knowledge-masters go to bathe, and cross to the far shore (Nibbana) without getting wet."

So what is the result of the action of person C?
I think it would be unusual, a supernatural ability (e.g. of the Buddha's), to be able to see/know/explain the result of kamma.
I think it's called,

"Divine eye" (dibba-cakkhu), that is, knowing others' karmic destinations

For this reason (i.e. that few people have this supernatural ability), all questions of the form "what's the precise karmic result of such-and-such action" asked on this site are pointless or unanswerable.
People can explain a little more about the doctrine of karma-in-general (e.g. here), but I think we can only give some fairly general statements from the suttas, for example that "karma is intention".
Does she even have any choice to hurt B or not hurt B?
I think people debate (or question) whether or to what extent "free will" exists -- whether people are able to choose or whether choices are predetermined -- see e.g. Predetermined future vs. Free will in Buddhism
I think the doctrine says though that if you are person C then you are heir to your own kamma.
If this continues, this whole sequence will never ever end.
I think the doctrine allows for kammic seeds which never come to fruition (which is how it can end):

Kamma and its Fruit (by Nyanaponika Thera)
Most writings on the doctrine of kamma emphasize the strict lawfulness governing kammic action, ensuring a close correspondence between our deeds and their fruits. While this emphasis is perfectly in place, there is another side to the working of kamma — a side rarely noted, but highly important. This is the modifiability of kamma, the fact that the lawfulness which governs kamma does not operate with mechanical rigidity but allows for a considerably wide range of modifications in the ripening of the fruit.
If kammic action were always to bear fruits of invariably the same magnitude, and if modification or annulment of kamma-result were excluded, liberation from the samsaric cycle of suffering would be impossible; for an inexhaustible past would ever throw up new obstructive results of unwholesome kamma.

Also I think that the doctrine tells us to the kammic principle intentionally and skilfully, e.g.:

Intending good for good to ripen (and/or to make any small evil relatively negligible, like a lump of salt dissolved in a river)
Intending cessation for cessation to ripen (I think, more specifically -- abandoning greed, ignorance, and aversion; abandoning self-view; and the noble eightfold path).

In Buddhism, kamma and its fruits is not a system of universal justice. It simply is cause and effect. An individual's intention is the most important thing in kamma.
If a person has evil intentions and commits evil acts, then he may end up in unhappy destinations. Even if he comes back as a human being, he may be sickly or short-lived or ugly or poor etc. Please read the rest of MN 135 for details. If based on his intentions, he harmed others, then in future, he becomes sickly. If based on his intentions, he was miserly and did not donate to others, then he may become poor in future.
According to MN 135:

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or
  man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
  killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body,
  after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the
  bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human
  state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way
  leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal,
  bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living
  beings.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man, having abandoned the
  killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, and
  dwells with the rod laid down, the knife laid down, scrupulous,
  merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings. Through
  having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the
  body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination, in the
  heavenly world. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead
  of reappearing in a good destination, in the heavenly world — he/she
  comes to the human state, then he/she is long-lived wherever reborn.
  This is the way leading to a long life: to have abandoned the killing
  of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to dwell with
  one's rod laid down, one's knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, &
  sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings.
"There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with
  his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead
  he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever
  reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms
  beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not one who harms
  beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
  Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of
  the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If
  instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is healthy
  wherever reborn. This is the way leading to health: not to be one who
  harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with
  knives.

However, not everything we experience is caused by kamma according to SN36.21:

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile... phlegm...
  based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors...
  from the change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from
  harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know
  how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is
  agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any
  brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever
  an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

So it is pointless to assume that if somebody hit you, it must be caused by you hitting someone else in the past. It may not have any kamma-related cause. In the quote above, "harsh treatment" is separated from "result of kamma". So, they are separate causes. "Uneven care of the body" and "change of seasons" are also other separate causes. So, if somebody hit you and it caused pain, then it may well be just "harsh treatment" from someone else.
How to alleviate one's karma is explained in the Lonaphala Sutta or the Discourse of the Salt Crystal.

Thank you for the answer. You answered it in kind of reverse way. How do you understand this statement,'You yourself should know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma'. Given your answer, how can I myself know? That is what I am struggling really, to understand my suffering...

It's a shortened excerpt. Every person has experienced some suffering due to bile and know how that feels like. Similarly for phlegm, harsh treatment, karma etc.  For e.g. if you get allergies when seasons change then you know how that is like. If you eat heavy meals before sleeping, you get acid reflux. If you don't wash your hair, it may become itchy. When someone hits you, you feel pain. But what about karma? Where you were born, in what kind of body, to what kind of family, rich or poor background etc.  - this is due to karma. Your previous mental states conditioned your current situation.

O! Bhikkhu monks, it is volition - cetana that I call Kamma,
  -cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami

If A, B or C has an unwholesome thought or speech/action caused by an unwholesome thought, it is bad Karma. It's that simple.
An intention to harm a person is always unwholesome whether that person deserves it or not.

If this continues, this whole sequence will never ever end.

That is why the sanasara is endless loop till we understand it and break it.
B hurt A intentionaly and for that karma B get hurt by C intentionally or not, if C didn't someone else will, till the end of B bad karma. Another thing only the Lord Buddha is able to understand the way of karma works, all behind the scence are only understandable to Buddhas only.

As a result of that karma, it happens that a person C ends up hurting person B, intentionally or unintentionally.
So what is the result of the action of person C?

If the action is done intentionally, the result for person C is future unwholesome resultants.
If the action is done unintentionally, the result for person C is no unwholesome kamma. See the Twin verses in Dhp. v1-2.

Does she even have any choice to hurt B or not hurt B?

We always have a choice whether or not to act on an intention. Person C does not have to act on the intention to harm person B. She can choose to observe that intention with mindfulness and instead cultivate insights from it.

If C hurts B intentionally does that account for bad karma, but C did in because she had to as it was B's karma?

Every action that originates in the Three Unwholesome Roots (greed, hatred and delusion) will result in future unwholesome resultants.

If this continues, this whole sequence will never ever end.

It can end. It will end if one works out ones own liberation. The Buddha did it. Many of his disciples and followers did it too. Every person has within himself or herself, the potentiality to become free from suffering, to achieve Nibbana, to become a Buddha.


text:
Definition of Sathpurisha
What is the definition of "Sathpurisa/Sathpurusha" according to the Buddha?
Please provide sutta references.
Metta.

https://suttacentral.net/search?query=Sappurisa

@Dhammadhatu It gives a pali-english meaning. I actually need a sutta where the buddha defines who a sappurisa means.

You'll find some dhamma sermons in youtube.

there are many suttas at the link. regards

How about the eponymous Sappurisa Sutta (AN 4.73):

"Now, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a
  person of integrity.' Which four?
"There is the case where a person of integrity, when asked, does not
  reveal another person's bad points, to say nothing of when unasked.
  Furthermore, when asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who
  speaks of another person's bad points not in full, not in detail, with
  omissions, holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable
  one is a person of integrity.'
"Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals another
  person's good points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when
  asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of another
  person's good points in full & in detail, without omissions, without
  holding back. Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a
  person of integrity.'
"Then again, a person of integrity, when unasked, reveals his own bad
  points, to say nothing of when asked. Furthermore, when asked, when
  pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own bad points in
  full & in detail, without omissions, without holding back. Of this
  person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of integrity.'
"Then again, a person of integrity, when asked, does not reveal his
  own good points, to say nothing of when unasked. Furthermore, when
  asked, when pressed with questions, he is one who speaks of his own
  good points not in full, not in detail, with omissions, holding back.
  Of this person you may know, 'This venerable one is a person of
  integrity.'
"Monks, a person endowed with these four qualities can be known as 'a
  person of integrity.'"

And also the eponymous Sappurisa Sutta (MN 113):

"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through having a
  high-ranking family that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's
  not through having a high-ranking family that the quality of
  aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one
  has not gone forth from a high-ranking family, if — practicing the
  Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who
  follows the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for that.'
  So, giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts himself
  for having a high-ranking family nor disparages others. This is the
  quality of a person of integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through having a family
  of extensive wealth that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's
  not through having a family of extensive wealth that the quality of
  aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one
  has not gone forth from a family of extensive wealth, if — practicing
  the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one
  who follows the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for
  that.' So, giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts
  himself for having a family of extensive wealth nor disparages others.
  This is the quality of a person of integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being well-known
  & highly regarded that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's not
  through being well-known & highly regarded that the quality of
  aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one
  is not well-known & highly regarded, if — practicing the Dhamma in
  line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who follows
  the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for that.' So,
  giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts himself for
  being well-known nor disparages others. This is the quality of a
  person of integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through gains that the
  quality of greed goes to its end; it's not through gains that the
  quality of aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even
  though one is not one who gains robe-cloth, alms-food, lodgings, &
  medicinal requisites for the sick, if — practicing the Dhamma in line
  with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who follows the
  Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for that.' So, giving
  priority just to the practice, he neither exalts himself for his gains
  nor disparages others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being a
  Dhamma-speaker that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's not
  through being a Dhamma-speaker that the quality of aversion... the
  quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one is not a
  Dhamma-speaker, if — practicing the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma,
  practicing masterfully — he is one who follows the Dhamma, he is to be
  honored for that, praised for that.' So, giving priority just to the
  practice, he neither exalts himself for being a Dhamma-speaker nor
  disparages others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being a
  wilderness dweller that the quality of greed goes to its end; it's not
  through being a wilderness dweller that the quality of aversion... the
  quality of delusion goes to its end. Even though one is not a
  wilderness dweller, if — practicing the Dhamma in line with the
  Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one who follows the Dhamma, he
  is to be honored for that, praised for that.' So, giving priority just
  to the practice, he neither exalts himself for being a wilderness
  dweller nor disparages others. This is the quality of a person of
  integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'It's not through being one who
  eats only one meal a day that the quality of greed goes to its end;
  it's not through being one who eats only one meal a day that the
  quality of aversion... the quality of delusion goes to its end. Even
  though one is not one who eats only one meal a day, if — practicing
  the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, practicing masterfully — he is one
  who follows the Dhamma, he is to be honored for that, praised for
  that.' So, giving priority just to the practice, he neither exalts
  himself for being one who eats only one meal a day nor disparages
  others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.
"But a person of integrity notices, 'The Blessed One has spoken of
  non-fashioning even with regard to the attainment of the first jhāna,
  for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from
  that.'  So, giving priority to non-fashioning, he neither exalts
  himself for the attainment of the first jhāna nor disparages others.
  This is the quality of a person of integrity.
"A person of integrity notices, 'The Blessed One has spoken of
  non-fashioning even with regard to the attainment of the dimension of
  neither perception nor non-perception, for by whatever means they
  construe it, it becomes otherwise from that.' So, giving priority to
  non-fashioning, he neither exalts himself for the attainment of the
  dimension of neither perception nor non-perception nor disparages
  others. This is the quality of a person of integrity.
"A person of integrity, completely transcending the dimension of
  neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the
  cessation of feeling & perception. When he sees with discernment, his
  effluents are ended. This is a monk who does not construe anything,
  does not construe anywhere, does not construe in any way."


text:
As a Buddhist, how shall we make sense of the notion that there is no such thing as a Soul?
The three marks of existence is: Impermanence, Suffering, and No-Self.
If there is no-self, then there is no Soul.
Our cognitive abilities is the result of the physical (Brain organ) and the non-physical (five Skandhas)
In meditation, we are taught to observe the changes of our thoughts, which I presume is the result of the five Skandhas as well.
The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts? Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts? Who am I? And who is answering my question in this forum?

As well as topics tagged [tag:self] see also topics tagged [tag:anatta], and topics which describe Sakkaya Ditthi. I recommend How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- or the whole sutta which Andrei linked to in this answer.

As a Buddhist, how shall we make sense of the notion that there is no such thing as a Soul?
I'm not sure why you think that "Soul" is a helpful belief.
I think that "soul" is usually taught as being/meaning something permanent, which maybe contradicts the doctrine (or observation) that "things" (or "everything", or "compound things") are impermanent (anicca).
I think that what we do with ("make sense of") the notion (of non-self) is maybe avoid "suffering" views like "I can't get what I want" and "I can't keep what I have" and "I am dying" and so on -- and maybe, instead, develop views that are closer to being true (or avoid "attaching" to any such views).
The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts?
It's conventional (in life and in language) to assume that there's an agent.
For example if you see some writing, you might assume that "someone" wrote it, to ask "who wrote this?" -- conventionally the existence of "the writing" proves (or implies) the existence of "the writer".
That's a dangerous generalisation though: if you see a creature, can you assume a creator?
Some people use logic like "The universe (also called "creation") exists, therefore God must have created it" -- but perhaps that's not a very provable, testable, and/or useful statement.
If you look at a rock, for example: did someone create it? Buddhism might say that "there were conditions as a result of which a rock exists" ... maybe many conditions including atoms, gravity , heat, time, wind and water ... but that's not the same thing as saying "there's a creator".
In the same way, the fact that there's "a thought" doesn't imply that there's "a thinker".
Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts?
I think this topic -- How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- suggests that it's unwise to do so.
Problems (suffering) arise with attachment, with craving, with "I"-making (having wrong views about self).
To some extent, I think that views are a matter of choice. For example perhaps I could choose to believe that my battery-power flashlight gives light because there's a demon or a god inside it, but I prefer not to (I think it wouldn't be a helpful belief).
Who am I?
I think the suttas define this question as the result of unwise attention.
For example here:

A thicket of wrong views
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."

This answer, which uses "a rock" and "a flashlight" as an example, might imply a "materialist" view e.g. "people are only physical"; but I didn't mean that, it's defined as unwise to attach such a view ("this is my permanent Self, my eternal Soul") to anything, including the physical body.
It would also be a mistake to assume the doctrine implies that "nothing matters" -- it's an aspect of the doctrine, not the whole doctrine.

Yes, my target is to abandon the three fetters completely. I can make sense of 'Doubt' and 'grasping at precepts+practices', getting rid of the identity view is the hardest. Personally, I do not believe in a permanent soul view either. But I am finding it difficult to discern the fact that there is no-self to what extent. My follow up question would be, how can we best observe and eventually detach the view that that there is a self, in our daily life.

You may find this helpful too -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- including Ven Yuttadhammo's description of what a "view" is.

if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts?

This is like asking

if the giant Atals is not lifting up the earth, who is?
If the rain God is not making it rain, who is?
If God is not making the sun rise from the east, who is?

Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts?

For practical reasons in day to day life, we all have to use conventional language. But from a realistic point of view, this question is as valid as asking "Is it wrong for Antman to say that ants belong to him?".
Antman does not exist. It's fictional. When you start a sentence with "Am I", the existence of an entity is asserted to begin with. Asking if it is wrong for Antman to say that is an invalid question since it asserts that Antman is real in the first place.

Who am I? And who is answering my question in this forum?

The meaning of the word 'who' has no basis in reality. 'Who' is not an experience. There are only 6 types of experiences: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking. 'Who' does not come under any of those. Asking "Who am I?" is as valid as asking "Kryptonian, are you Superman?". Asking "Who is answering my question?" is as valid as asking "is Batman going to save Superman's mother?".
Awareness or knowing is simply an aspect of every experience. It rises with the experience and vanishes with the experience, just like the rest of the five aggregates.
If awareness/knowing is a self or if you are awareness, why can't you be aware of just pleasurable feelings and not painful feelings? Why can't you make the awareness of the pleasurable feelings persist?
Satipatthana meditation is highly recommended to resolve this matter. Mere intellectual understanding of non-self is not sharp enough to cut through thick layers of ignorance.

Ok, is it right to say that the "observation" is part of the 5 aggregates? And without the 5 aggregates, the ability to observe, aware, discern, and learn, would be ceased?

"why can't you be aware of just pleasurable feelings and not painful feelings" <- I would say experience depends on conditions, which these conditions are not totally under our control.

You can try and see if it works. "Let only the awareness of pleasurable feelings arise and let it not fade away". :)

Five aggregates are the experience. Awareness is just 1 of the aggregates. They are caused, impermanent and non-self.

There is no way of keeping only pleasurable feelings, they are conditioned, hence impermanent. I understand this part. I would really want to see through the "identity view". I kind of get stuck on the notion that "when there are 5 aggregates, it becomes an entity, and what is the identity of this entity?" I watched the first Antman, all the ants are controlled, they don't have a will of their own. In this case, I feel we are Antman, not the Ants. And the ants do not belong to me. Interesting movie nonetheless!

Antman does not exist. It's fictional. When you start a sentence with "Am I", the existence of an entity is asserted to begin with. Asking if it is wrong for Antman to say that ants belong to him is an invalid question since it asserts that Antman is real in the first place. That's what I wanted you to understand from it. Do Satipatthana meditation. Like I mentioned in the answer, Intellectual understanding isn't sharp enough.

Very true. Thanks for that, I guess Satipatthana meditation is what I lack and need to do. So first and foremost, the concept of I do not really exist, nothing but what we created...

You're welcome. 'We' is another concept :) I, me, we etc. are conceptual and not experiential

The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts?

That there is an observer is simply an idea, a mental formation. There is only an object and Mind arising to that object.
I would recommend watching this short Discussion on Death with Ayya Khema. In here she touches on the subject of the illusional observer.

Who am I? And who is answering my question in this forum?

Conventionally speaking, there exists entities such as  "a person, man, a woman, an arm, a human body, an animal, a car, a planet etc.". All these conditioned phenomena are called concepts. They exist in conventional reality (sammuti-sacca) but not in ultimate reality (paramattha-sacca).
In ultimate reality, there is just experience.
For more info, please see Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) and Ultimate Truth (Paramattha Sacca) and the Two Truths Doctrine.

Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts?

In MN 140, the Buddha gave a teaching to Ven. Pukkusāti, on how to regard the six elements, six bases of contact, eighteen kinds of mental exploration and four foundations:

*"...Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements, six bases of contact, eighteen kinds of mental exploration and four foundations..."
And that should be seen as it actually is
  with proper wisdom thus: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is
  not my self".
-- MN 140: Dhātuvibhanga Sutta, p. 1088, Bodhi Trans.

Thanks! In that case, in ultimate reality, my experience is still my experience...accessible only to me, isn't it?

There is no "Me, I or Self" in Ultimate reality. These are concepts. It can be difficult to understand intellectually, which is why its recommended to practice Vipassana meditation.´

The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is
  observing my thoughts?

All the volitional formations are impermanent. They simply arise in the Mind and then settle in the Mind. Observations are arising in the Mind and settling in the Mind. (Six sense organs are impermanent that includes Mind but Mind is place where such mental phenomenon arise.)

Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts?

Yes you are wrong to say they are my thoughts. You are unfortunate to say they are my thought because it means you have craving for thoughts. Remember as long as craving survives you will be bound by the world, you will again and again take rebirth. Therefore give up this false idea that you are thought or thoughts are yours.

Who am I?

You are an illusion. You are a result of false belief in five aggregates. You believe you are one of the five aggregates. Or you think one of the five aggregates is yours.

And who is answering my question in this forum?

This answer arose in the Mind and settled in the Mind. It is an invalid question to ask who is answering my question in this forum. The valid question will be depending upon what the answer came up. The answer would be that depending upon Mind consciousness this answer came up. Mind consciousness is impermanent , not self.

I definitely believe that the five aggregates consist of impermanence and suffering. But, I also believe the the 5 aggregates are certain functions for us to "experience" life. My question is, who is behind the five aggregates? If there is nobody, why do different people have different thoughts?

@user13190 why do fruits of different trees have different tastes? Do the trees have souls?

The tastes are subjective to our feelings and experiences. I would also assume trees are not made of the 5 aggregates, Or, they don't possess the 5 aggregates. But my assumption may not be right...lol

People 'have' different thoughts , does not apply. No body owns the thoughts. Thoughts occur and then they settle. Rest is an illusion .

@user13190 Trees have only Rupa. So you agree that even without a soul, variation is possible?

When you ask a question to an intelligent assistant like Siri or Alexa or Cortana, who is answering that question? Ten years from now, such intelligent assistants may be indistinguishable in their interactions, from a human.
Ten to twenty years from now, self-driving cars would slowly replace all human-driven cars on the roads. They are already available today. Who would be driving those cars? It's absurd to think that self-driving cars, have suddenly obtained a soul from somewhere. Rather, a complex interaction between sensors, actuators and computer algorithms are responsible for this appearance of a "self" driving car.
Thankfully we have such marvels of technology today that help us to draw parallels with the anatta concept of Buddhism, for which, you can find more details in this answer.
While I use the self-driving car analogy today, the Buddha used the lute analogy in the Vina Sutta 2500 years ago to explain the same thing:

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

One interesting comment I have heard is that although computer algorithms may mimic human beings completely, they still do not have real experience because they do not have a soul.
This "real experience" is attributed to a kind of spiritual consciousness. Hindu Advaita Vedanta expands this to say that all beings have the same spiritual consciousness, which is a kind of universal consciousness, also known as the "silent witness", discussed in this answer.
This too was debunked by the Buddha in MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

This means that consciousness is dependent on these six media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch and mind. There is no separate or independent consciousness apart from this. This too mirrors what you have in self-driving cars: a "consciousness" that is watching the different sensors and also its own "mind" which are the calculating and communicating computer algorithms.
In the automotive and aviation industries, functional safety is a very important concept. These systems are often built with redundancies, like redundant power supplies, hydraulics and auto-pilot computers. These systems also come with monitoring. For example, one system monitors another system for failures, that could switch to another backup system if needed, to ensure that safety is not compromised. This again is not so different to monitoring one's thoughts in meditation.
Who is writing this answer to your question? It can be a computer program or it can be a human. You can't be absolutely sure, can you?

Thanks for the answer. Based on the analogy, is it possible the AI also go through reincarnation through the good deeds and karma? If an AI was taught the dharma, what would happen to it after it's machine(Body) falls apart?

"Rebirth" of software is possible by transfer of software and data to other computers and devices, over networks. However, AI is not (yet?) a full fledged being with five aggregates and dependent origination, so it's impossible to map it one-to-one. It's just an analogy.

The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts? Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts? Who am I? And who is answering my question in this forum?

The key to this question is HOW you answer it, not WHAT the answer is. If we tackle it with the intellect, we have just filled our heads with lots more ideas.
Alternatively, we can take it as almost a non-sensical challenge. We can take it as an imperative, a direction to search. To slightly adjust your question, when you observe yourself observing yourself, what do you notice? What is in your experience? When you notice yourself noticing yourself, who is doing THAT noticing? How is that possible? How does each of those noticings differ from the others? Is any one of those more "you" than the others?
It is much more useful to use the question of "no-self" as an injunction to inquire into direct experience, than to think that the mind can ever really understand it. What we are in fact trying to do is to undermine assumptions that the mind has made by looking at what is right there in front of us.

The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts?
You are, silly :)
Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts?
No, you are not wrong. You are using completely appropriate and normal language. How could that be wrong?
Who am I?
You are an impermanent, non-unitary, utterly dependent, relative, conventional existent that utterly lacks inherent existence. You are you. You exist. The question you should ask is how you exist. Do you exist in the way we naively imagine? As a permanent embodied soul? Or as something else...
It seems impossible that you could exist and have thoughts and be the "owner" of your thoughts yet utterly lack inherent existence, let alone a soul, right? And yet, quite the opposite is true. It is impossible to imagine that a permanent, unitary, independent, substantially existent person with inherent existence could actually exist.
And who is answering my question in this forum?
We are, silly! The people answering that it is somehow wrong to use conventional language or that doing so means you necessarily have not understood anatman or that using everyday conventional language somehow implies craving after existence are pretty silly. Who are these people anyway? :)


text:
Conscious death and afterlife meditation
Lets keep the rebirth concepts aside for a moment.
Is there a way we can die consciously? (i.e.) Being aware of our death.
And can we still meditate after death without a human body?
If yes, then in what thing we concentrate on. Let's say we are on concentrating on breath while we are alive. But after death we don't have breath and also we don't have any bodily sensations too...
What happens to the awareness after death, Does it still exist? Is the awareness eternal? Is the after life awareness is called soul? Do we need a human body to meditate??
I suddenly feel weird getting this idea? So is there any concepts based on this???

Do you want to ask for the doctrine of any specific school of Buddhism? SFAIK some schools hold that rebirth happens immediately (or e.g. on the next thought-moment), others that there's an intermediate state e.g. bardo.

Its like an intermediate state between death and rebirth.

I think the doctrine that there is any intermediate state is more Tibetan than Theravada -- for a little more on that see for example How to die professionally?

You might follow Buddha's example who entered the fourth Jhana, but it is only possible while you are aware of your peaceful death, the fact that you are dying slowly, so therefore - not very reliable advice.
Apart from that, only thing I know of about conscious death is Maraṇasati, which are only preparatory contemplations and meditations on death. These are closely related to Right effort. But it is not really same as meditating through death.
For Vajrayanic approach, Tibetans have the whole technique and special meditation practice on the moment of death and what follows (Bardo), which is divided in many phases of dying, also including the clear light you see at the moment of death. I presume you're not into Tantra so this is of little use though.

Do you know: according to Buddhist doctrine, is it possible to die when you're "unconscious" (or in a coma) -- or, is it believed that although the body may appear to be unconscious (inert), yet the mind (consciousness) still exists in some way? Does (or doesn't) a body usually pass through unconsciousness on its way to death?

From what I gather trying to fall asleep consciously will prepare one for consciously dying.
And what I know from personal meditation experience is that:

awareness is not eternal. It arises and ceases like any other of the khandas. So, it's definitely not a soul.
meditation can continue independent of any awareness of the body. If there is no body sensation then the mind will turn to other objects: mind itself, mind states, feeling of calm and so on.

I guess that meditation itself can also be a good preparation for death. In one of the last retreats I was in a state where I no longer felt any breath, the heartbeat was gone, any bodily sensation was gone. It's quite interesting to see if and if so, how the mind reacts to this.
That's all I can offer.

In Anapanasati, awareness of breathing.  Buddha mentioned that it is possible to focus on breathing until the last breath is drawn and when there is no more breath, there is no place for conciseness to exist (consciousness cannot exist without one of 4 skandhas).  And when no longer have consciousness to count as self, name/form ends.. and so on
The problem is counting as self is that will go on and continue to count other consciousness out there and calls it as self, thus rebirth.  the definition of sattanam is not easy to understand.  Technically, there is nothing to transmigrate but the dilution of self.   Thats how i understand it.

"Death" ("marana") means the death of the idea of a "person" or "self"; as defined in SN 12.2, which refers to the death of "beings" ("satta"). "Satta" is merely a "view" or "idea" (SN 23.2; SN 5.10).
For the untrained mind, this "death" is traumatic & brings suffering. But for the trained mind, when the mind experiences "Emptiness" ("Sunnata"), this is also includes experiencing the death of the "self-idea" but in a peaceful way (which is why Emptiness is not called "death").
"Conscious death" occurs via the experience of the Empty Mind; free from all "self-views".