text:
Is nirvana just a checkpoint in an eternal journey?
Life in this world has been amazing. I was amazed by this world growing up travelling to amazing places seeing hills, mountains and what not. Then the tech boom that got me addicted. And the amazing food the world offers, I could go on. When I discovered Buddhism, I just couldn't believe that nirvana is the ending to all this journey in this vast universe.
While I now have been transformed a lot studying the Buddhism stuffs, and a bit bored of the current world, somehow deep I am expecting more from the universe. I just can't believe nirvana is the end of it all.
Is it possible that nirvana is just a temporary resting point in the eternal dance of the universe?
A bit speculative but would love to get some perspectives from the wise ones.

I don't have enough reputation on this side to vote to close as a duplicate, but this is discussed here, and a little bit here, with some additional context here.

@ZacAnger actually I have read those. What I meant was a very different kind of samsara with different kind of physics or anything the universe can conjure up.

I have read somewhere in theravada about this eternal dance and nirvana is just like a temporary rest. Just like there are the tusita heaven worlds, pure abode etc.

Oops I meant Mahayana in the above. I don't use a PC and got distracted while using my fingers.

I think you would benefit from the five daily recollections, which is a contemplation of old age, illness, and death. These contemplations can temper the desire to see more, do more, get more, explore etc. AN 5.57 https://maggasekha.org/2017/03/15/death2/

I am expecting more from the universe. I just can't believe nirvana is the end of it all.

And that, sir, is your problem.  You’re expecting, looking, seeking.  That’s going to drive you batty after awhile.  The ability to put that kind of searching aside is what pushes us in the direction of liberation.  So as long as you have the idea that something, somewhere out there is worth seeking, you are walking away from nirvana.
And not for nothing, but don’t you think you’d have to have experienced enlightenment to make that assessment?  Just sayin’.
Case 29 of the Blue Rock Collection
The Kalpa Ending Fire
A monk asked Dasui, "When the kalpa fire flares up and the great cosmos is destroyed, I wonder, will "it" perish, or will it not perish?"
Dasui said, "It will perish.
The monk said, "Then it will be gone with the other?"
Dasui said, "It will be gone with the other."
What is it?  Why are you chasing it?

Haha! I am chasing the wonders of the universe / universes. If the world was a dreading place, I wouldn't seek. But nature is just mysterious. Have you never chased anything in your life sir, if not as an adult at least as a kid? I admit too much chasing can be a problem but the Buddha teaches the middle way which is not to overburden ourselves. For example,  don't mind being rich if it comes with a little bit of chase, etc

No, it certainly is enticing.  Can’t argue there.  But ultimately there is no compromise between tanha and moksha.  You can walk a little ways carrying both, but in the end ya gotta pick one.

Let me add for clarity - nirvana isn’t the end of action.  It’s simply the end of compelled action.

Ven. Yamaka expressed a similar type of view i.e. speculating whether the Buddha exists or doesn't exist or both exists and doesn't exist, or neither exists nor doesn't exist.
The sutta below clearly explains how it should be, according to the teachings found in the Early Buddhist Texts (the Theravada suttas and Mahayana agamas).
The question is not whether the journey continues or not. In reality, there was never a journey or a being or a person in the first place that's concrete and standalone.
All that was, is suffering that came to an end after Nirvana.

Then, in the evening, the Venerable Sāriputta emerged from seclusion.
He approached the Venerable Yamaka and exchanged greetings with him,
after which he sat down to one side and said to him: “Is it true,
friend Yamaka, that such a pernicious view as this has arisen in you:
‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Exactly so, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, friend.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He
understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the
Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception …
volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in
form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from
form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As
apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in
volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in
consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one
who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without
volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
SN 22.85

Thanks for the answer. Yes, a being is dependent on myriad other conditions. Reality is a big river which keeps on flowing and we all are just the tides on the river. And Nirvana is doing something with your nervous system / mind and body such that you forget that you are a tide but just the whole river. Total release from the sense of self. Training the mind for ultimate relaxation.

Nirvana is not the end, although from the perspective of a mind bound inside the illusion of time and space, it will appear that an end is arriving. As such, the mind will ask yearning-based questions, even at the mere thought of nirvana.
My understanding of Buddhism, particularly from the Theravada tradition, is that the entire human consciousness is seen to be an illusion. This is generally framed using the 5 aggregates, from which an experiencer feels they are having a true and real experience situated inside the body. That experiencer feels like they are looking out through the eyes into a real world, but even the concept of an outside world is an internal conception.
One later sees that the aggregates are not-self. This is sometimes referred to as being in the witness phase. It is a type of effortless mindfulness. Later though, something quite astonishing happens, whereby the aggregates themselves completely vanish, and my goodness, do they vanish! This is the meaning of nirvana - to be completely blown out!
There is no centre to experience, and there never was. Therefore, the ending is of this very illusion, but since it is an illusion, thereby not being real, nothing was ever realized. In the Mahayana tradition, this was emphatically delivered in the Diamond sutra:

Subhuti again asked, “Blessed lord, when you attained complete
Enlightenment, did you feel in your mind that nothing had been
acquired?”
The Buddha replied:
“That is it exactly, Subhuti. When I attained total Enlightenment, I
did not feel, as the mind feels, any arbitrary conception of spiritual
truth, not even the slightest. Even the words ‘total Enlightenment’
are merely words, they are used merely as a figure of speech.”

So these words aren't true - they are only meant as figures of speech. What remains can be so breathtaking, it stuns the mind into a deadening silence. The world becomes a mashable kaleidoscope of colours, shapes, and noises, and the body becomes the environment. One keeps going, in a sense, but you don't know what is moving you any more. Perhaps the words unconditional love fits best; one is moved by a love for everything.

"The world becomes a mashable kaleidoscope of colours, shapes, and noises, and the body becomes the environment". However the world my appear after that, the mind won't get enthralled because nibbana is dispassion of highest level. Total detachment. Of course from that comes the ending of misery.

"There is no centre to experience, and there never was. Therefore, the ending is of this very illusion, but since it is an illusion, thereby not being real, nothing was ever realized".                Sorry, but I don't think this is the case . Normally, people latch onto things as me and mine. But after nibbana, the grasping habit is permanently ended. The grasping habit was not an illusion that's why we can't say nothing was realized. It's the bad habit of mind that was permanently deleted.

That's why there is a saying "in seeing there is only seeing, but no one who sees" "in hearing..."

You sound like someone from the Deva realm :) I guess you've had many good experiences on this earth, but you also have to remember that there is a lot of suffering in samsara.
Devas in heavenly realms are living in bliss, and therefore they have less motivation to seek the Dhamma, since they barely experience any suffering.  But once their good karma runs out, they will be reborn somewhere else, and it could be in one of the hell realms as well. In the 31 planes of existence (https://i.redd.it/ruc3w8ej7x381.jpg), you're only safe from the hell realms once you get reborn in Suddhavasa realms.
A large number of Devas attained enlightenment during the Buddha's time after listening to his sermons. So, I think that for you, you're having a wonderful life because of your good karma. But don't forget that that too is impermanent, so don't ever shy away from doing 'good merits' so that you will get an opportunity to attain Nibbana (since by doing good merits, you have more of a chance to be reborn in a realm where you are exposed to the Dhamma).
You can be mindful about the fact that there's an vast amount of suffering in the world, and use that knowledge to motivate you to pursue the Dhamma so that you can work towards liberating yourself from any possible karma that may arise to cause you any suffering.
The Buddha said to practice putting an end to the cycle of birth and death without any delays - as if your head was on fire (https://suttacentral.net/sn4.9/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false).
I cant find this reference, and I'm saying this story from memory. Once a monk had attained either sotapanna, sakadagami or anagami, and then he thought "I'm almost there now, I might just relax for sometime before attaining enlightenment". And in the time that it takes to bend your arm, the Buddha was there. The Buddha said, if there was even a little bit of faeces on your clothes, would you not find it disgusting? So this is like that too. You need to practice and attain enlightenment right now, so that you are fully released from suffering.
Edit: Thought I'd add - I remember as a young kid when my mum was talking about Nirvana, and how it's the end of the cycle of birth and death, I asked her why you wouldn't want to be born again. My mum said because to keep being born and dying is suffering. I didn't understand it at the time since I was having so much fun being a kid that I wanted to keep being born to enjoy it. I feel the complete opposite way now though at 30 years old and can't wait to not be born again!

Thanks Belle. I might have been in Deva realms before I descended into the hungry ghost realm. I had been a hungry ghost chasing money, chasing chicks, etc. But I found out the hard way that we need to take it slow and just chill in life because life is too damn long and gives plenty of chances.

Given the Four Noble Truths, I think that the suttas explains nirvana as permanent or perpetual non-arising of suffering, following a complete uprooting of desire and craving (including any craving for further material or immaterial existence), including of their causes (e.g. asavas meaning "outflows" and "intoxication").
Metaphysically (I'm pretty sure it's right to say that) it is not "temporary" at all -- because it's not created, so it cannot be uncreated (see this answer for a partial explanation or small example).
One bit of Mahayana (Tibetan) doctrine on that kind of subject that I read is quoted in this answer -- which I think says that there is a "not the final nirvana" which is manifested by the Buddha as a "resting place" and that after a while "Arhats" are awoken by the Buddha and "practice the bodhisattva’s path for many limitless kalpas and eventually achieve enlightenment."
I'm not saying that Mahayana contradicts the Theravada, perhaps it sounds like they do.
I think both schools have a doctrine of gradual enlightenment -- Theravada's is outlined here for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to say that even a first stage is temporary, it's described using words like "complete".

Excellent answer with references. Thanks for the effort. I have no doubt that there's some absolute bliss in nature because I've had glimpses of deep contentment and peace as if being one with the nature. But it's very hard to let go of passion, aversion and delusion which keeps us mired in conflicts and excited state. Nature is brutal in some cases but overall I find it fascinating TBH.

Nirvana, according to Buddha, is the ultimate treasure for Human and any kind of lives, surpassing all other forms of satisfaction. To illustrate this, consider the peak satisfaction during sexual pleasure akin to the mesocarp of a coconut, while Nirvana's contentment is akin to the innermost endocarp and coconut water. However, there exists no comparison or illustration that can truly encapsulate the profound contentment Nirvana bestows. Buddhism teaches that Nirvana can be attained by transcending ego, hatred, desire, and bonds, and comprehending the universe's truth. After Nirvana, there is no rebirth – no body, no soul – akin to a lamp's flame extinguishing, its destination unknown. Achieving Nirvana is breaking the cycle.

What lies beyond our universe? Are there other universes? Not like that of a multiverse but other universes that evolved just as ours evolved. What if these universes evolve at different rates and are in different stages of their evolution. Will we ever know them, how they operate, the beings in them? And if we travel beyond our universe, will our body (the atoms, sub-particles and whatever that makes up matter) and mind be freed from the bondage imposed by our universe?
Once, a highly accomplished seer named Rohitassa attempted to travel to the end of the cosmos (or universe) to find out if birth and death ends once beyond. He failed and was reborn as a deva. After he related his story, the Buddha declared:

But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos.

So maybe there are even more amazing things waiting to be discovered after nirvana (or parinirvana). But this is only possible if we are willing to free ourselves from our existing cage. I suspect our consciousness in its current form is just unable to fathom or traverse the sheer immensity of what lies beyond. Perhaps, this is why a new consciousness is needed; one that does not land anywhere or increase (and decrease) as alluded in Atthi Raga Sutta.
In any case, who says this existing cage has only amazing things to offer? For one, there’s illness. When we are sick, amazing places like hills, mountains and what not are just not that enjoyable. It is not the places, people and things that brings us joy, it is what is inside us. Besides, after immeasurable rebirths, have we not tasted enough of this universe? With Metta.


text:
Mind frame rate vs craving
I have some hunch that when rising from the deep meditative states / jhanas, the mind becomes so slow that the world is perceived in frames. Is this true? My guess is that the speed of human brain perception is proportionate to how much craving there is, the lesser the craving the slower the mind due to disenchantment. Experienced ones please shed some light on this.

Can some Noble one calculate how much the brain perception needs to speed up to see the reality frame by frame? I have read plenty of answers that say Buddha's noting speed was super fast. Let's examine scientifically if that kind of lightning fast noting is even possible.

I mean Vipassana is just doing the noting

Yes, that is precisely what happens.  What you’ll begin to notice probably more so than the “frame” experience is that consciousness is only capable of holding one sense object at a time.  You will experience a moment of mind consciousness, eye consciousness, etc, but you’ll notice that each instance is discreet.  You never perceive eye and ear conscious at the same time, for example.
Another thing you may experience is the appearance of space between moments of consciousness.  This is extremely important for it is in these moments of cessation (yes, we’re talking nirodha here - this is different than the meditative state, however) where the potential for deeply liberating insight can occur.
Case 99 of the Book of Serenity
Particle after Particle Samadhi
A monk asked Yunmen, “What is particle after particle samadhi?”
Yunmen said, “Rice in the bowl, water in the pail.”

i'm not sure I understand.  are you saying something like a micro-blackout? or like some kind of buffer between mind moments?

It’s something entirely different.  It’s better described as a kind of gap.  It’s best described by what it’s not - neither mind consciousness, eye consciousness, etc.  It goes without saying that looking for nirodha is an exercise in futility (I.e. “to seek mind with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes”).  You just kinda run into it following periods of deep meditation.

@000 Thanks for the answer. Perception is a complex thing
inside our brain. Perceptionn of time is dependent upon the observer. I mean without an observer perceiving motion, time doesn't make sense. There are animals which perceive super fast like dragon fly and then there are animals that are damn too slow. I think the way to nibbana is just slowing down the nervous system to find the leap towards cessation. I can't think any other way of cessation of phenomena. Without cessation, nibbana loses most of its value at least to me.

Time is motion. I think Buddha found the hack to change perception of things using breath meditation Anapanasati. And then he leapt into cessation. Just a guess. Otherwise cessation seems impossible.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the relationship between signless samadhi, emptiness and cessation of perception & feeling?
As titled,
According to the suttapitaka.
What is the relationship between 'signless samadhi', 'signless property', 'emptiness' and 'the cessation of perception & feeling'?
I want only Theravada oriented and substantiated answers.

You might find this  book by Bhante Analayo helpful. It covers the signless samadhi and emptiness. https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compassionemptiness.pdf

All things in dhamma are elements (dhatu; MN 115). MN 115 summarises all elements into two types: (i) conditioned element (saṅkhatādhātu); and (ii) unconditioned element (asaṅkhatādhātu). The unconditioned element, namely, Nibbana, is permanent (SN 43.14-43). Also, the laws of nature such as anatta/not-self are 'fixed' thus permanent (ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā; AN 3.136), which also includes 'sunnata' (described in SN 35.85).
The signless element (animittāya ca dhātuyā) is found in MN 43 as one of five types of liberation of mind. However MN 43 says, in itself, the signless is not the supreme or unprovoked liberation of mind, which is the mind empty of greed, hate & delusion.
Signless samadhi (animitte cetosamādhimhi) is mentioned in MN 121. Obviously it means concentration on the signless element.
There is no inherent relationship between the 'signless samadhi/signless property' and 'emptiness' & 'the cessation of perception & feeling'.
Based on MN 121, signless samadhi is a way to gradually come to realise emptiness. However, the signless element, itself, is not emptiness. MN 121 says the signless samadhi is mentally formed by intention and subject to impermanence & cesssation (yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti) and realising this about the signless element results in attaining Nibbana via the ending of [signless & all other] becoming & ignorance. Therefore, MN 121 refers to the "supreme emptiness" (paramānuttaraṁ suññataṁ) as when the fermentations (asava) of sensuality, becoming & ignorance are not present. In other words, the signless samadhi can be a type of becoming (bhava), namely, an arupabhava.
The same applies to the cessation of perception & feeling. It is conditioned, impermanent & subject to cessation, therefore it is not emptiness/sunnata or Nibbana, which are permanent.
MN 44 mentions when the mind emerges from the cessation of perception & feeling, it first experiences emptiness & then the signless. However, apart from this, these three phenomena are not the same.
MN 122 contains the vague statement: "The Realized One woke up to this meditation, namely, to enter and remain in emptiness internally by not focusing on any signs." This can only mean the Buddha used the signless to help realize emptiness (of self), as explained in MN 121. It cannot mean the signless & emptiness are the same things because they are not, per the other suttas and per basic Dhamma principles.
In summary, a Buddha or Arahant (for their entire remaining lifetime) permanently has the perception of emptiness (absence of self; refer to SN 35.85) towards all things & experiences. However, the cessation of perception & feeling and the signless can never be a permanent abiding for a Buddha or Arahant. This is why these two conditioned impermanent states are not emptiness.
To add: DN 16 offers an example of the Buddha temporarily entering the signless concentration:

Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the
cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless
immersion of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become
more comfortable.
Yasmiṁ, ānanda, samaye tathāgato sabbanimittānaṁ amanasikārā ekaccānaṁ
vedanānaṁ nirodhā animittaṁ cetosamādhiṁ upasampajja viharati,
phāsutaro, ānanda, tasmiṁ samaye tathāgatassa kāyo hoti.

To add, also a footnote to DN 16 by the translator:

The suttas say little about this meditation state. Its defining characteristic is that consciousness does not “follow after signs” (nimittānusāri viññāṇaṁ, eg. AN 6.13:5.3). This is explained in MN 138:10.2 as not being distracted or affected by the features of sense impressions. The mental unification (ekattaṁ) based on this practice is listed after the form (and formless) jhānas, so it is very advanced. It is nonetheless a conditioned state (MN 121:11.4), so it is possible that a mendicant might fall from it and disrobe (AN 6.60:8.10). However it may also be used to describe the meditation of an arahant (SN 41.7:6.12). It seems that the Buddha [in DN 16] relied on his mastery of this practice to focus attention away from the pain in his body.

i have some notes from the wiki that might help. Note, these are not my experiences.
First, śūnyatā ("emptiness") can be taken three ways: "(1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release."
In regards to the third category - the state just after emerging from the final formless jhana, "cessation of perception and feeling" - this is said:

Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of
concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ
only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they
color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been
focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as
signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first
apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of
not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

Thag 1.92 The Verse of Arahant Vijaya corroborates:

All the taints in his life were destroyed. Now he doesn’t have any desire, even for food. His mind now is only focused on the meditation
objects of emptiness, signlessness, and non-establishment. That monk’s
Dhamma path is impossible to find, just as the paths of birds are
impossible to find in the air.

hopefully, this gets you started on the right track

deleted by accident: https://sunyanando.pl/wp-content/uploads/literatura/Peter%20Harvey%20-%20Signless%20Meditations%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism.pdf

According to Theravadin commentaries signless release is an ariyan attainment of samadhi entailing cessation of perception & feeling and all conditioned phenomena (nibbananirodha) as a directing the mind to the Deathless.

When the Tathāgata—not attending to any theme at all, and with the cessation of certain feelings—enters & remains in the theme-less concentration of awareness, that is when his body is more at ease. - Dn16

Comy. explains this term here as referring to the fruition-attainment of arahatship (phalasamapatti), in which the Buddha becomes absorbed in the direct experience of Nibbana and no longer attends to external objects or feels mundane feelings. tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fn-19

Cessation attainment is a pleasure apart from the feelings of pleasure

"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'" - mn59

I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, "This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant."
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. - an9.34

This is essentially the same eventuality as here

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’

Not giving attention to all signs is essentially a turning away from all conditioned dhammā because dhammā come into being through attention

They come into being through attention. - an10.58

This is the commentarial Theravada interpretation.
Note that according to the commentaries the Animittacetovimutti is not the same thing as Animittanupassana. This is very important because nowadays many people confuse these two and explain signless samadhi as contemplation of the signless.
Here i quote Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight to present the classical comy interpretation, although here merely in part as i will leave out the path attainments focusing only on fruition.

Contemplation of the signless (animittānupassanā) is actually the same as contemplation of impermanence, as I explained in the summary above.
Nevertheless, this different term should be defined, so I will explain it in brief. “Sign” (nimitta) means the sign of conditioned phenomena or
formations.808
“The sign of conditioned phenomena” (saṅkhāranimitta) refers
to phenomena that seem to be solid [to a nonmeditator] due to the concepts of solidity of mass and so on. But the sign of conditioned phenomena appears [to a meditator] due to the
discernment and separation of their individual functions and
so on. Bodily activities and movements that are conditioned physical phe-
nomena—such as walking, standing, sitting, lying, bending, stretching,
and so on—conditioned mental phenomena—such as seeing, hearing,
smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, and so on—and the objects that
appear at the six sense doors—such as visible form, sound, smell, taste,
touch, and mental objects—do not appear to be mere activities and phe-
nomena, or to be distinct from each other, or to only exist momentarily.
Actually, they appear to have solid forms, to be one single entity, and to be permanent. This concept of solidity is also referred to as “the sign of permanence,” “the sign of stability” (dhuvanimitta), or “the sign of eternity” (sassatanimitta).
Contemplation of impermanence, which sees conditioned phenomena
as impermanent, is called “the signless” because it is opposite to the sign of permanence, the sign of stability, and the sign of eternity. It is called “contemplation” because it observes impermanence. When we compound the
two terms we have “contemplation of the signless,” which means to observe
the opposite of the signs of solidity in conditioned phenomena.
When one constantly observes mental and physical phenomena at the
time of their occurrence, the conditioned phenomena that arise at the six sense doors do not appear to have solid forms, to be one single entity, to be permanent, or to be enduring and stable. Actually they appear to be mere
activities and phenomena, to be different from each other, to only exist momentarily, and to disappear a moment after they have arisen. Because they appear in this way when one attains insight knowledge of dissolution, one sees conditioned phenomena as disappearing, ending, being destroyed, vanishing, or impermanent. When one sees conditioned phenomena this way, they cannot appear as permanent and solid entities, and
the defilements that develop based on seeing things to be permanent and
solid can no longer arise. Because one can abandon the sign of solidity in
conditioned phenomena, the Visuddhimagga says:

Thus it is called the signless, because the sign of permanence,
the sign of stability, and the sign of eternity are abandoned after
breaking through the concept of solidity by means of contem-
plation of impermanence.810

If one uninterruptedly observes the signs of conditioned phenomena,
each of the different functions of these conditioned phenomena will
become apparent. Not only this, but their unique characteristics, their
momentariness, and their objects (in the case of mental conditioned phe-
nomena), will become apparent. For a detailed description of how they
appear see the section dealing with the four types of concept of solidity
under the heading “Contemplation of not-self.”
The way conditioned phenomena appear when one is distinguishing
between their function, characteristic, momentariness, and object is the sign of conditioned phenomena. When one can distinguish them by means of their function, characteristic, momentariness, and object, one sees these signs of conditioned phenomena and takes them as one’s object at the same time. Thus contemplation of impermanence is neither the opposite of the signs of conditioned phenomena nor is it able to be free of them. This is why this contemplation is called contemplation of the signless: because it is the opposite of the signs of solidity (permanence, stability, and eternity) in conditioned phenomena and because its object is free from these signs
of solidity in conditioned phenomena.
When contemplation of the signless, which is contemplation of imper-
manence, is well established, conditioned phenomena only appear by
means of the nature of their dissolution. As a result, one will rightly understand the signs of conditioned phenomena that previously appeared to be solid and lasting entities.

Here as to animittacetovimutti as fruition attainment of cessation (nirodhasamapatti) aka phalasamapatti.

Entering the attainment of fruition
Friend, there are two conditions for the attainment of the sign-
less deliverance of mind698: non-attention to all signs and atten-
tion to the signless element. These are the two conditions for
the attainment of the signless deliverance of mind.699
The procedure for entering the state of attainment of fruition is as follows:
A noble disciple who seeks to attain fruition retreats to a solitary
place and observes conditioned phenomena. Beginning from
knowledge of arising and passing away, one should develop the
various insights until the change-of-lineage that takes a condi-
tioned phenomenon as its object arises. Immediately afterward,
one’s mind will enter the state of cessation [of conditioned phe-
nomena] in the form of the attainment of fruition. In this case,
only the fruition consciousness arises, rather than a new path
consciousness, even if one is still a trainee, [that is, one who has
attained one of the first three stages of enlightenment]. This is
because the mind has previously determined to enter the attain-
ment of fruition.700
Note that the Visuddhimagga here refers to the [peak] insight that takes a conditioned phenomenon as its object as “change-of-lineage.” This is based on the description given in the Paṭisambhidāmagga. However, this
insight is called “insight knowledge of adaptation” in the Paṭṭhāna [and is
referred to by that name in this book].
Based on the above passage, understand that a noble person begins his
or her insight practice from insight knowledge of arising and passing away.
That is, if a noble disciple practices insight, he or she is immediately able to see phenomena arising and passing away. Thus in order to enter the attainment of fruition, one is able to develop the sequence of insight knowledges quite rapidly, quickly moving from insight knowledge of arising and pass-
ing away to insight knowledge of equanimity toward phenomena in due
course. If the noble one has previously made the determination to become absorbed in fruition, and his or her insight knowledge of equanimity
toward phenomena is mature, it is then followed by the insight knowledge
of adaptation that leads directly to the cessation of the conditioned phe-
nomena that she or he has been observing.

As you can see according to the classical commentary tradition the nirodha attainment is the signless samadhi.
Afaik, when spoken of as a cessation-extinguishment attainment it is said that one surmounts the other ayatanas (eg the base of neither perception nor non- perception) whereas when spoken of as the signless release it is said that one ignores the other ayatanas, that is the only difference.

I will analyse two discourses, the maha & cula sunnata suttas
https://suttacentral.net/mn122/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato
I will also add some excerpts from udana 9.x, a verse appearing in khajjaniya sutta, and an excerpt from mn43

But there is this dwelling discovered by the Tathagata where, not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in internal emptiness. If, while he is dwelling there by means of this dwelling, he is visited by monks, nuns, lay men, lay women, kings, royal ministers, sectarians & their disciples, then — with his mind bent on seclusion, tending toward seclusion, inclined toward seclusion, aiming at seclusion, relishing renunciation, having destroyed those qualities that are the basis for mental fermentation — he converses with them only as much as is necessary for them to take their leave

As i see it, the meaning here is that by means of not attending to themes [attaining cessation of perception & feeling as a turning the mind to the deathless property aka destruction of taints] Tathagata has entered into & remains in internal emptiness which is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance, iow attained nibbana with residue, arahantship, the foremost unprovoked release.

Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart. Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that signless immersion of the heart. They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of the dimension of nothingness or the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of nothingness. It is empty of the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

Note that Buddha doesn't say "There is only dukkha of the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart". Why is that? Because signless release is a release from all dukkha as it is attained in dependence on the signless truth & reality, namely the unmade and nothing else;

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned."

The escape from that [from the conditioned],
the peaceful, beyond reasoning [ineffable?],
Constant, The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states associated with suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.

Is the signless element the same thing as the signless samadhi? No, signless samadhi refers to entering into & emerging from samadhi in dependence on the signless base, whereas the signless element is that unmade base in dependence on which one is absorbed. If there was no signless truth & reality then there would be no attainment of samadhi based on it.

"And to the monk whose mind is thus released, the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don't know even what
dependent on which
you're absorbed.'"

“How many conditions are there, your reverence, for the attainment of the freedom of mind that is signless?” “There are two conditions, your reverence, for the attainment of the freedom of mind that is signless: paying no attention to any signs, and paying attention to the signless realm. These, your reverence, are the two conditions for the attainment of the freedom of mind that is signless.”
“How many conditions are there, your reverence, for the persistence of the freedom of mind that is signless?” “There are three conditions, your reverence, for the persistence of the freedom of mind that is signless: paying no attention to any signs, and paying attention to the signless realm, and a preceding preparation. These, your reverence, are the three conditions for the persistence of the freedom of mind that is signless.”
“How many conditions are there, your reverence, for emergence from the freedom of mind that is signless?” “There are the two conditions, your reverence, for emerging from the freedom of mind that is signless: paying attention to all signs, and not paying attention to the signless realm. These, your reverence, are the two conditions for emergence from the freedom of mind that is signless.”

This is akin to turning the mind away from form, consciousness  feeling, perception, sankhara and towards the deathless element.

Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of nothingness and the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception—focuses on the oneness dependent on the signless immersion of the heart. Their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that signless immersion of the heart. They understand: ‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by sankhara and intentions.’ They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by sankhara and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

Note the entering into & emerging from the samadhi & the samadhi faculty are sankhara, these states are fabricated & willed whereas that in dependence on which one enters into & emerges is not sankhara.

Note that it ought not be said that one enters into the unmade because the unmade is the ayatana wherein there is no coming nor going, neither a here nor there, therefore it ought to be said that one enters samadhi.

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say * there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising*. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Is the signless samadhi the same thing as 'cessation of perception & feeling"? No, and neither is 'the samadhi based on the cessation of perception & feeling' the same thing as 'the cessation-principle [of perception & feeling]'.

Is the signless property the same thing as the nirodha property in sannavedananirodha? Yes it is the same principle truth & reality by which an escape from the conditioned is discerned.

Is sannavedananirodhasamadhi the same thing as animittosamadhi? Yes, the difference in name emphasises different aspect of the same truth & reality.

Perception is 'perception of something', it is conjoined with feeling born of contact and always has an object which is the sign produced by attention. Cessation of perception is therefore a cessation of contact and is thus signless.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’

They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

That's how i understand it.
I am not fully sold on the commentary take on kamabhu sutta, it isn't clear that one doesn't apprehend all three characteristics

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.[3]
[3]Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

As i understand it contact is then at the mind base and the objects of ideation are the signless, emptiness, undirected, but it is not merely the ideas of it that are apprehended, it is the knowledge &  vision of release which is possesed only by those who have attained it.

Your parts have a very Visuddhimagga prose.

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


text:
Is this able to be done?
Can you say a mantra for only people with good intentions? I said the green Tara mantra for all the sentient beings with good intentions. Is that ok, because that mantra helps you release hope for a particular outcome and bring the energy back to yourself, generating inner peace and clarity


text:
What are the five grounds for asking questions?
According to scripture, all those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?

On Asking Questions
Pañhapucchā Sutta  (AN 5:165)

“One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
with this thought, ‘If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
good. If not, then I will answer correctly (for him).’


text:
Reference request: Skulls higher than the Himalayan mountains
I’m looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha talks about the aimless wandering in Samsara and gives several analogies, one of them being about taking all the skulls one has left behind and piled them on top of each other and the pile would become taller than the Himalayan mountains.
I can for the life of me not find that anywhere. I know I read a while ago but now it can’t find it anywhere.
Does anyone know about this sutta?

The sutta is SN 15.10 (although it is unlikely the Buddha would engage in false speech like this, such as saying: "Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries".)

Thank you. It was heap of bones and mount Vepulla - not skulls or Himalayan mountains.

@Dhamma Dhatu, could it be that Buddha addressed the sentient beings at large, "long have you, [the countless generations of beings, ] have experienced dukkha, etc"?

Na, doesn't apply to me. I cannot recall long have I thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries.  Sure, life has its stresses, losses & pains but its not that "long" and cemeteries i have not noticed very much.


text:
How long does it take to read the Sutta Pitaka (exluding the Kuddhaka Nikaya)?
I bought the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations and was wondering how long it will take to read through these 4 Pitakas?
I once read that it takes approx 2 years to read through the entire Sutta Pitaka (I don't have the 5th Pitaka the Kuddhaka Nikaya). Is that correct?
Have a good day.

If you read daily for at least an hour a day, you should finish much sooner than in two years. I have read them on my daily commute to work and it took me about 6 months, but I must admit I skipped Digha and did not finish all of the Anguttara, so if we add that I guess it will come up to about a year...?
It really depends on your reading speed though.

Thank you very much. I consider myself fairly good at reading English and think that 1 year sounds reasonable. I also don't want to read through them too fast but in a pace that allows me to ponder what's being written. My plan is actually to read for 1 hour a day. In the weekend maybe 2 hours:) I wish the venerable some day would also translate the Kuddhaka Nikaya:)

I enjoy reading the English translations of suttas. It’s so much fun that I don’t mind how time goes into it. I have been reading for almost four years now but haven’t finished it yet. Every sutta is complete in itself. I revisit it again and again if something strikes me.You were much faster. It takes time understand and once you understand realisation comes. So take your time, mine was 4 years and counting.

Thank you very much Dheeraj:) I want to take my time reading them so I can also understand them.


text:
How should we understand the phrase "saccato thetato"?
Inspired from another question, I went looking for translations from the pali on suttacentral where pali experts have used the english word 'real.'
SN 22.85 as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?”

However, Bikkhu Sujato translates SN 22.85

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t actually find the Realized One in the present life, is it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”

While the original pali of SN 22.85 has:

“Ettha ca te, āvuso yamaka, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne, kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: Variant: thetato → tathato (sya-all, km) | tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne → tathāgato anupalabbhiyamāno (sya-all, pts1ed); tathāgate anupalabbhamāne (?)‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi, yathā khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā’”ti?
I think I've isolated the pali phrase in question as saccato thetato which I think breaks down like this:
Saccato (सत्यतः in sanskrit): This term conveys the idea of "truth" or "reality." In a philosophical context, it's used to describe something as genuine, actual, or true. In the passage provided, "saccato" is used to suggest that one does not apprehend or perceive the Tathagata (Buddha) as "true" or "real" in the present life as Yamaka perceived.
Thetato (स्थितिः in sanskrit): This term refers to "establishment" or "existence." It is used to indicate that something is established or exists in a certain way. In the passage, "thetato" is used to convey that the Tathagata (Buddha) is not established or perceived as existing in the present life in the way that Yamaka perceived.
Since I'm neither a pali or sanskrit expert and I know there are some accomplished language folks on this forum:

Is saccato thetato the correct term under question in these two different english translations?
Which is the better translation or is there another translation that should be preferred over what Bikkhu Bodhi/Sujato suggest?
Are there other suttas that reference this term that could help with the translation and the meaning that is conveyed here?

Here is the search of the term on suttacentral.
Thanks!

It appears the Sujato translation omits a word.

tathāgate = Tathāgata as a

diṭṭheva = visible

dhamme = thing/reality/phenomena

saccato = true

thetato = reliable

an = not

upalabbhiyamāne = is found

Sujato + saccato thetato = actually
Bodhi + saccato thetato = real and actual


text:
Is there a true contradiction between SN 5.10 and SN 22.85?
It is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:
“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10
However, in the Yamaka Sutta:
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
...
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life ...”
SN 22.85
Yamaka denies the aggregates taken together as the Tathagata is real and actual. On the other hand, Vajira seems to be affirming that the aggregates taken together is a convention.
The words in pali for this phrase of real and actual are saccato thetato and for convention the word is sammuti.
When he performed an analysis - as the Buddha advised Yamaka to do - he tried to find the saccato thetato self, but came up empty. Does that mean that Vajira erred in naming 'a being' as a convention?
Is this a true contradiction? Why did the Buddha advise Yamaka to try and find a self through analysis? Wasn't this leading Yamaka into a thicket of views?
UPDATE:
This was too close to a seeded question. Although it was asked sincerely in that I was curious to know others responses (particular users on this site who I respect and admire) I do have my own idea of how I would answer this question (at least I do now and I'm not totally convinced I didn't have that idea already when I first opened it) so I should not have opened it out of mere curiosity. I was going to delete it given it goes against the site moderation guidelines, but then there are good answers and we are discouraged to delete questions where people have attempted to give good and thoughtful answers so I will leave it, but I do regret opening it in the first place.

So, why can't Tathagata be real and actual temporary bundle of aggregates?

Are you asking for the reasoning behind Yamaka answering negatively or are you asking why a "temporary bundle of aggregates" is not a real and actual thing?

The first one, of course. The text does not qualify for the real and actual, it just asks whether the skandhas taken together are what we "regard as" Tathagata, and Yamaka's negative answer is approved by Shariputra. But isn't Tathagata a conventional designation made on the basis of aggregates, as in the chariot metaphor? Wouldn't that make "no" an invalid answer, because the aggregates taken together is what we "regard as" Tathagata?

Shariputra's questions are directing Yamaka through an ultimate analysis to see if the Tathagata is ultimately findable as real and actual. The questions are not qualified as such, but this formula of analysis is found throughout the suttas and I suppose that Yamaka is well aware that the qualification 'real and actual' is the crux when Shariputra walks him through the formulaic analysis. IOW, I suppose that Yamaka and Shariputra are in agreement that the object of negation - as well as the difference between it and conventional designation - is the subject of the questions.

As for the actual reasoning employed in ultimate analysis you can see my account here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/49536/13375 but @AndriyVolkov you know all this so I surmise I'm missing something that you're trying to point out...

I'm not trying to point out anything, I'm just thinking that language used in Yamaka Sutta is way too sloppy for such an important subject :)

I prefer to see it as glass half full in that this apparent contradiction forces us to think and resolve it in a consistent manner and when we do so successfully we've established the middle way :)

Where's the contradiction?
When you sit down, you have a lap by convention. When you stand up, you don't have a lap by convention.
The lap is not a specific real and actual thing by itself. You cannot isolate a thing by itself that you can call a lap.
When you clench your fingers, you have a fist by convention. When you unclench your fingers, you don't have a fist by convention.
The fist is not a specific real and actual thing by itself.You cannot isolate a thing by itself that you can call a fist.
The being (satta), the person (puggala) and the self (atta) are such conventions, similar to the lap and the fist.

Lap i& fist are not convention in Pali. This post is solipsism

SN 5.10 says, for the unenlightened, the belief in "a being" or "sentient beings" is a wrong view. The unenlightened believe "beings" or "sentiment beings" are true & real and require salvation by bodhisattvas postponing enlightenment over countless lifetimes.
SN 5.10 also says, for the enlightened, the notion of "a being" is merely a convention. SN 5.10 does not say the five aggregates are a convention.
Similarly, SN 22.85 says, for the enlightened, (the convention of) The Tathagata is not true & real. SN 22.85 does not say the five aggregates are not true & real.
SN 22.85 begins with the following wrong view of Yamaka:

As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death.

In the Pali, terms such as "annihilated" ("ucchijjati"; verb of "uccheda"; refer to DN 1) and "death" ("maraṇā"; refer to SN 12.2) refer to self-views of an "existent being". This is why Yamaka had wrong view. Yamaka believed an Arahant was a type of "being" or "self".
If in doubt, again, MN 72 says:

“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where
are they reborn?”
“Evaṁ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṁ upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they not reborn?”
“Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

These common Pali words, such as "uccheda", "maraṇā" & "upapajjatī" are related to "self-views" of "a being". Most Buddhists are caught up in materialism, believing "marana" &  "upapajjatī" refer to biological death & a biological rebirth.


text:
What is the proper translation of the pali "Kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā" to english?
The pali phrase "Kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā" is found in many suttas.
Bhikkhu Sujato translates this as "when their body broke up, after death"
Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this as "with the breakup of the body, after death"
Bhikkhu Suddhāso translates this as "When there is separation from the body after death, following the completion of this life"
In another translation of Bhikkhu Sujato we see "Kāyassa bhedā" specifically translated again as "body breaks up"
We also see this phrase "Kāyassa bhedā" alongside "jīvitapariyādānā" which I believe means termination of life.
Are these correct translations referencing the breakup of the body? Does the body refer to the aggregates? Is this referring to the biological death of the body? If not, what is the proper translation?

1/2 The only way  to prove "Unawesome Karma give only unpleasant resultant [duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ Nirayaṃ upapajjanti]" is the practicing Vijjācaraṇasampanno, 3 Vijjās, follow the Buddha in DN2 Sāmaññaphalasutta. The practitioner will always automatically see, no effort no imagination, the appearance of Unawesome Karma at the almost death moment [Kāyassa bhedā] in each past life.  The practitioner will always automatically see, no effort no imagination, whether That-Past-Life-Appeared-Unawesome-Karma always  give  unpleasant resultant for entire each next life [Paraṃ maraṇā].

2/2 That's the easiest way to prove Karma Process in Sutta, Meditating forth Jhana for Pactice 3 Vijjas, because Karma and Resultant in between birth and death is very complicated to prove. Yes, it could prove but it's very in detail,  Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is very in detail which is harder to understand it all right as it really is, arising and vanishing trillion times per second by uncountable causes and uncountable effects. However, it's possible to prove after meditate the forth Mastering Jhana.

Let's use the translations from the dictionary by Ven. Nyanatiloka Mahathera.
For "jāti":

jāti：'birth'，comprises the entire embryonic process beginning with
conception and ending with parturition．
＂The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings，their
being born，their conception （okkanti） and springing into existence，the
manifestation of the groups （corporeality，feeling，perception，mental
formations，consciousness； s．khandha），the acquiring of their
sensitive organs：this is called birth＂

For "maraṇa":

maraṇa：'death'，in ordinary usage，means the disappearance of the vital
faculty confined to a single life-time，and therewith of the
psycho-physical life-process conventionally called
'man，animal，personality，ego'，etc．Strictly speaking，however，death is
the continually repeated dissolution and vanishing of each momentary
physical-mental combination，and thus it takes place every moment.

For "kāya":

kāya，（lit：accumulation）：'group'，'body'，may either refer to the
physical body （rūpa-kāya） or to the mental body （nāma-kāya）．In the
latter case it is either a collective name for the mental groups
（feeling，perception，mental formations，consciousness； s．khandha），or
merely for feeling，perception and a few of the mental formations
（s．nāma），e．g．in kāya-lahutā，etc．（cf．Tab．II）

For "sakkāya":

sakkāya：'existing group'．'this word is usually translated by
'personality'，but according to the commentaries it corresponds to
sat-kāya，'existing group'，hence not to Sanskrit sva-kāya，'own group'
or 'own body'．In the Suttas （e．g．M．44） it is said to be a name for the
5 groups of existence （khandha）：Sakkāya，o Brother Visākha，is said by
the Blessed One to be a name for the 5 'groups as objects of clinging'
（upādāna-kkhandha），to wit：corporeality，feeling，perception，mental
formations，and consciousness．＂

For "bheda":  "bheda：[m．] breach; disunion; dissension"
For "paraṃ": "paraṃ：[adv．] after； beyond； further； on the other side of"
From the Concise Pali-English Dictionary by Ven. A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera:

kāya，（m．），a heap； a collection； the body.
sakkāya：[m．] the existing body．

So, it can be translated in both ways:

The break-up of the physical body after physical death
The dissolution of the aggregates after the momentary death of individuality

#1 or #2 can both be derived from:

“But when someone who is attached has laid down this body (kāyaṁ)
and has not been reborn in one of the realms, what does Master Gotama
say is their fuel then?” “When someone who is attached has laid down
this body, Vaccha, and has not been reborn in one of the realms, I say
they’re fueled by craving. For craving is their fuel then.”
SN 44.9 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

However, #2 can easily be seen from:

“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second
end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the
seamstress, for craving weaves one to being reborn in one state of
existence or another. That’s how a mendicant directly knows what
should be directly known and completely understands what should be
completely understood. Knowing and understanding thus they make an end
of suffering in this very life.”
“The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The
present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress … That’s how a
mendicant directly knows … an  end of suffering in this very life.”
“Identity (sakkāya), reverends, is one end. The origin of identity
is the second end. The cessation of identity is the middle. And
craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to being reborn in
one state of existence or another. That’s how a mendicant directly
knows what should be directly known and completely understands what
should be completely understood. Knowing and understanding thus they
make an end of suffering in this very life.”
AN 6.61 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

The last quoted paragraph from AN 6.61 can also have "identity" replaced with "existing body" or "existing group (of aggregates)".

i marked this post down. The dictionary entries lack authoritativeness. Even worse, Sujato's translation of SN 44.9 using the term "realm" for "kaya" is completely wrong.

when kāya is not qualified as nāma-kāya (mental body), by default kāya on it's own refers to a rūpa-kāya, the physical biological body made up of 4 elements.
Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default. https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html
That expression of OP is talking about physical death. For the arhant, after that break up of the physical body, they no longer are reborn.
For the ordinary person, the momentum of ignorance and craving at physical death leads to viññāa (consciousness) re-arise with another set of nāma (mental factors) and rūpa (physical form) in a new life form.
That's the context you find that expression from the OP. Arahant attains final nibbāna right there, and some beings who are not arahant at time of physical death attain nibbāna shortly after, most are reborn.

Majjhima Nikaya means "rupa kaya"?

"kaya" always means "group" or "collection", such as in SN 12.19. For example, in SN 12.19, the "rupa' does not originate from ignorance & craving. SN 22.56 & SN 22.82 literally say the rupa is caused by the 4 elements.

MN 72 “‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”  “Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

Arahant: MN 140 And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default. https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html

what is Snp 5? regardless, there is no such thing as rupa meditation in Buddhism. Its called kaya because meditation here is about understand how the  mind effects  the breathing & body.

The pali phrase "Kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā" is found in many suttas.

My impression is we will find the above phrase is only used in reference to "beings" ("satta") in mundane suttas about kamma for puthujjana. The only exception is MN 140 but this is regarded as a corruption, particularly given it is not found is all versions of MN 140 (i.e., Burmese vs Sri Lankan, etc).

We also see this phrase "Kāyassa bhedā" alongside "jīvitapariyādānā"
which I believe means termination of life.

Apart from corruptions of MN 140, my impression is the term "marana" is not found with "jīvitapariyādānā" above. The word "marana" is defined in SN 12.2 as occurring to "beings" ("satta"). SN 5.10 says "beings" is the wrong view of Mara or Satan.
The term "kaya" does not mean "physical body". "Kaya" means "group" or "collection". For example, DN 15 refers to "nama-kaya" and "rupa-kaya". Or MN 44 uses the term "sakkaya" is relation to the five aggregates.

From what I can tell you are correct that only MN 140 has 'marana' and 'jīvitapariyādānā' mentioned in the same verse. However, Kāyassa bhedā and jīvitapariyādānā are mentioned in several and they don't all refer to kamma for puthujjana. How then do you translate Kāyassa bhedā?

You are focusing on the wrong words. "Satta" is related to "marana". "Marana" only occurs to "satta". When The Enlightened refer to the ending of life, the word "kālaṅkata" rather than "marana". "Marana" means "Mara". "Mara" means "attachment". Refer to SN 23.1, SN 23.11 & 12.

Understood. But focus on the suttas here that do not mention 'marana' at all: https://suttacentral.net/search?query=k%C4%81yassa%20bhed%C4%81%20uddha%E1%B9%81%20j%C4%ABvitapariy%C4%81d%C4%81n%C4%81 how do you translate Kāyassa bhedā ?

The 1st sentence of your question includes 'marana'.

I can easily open a new question or modify this one to omit any mention of 'marana' and focus on suttas which are not about kamma for puthujjana and the question would remain: how do you translate Kāyassa bhedā ?

Personally, I always translate it as the aggregates.

The breakup or dissolution of the aggregates then?

Kaya means 'group'. It can be group of 4 elements of rupa. Or group of aggregates. For the end of MN 144, I prefer aggregates. If kaya is translated as physical body in MN 114 it is about reincarnation, which i do not agree with.

In another
translation of Bhikkhu Sujato we see "Kāyassa bhedā" specifically
translated again as "body breaks up"

I have never read this before. It is a strange sutta (but the AN has lots of strange stuff in it). This sutta includes the following, which does not contain paraṁ maraṇā:

Because of the weakness of the five faculties, they become fully
extinguished when the body breaks up without making extra effort.
So imesaṁ pañcannaṁ indriyānaṁ muduttā kāyassa bhedā
asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti.
That’s how a person becomes fully extinguished when the body breaks up
without making extra effort.
Evaṁ kho, bhikkhave, puggalo kāyassa bhedā asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti.

My comments:

The translation of "extra effort" refers to when a mendicant meditates observing the ugliness of the body, perceives the repulsiveness of food, perceives dissatisfaction with the whole world, observes the impermanence of all conditions, and has well established the perception of their own death.

The translation of "without making extra effort" refers to relying on the four jhanas.

It is strange if the five faculties are weak that a person would be fully extinguished.

kāyassa (the body's) bhedā (dissolution) paraṁ (after) maraṇā (death) uddhaṁ (????) jīvitapariyādānā (life span's termination) idheva (right here) sabbavedayitāni (all felt/all experienced) anabhinanditāni (not delighted in) sītībhavissantī (cold becomes) (Dhamma Dhatu)

Yeshe Tenley posted:

Bhikkhu Suddhāso translates
this as "One knows, ‘When there is separation from the body after death, following the completion of this life, all that is felt here will become cool, as there is no delight in it.’"

Above, it appears Suddhāso has translated "uddhaṁ" as "separation". Suddhaso has also used a translation of "separated" for "nānābhāvā" in the following part of the same sutta (MN 140):

Monk, just as when two sticks are rubbed together warmth comes into
being and heat is produced, and when those two sticks are separated (nānābhāvā) the warmth from that friction ceases and comes to an end;

The word "nānābhāvā" is commonly used for "separated", such as in:

‘I must be parted and separated from all I hold dear and beloved.’ …
‘Sabbehi me piyehi manāpehi nānābhāvo vinābhāvo’ti abhiṇhaṁ
paccavekkhitabbaṁ itthiyā vā purisena vā gahaṭṭhena vā pabbajitena vā.
AN 5.57

It is notable this passage from MN 140 appears unique in the suttas. For example, this link shows the term "paraṁ maraṇā" in MN 140 is only found once (in MN 140) among eight uses of "uddhaṁ jīvitapariyādānā".
My impression is Suddhāso has also been influenced in his translation of "uddhaṁ" as "separation" by the often questionable translation & interpretation of "uddhagāmi" in SN 55.21. The word "uddha" means "upwards; in height; upstream; above; further; beyond".
Let us examine the other translations of MN 140 for the meaning of "uddhaṁ". Note: each of the translations below has excluded translating "paraṁ maraṇā":

Dhamma Dhatu: kāyassa (the body's) bhedā (dissolution) paraṁ (after) maraṇā (death) uddhaṁ (????) jīvitapariyādānā (life span's termination) idheva (right here) sabbavedayitāni (all felt/all experienced) anabhinanditāni (not delighted in) sītībhavissantī (cold becomes)
Sujato: They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an
end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it,
will become cool right here.’
Bodhi: He understands: ‘On the dissolution (bhedā) of the body (kāyassa), with the ending (pariyantika) of life (jīvita), all that is felt (sabbavedayitāni), not being delighted in (anabhinanditāni), will become cool (sītībhavissantī) right here (idheva).’
Thanissaro: One discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.' (Thanissaro)

The above can be compared to Iti 44, which says:

For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will
become cool right here.
Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sīti
bhavissanti.

In conclusion, for MN 140, my impression is Bhikkhu Bodhi did not translate "uddhaṁ" but possibly Sujato translated "uddhaṁ" as "comes to" and Thanissaro translated "uddhaṁ" as "after the". It may be prudent to ask one of the translators, such as Sujato at Sutta Central, what the word "uddhaṁ" means here.
For me, it seems the translation should be:

kāyassa (the body's) bhedā (dissolution) uddhaṁ (beyond)
jīvitapariyādānā (life span's termination)

Now, Thag 10.3, while again sounding very late & fake (because 'jati' & 'marana' are used for physical birth & death), says death occurs immediately after life. Therefore, the break-up of the body occurs after the termination of life rather than the termination of life occurs after the break up of the body.

For anyone who is born,
Anantaraṁ [immediately after] hi jātassa [one's birth],
death always follows after life.
jīvitā [life span] maraṇaṁ [death] dhuvaṁ [is certain];
Everyone who is born here dies here;
Jātā jātā marantīdha,
such is the nature of living creatures.
evaṁdhammā hi pāṇino.
Thag 10.3

In summary, whether 'kaya' refers 'aggregates' or 'physical body' remains indeterminate. For example, MN 43 says:

“When someone dies, their physical, verbal and mental conditions have ceased and stilled; their vitality is spent; their warmth is
dissipated; and their [five sense] faculties have disintegrated.
“Yvāyaṁ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato tassa kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā
paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, cittasaṅkhārā
niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu parikkhīṇo, usmā vūpasantā, indriyāni
paribhinnāni

Yeshe Tenley posted:

We also see this phrase "Kāyassa bhedā" alongside "jīvitapariyādānā"
which I believe means termination of life.

SN 12.51, which contains the above, says:

They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an
end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it,
will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left.’
Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṁ jīvitapariyādānā idheva sabbavedayitāni
anabhinanditāni sītībhavissanti, sarīrāni avasissantīti pajānāti.

While SN 12.51 is a late & fake sutta, due to its illogical Abhidhammic discussion of 'sankhara', SN 12.51 clearly shows the word 'kaya' does not mean 'physical body' because SN 12.51 uses the tradition term for 'physical body', namely, 'sarīra'.


text:
To what extent does right view deny mother and father?
Believing that 'there is mother and father' is listed as right view affected by the taints.

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
MN 117

To what extent does right view *not affected by the taints* deny that there is a mother and father?
What logic or analysis does right view *not affected by the taints* employ to deny this?
Are mother and father to be denied altogether?
Is there no such thing as mother and father for one who is awakened?

You may deny Mother and Father but Mother and Father wont deny you. So Relationships exist.

The full 'View' passage from that sutra list three kinds of view:

Wrong view, which denies mother and father (among other things)
Tainted right view, accepts mother and father (among other things)
Noble right view, which does not reject or accept (or even mention) mother and father

The point here is that 'mother' and 'father' are (ultimately) mental constructs that like all mental constructs are given to dukkha. It's wrong to reject and disrespect the roles; it's better to accept and be compliant to the roles; it's best to see the true nature of the situation, is which the roles are constructs. This is meant to show a developmental arc:

Wrong view is headstrong and proud, accepts no authority, rejects all wisdom, offers nothing to anyone. It is a self-centered view.
Tainted right view is submissive and humble, accepts and relies on authority and received wisdom, gives and sacrifices whatever is supposed to be given and sacrificed. It is an other-dependent, self-abnegating view.
Noble right view is in the middle between these. It neither accepts nor rejects authority and wisdom, and neither clings nor sacrifices. It investigates the nature of things, and doesn't embrace the appearances. It is the view that sets aside self and other-selves.

It is correct that the sutta does not mention 'mother and father' for Right View of the Noble Ones, but there are other suttas which mention Right View that specify how a Noble One deals with such conventions: SN 5.10

The noble right view of MN117 doesn't talk about parents.
There is no "my" mother and "my" father, without the self ("me"). Whose mother and father are they? They are mother and father relative to a self.
The noble right view doesn't deny parents. It leads to the end of clinging (upadana) to parents.
The Buddha taught to have gratitude towards parents and repay them by ensuring they learn and practise the Dhamma.

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay.
Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother
on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and
were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing
their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your
shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If
you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty
over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not
in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do
much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they
introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving
mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his
unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue;
rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in
generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes
them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother &
father."
AN 2.31-32

In this world it’s a blessing to serve one’s mother and one’s father.
And it’s a blessing also to serve ascetics and brahmins.
Dhp 332

The noble right view ends clinging to parents.

When a wise lay follower has put at ease another wise lay follower who
is sick, suffering, gravely ill with these four consolations, they
should say: ‘Are you concerned for your mother and father?’ If they
reply, ‘I am,’ they should say: ‘But sir, it’s your nature to die.
Whether or not you are concerned for your mother and father, you will
die anyway. It would be good to give up concern for your mother and
father.’
SN 55.54

"There is mother and father" in the context of right view with taints (that sides with merit) appear to implicitly mean that parents are important and worth respecting and taking care of. It doesn't merely mean that parents exist.
When one clings to self, it is wrong view and nihilistic to deny those things (this world, other world, parents etc.). It leads to misconduct. When one clings to self, it is right view to accept those things (this world, other world, parents etc.) and it brings merit and avoids misconduct. When one is liberated, he is anyway no longer clinging to the self and anything that belongs to the self or part of the self.

@YesheTenley "there is mother and father" in the context of right view with taints (that sides with merit) appear to implicitly mean that parents are important and worth respecting and taking care of. It doesn't merely mean that parents exist.

@YesheTenley The noble right view of MN117 doesn't talk about parents. I didn't say the noble ones don't talk about parents. A person cannot be a mother or father without having a child. Relationships are relative to self identity.

@YesheTenley When one clings to self, it is wrong view and nihilistic to deny those things. It leads to misconduct. When one clings to self, it is right view to accept those things and it brings merit and avoids misconduct. When one is liberated, he is anyway no longer clinging to the self and anything that belongs to the self or part of the self.

Is it a correct summary of your position that right view does not deny mother or father, but that right view denies "my" mother or "my" father, then?

@YesheTenley Yes. Noble right view discourages clinging to parents.

As I understand it, the mind of the enlightened is a superset of all the points of view, not a subset (nor an empty set). This is why it is called omniscience or "the knowledge of all modes/aspects" (sarvajñatā, sarva-ākāra-jñatā).
The view in which there's mother and father is a valid mundane view, and as such it is one dimension of the multidimensional supramundane omniscience of the Buddha, along with other perspectives like "a being is a convention".
It's like looking from multiple angles at the same time. Or looking with two eyes and combining it together in 3D picture.
So it doesn't deny mother and father, it just doesn't stop at mother and father and looks deeper and broader.

The mundane right view partakes only of merit (and not Nibbana). The supramundane right view does not deny the mundane right view but simply ceases to have attachment/ripening in the acquisitions towards it. Below are supramundane views that include mother & father:

'A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four
elements, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject
to impermanence, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating. It
has nine openings, nine un-lanced heads. Whatever would ooze out from
it would be an uncleanliness oozing out, a stench oozing out, a
disgust oozing out. Whatever would be discharged from it would be an
uncleanliness discharging, a stench discharging, a disgust
discharging. For that reason, you should become disenchanted with this
body.
AN 9.15

Above, mother & father appear rendered to be merely biological rather than self-notions.
Below, mother & father are rendered to be self-notions or "beings" ("satta") to be abandoned.

Long have you experienced the death of a mother. The
tears you have shed over the death of a mother while roaming &
wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
greater than the water in the four great oceans.
Long have you experienced the death of a father... the
death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
shed over loss with regard to disease while roaming & wandering
this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
the water in the four great oceans.
Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A
beginning point is not evident, though beings ["satta"; mental fabrications of "beings"] hindered by ignorance
and fettered by craving are roaming & wandering on. Long have
you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
released.
SN 15.3

Remember, per SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, "satta" ("beings") are views & mental fabrications. Remember, per SN 12.2, mother & father are a "class of beings" ("satta-nikaye") mentally born as "birth" ("jati"). For Arahants, "birth" ("jati") had ended.
Therefore, the supramundane view does not deny the biological mother & father.

What pali word(s) do you translate as 'views & mental fabrications'?

View = ditthi, as found in SN 5.10

Fabrication = sankhara, as found in SN 22.81, about fabricating 'self'. While the word sankhara is not found in SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, what is described in those suttas is fabricating (sankhara).

sabbasaṅkhāresu is the word in SN 15.3 which I believe means "all compounded phenomena" although it is translated as "fabricated thing" I think Bodhi usually translates it in other places as 'conditioned phenomena'

sabbasaṅkhāresu is the plural of sankhara it would seem

sankharas are not necessarily mental though, right? they can be physically conditioned too like the body?

would you agree that satta is a sankhara conditioned on both physical as well as mental formations?

i would not agree. satta is only mental

i see. mother and father are biological rather than self-notions. would you agree biological mother and father are sankhara?

Biological is not satta. But the word sankhara refers to both physical & mental things; anything that is formed from conditions. One oxygen and two hydrogen atoms = water = sankhara. But satta is sankhara as mental formation. Sankhara aggregate creates satta.


text:
Is the conventional existence of 'a being' just an agreement?
It is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’
SN 5.10

The pali translated as 'convention' is 'sammuti'.
Looking at other places where the word 'sammuti' is used we can find numerous references in the theravada vinaya.
Each of these translates the word 'sammuti' from pali to english as 'agreement' and not 'convention.'
Is that all the conventional existence of 'a being' is - an agreement? Is 'a fist' an agreement? Is 'a lap' an agreement? Is 'the President of the United States' an agreement? Is 'rebirth' an agreement?
It would seem some agreements are skillful and some are not. That is why the Buddha gave the vinaya, right?
Do Noble Ones with Right View not understand agreements or somehow give up these agreements or do they just acknowledge that all of these are just agreements and not real and actual?
It would seem to me that Noble Ones with Right View see that 'mother and father' is just an agreement to the same extent as 'this world' and 'the next world.'
Right View does not utterly deny any of these; it simply acknowledges them for what they are and no more: useful agreements.
UPDATE:
This was too close to a seeded question. Although it was asked sincerely in that I was curious to know others responses (particular users on this site who I respect and admire) I do have my own idea of how I would answer this question so I should not have opened it out of mere curiosity. I was going to delete it given it goes against the site moderation guidelines, but then there are good answers and we are discouraged to delete questions where people have attempted to give good and thoughtful answers so I will leave it, but I do regret opening it in the first place.

See https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_22.html and footnotes below. Sujato’s book on mindfulness also discusses this “debate” in chapter 2. Sujato’s book also makes the case that this is one of the earliest suttas.

Do you believe that the two camps mentioned in the footnote are alive and extent in Theravada schools today? I'm not aware of any that accept the heritage of the Pudgalavādin (Personalist) school. I'm also not sure how any of this has to do with the questions I've asked above.

The title asks if the conventional existence of a being is just an agreement - the “debate” is precisely about just such issues. I do not know how extant either of the two camps are; but I bring it up because a) this sutta appears to be early b) the interpretation of this sutta is relevant to your question c) there has historically been much debate about the interpretation.

I think you're mistaken. The debate you linked is whether a being is just a convention or not. I think one side won that debate - Theravada - and the answer is in the affirmative: 'a being' is a convention as can be seen definitively with SN 5.10. That debate is settled.
This question is not about that debate. This question is what is the meaning of 'convention' ... and the question is 'does it just mean agreement?' as the word is translated in vinaya rules I've linked.

This question is what is the meaning of 'convention' ... and the question is 'does it just mean agreement?'

from The Dhamma Theory.
Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa:

The term sammuti is derived from the root man, to think, and when prefixed with sam it means consent, convention, general agreement.
The statement: "The person exists" is not erroneous, provided one does not imagine by the person a substance enduring in time. Convention requires the use of such terms, but as long as one does not imagine substantial entities corresponding to them, such statements are valid. On the other hand, as the commentators observe, if for the sake of conforming to the ultimate truth one would say, "The five aggregates eat" (khandha bhunjanti), "The five aggregates walk" (khandha gacchanti), instead of saying: "A person eats," "A person walks," such a situation would result in what is called voharabheda, i.e. a breach of convention resulting in a breakdown in meaningful communication.
Because the Buddha is able to employ such linguistic designations as "person" and "individual" without assuming corresponding substantial entities, he is called "skilled in expression" (vohara-kusala).  Skilfulness in the use of words is the ability to conform to conventions (sammuti), usages (vohara), designations (pannatti), and turns of speech (nirutti) in common use in the world without being led astray by them.

From this explanation it is apparent that sammuti is a common way of thinking about something, a common way of conceptualizing some phenomena agreed upon by many or most people.
Whether the reason they agreed to it is because it is more functional or more skillful or more convenient, or simply due to tradition is outside of scope of the term sammuti.

Excellent point that just because something is a convention does not necessarily mean it is functional, useful or skillful!

Yes. There is an agreement. If hand touches fire then there will be a sensation of burning. It is painful. When horse pulls the chariot then the wheels will roll and some distance will be covered.
There is an agreement to call Hand a hand, fire a fire, burning a burning, painful as painful , horse as horse, pulls as pulls , chariot as chariot , wheels as wheels , distance as distance.
But reality is that no self can be found in hand, fire , burning, painful, horse, pulls , chariot , wheels and distance.
Why ?
Because hand is impermanent, fire is impermanent, burning is impermanent, painful is impermanent, horse is impermanent, pulls is impermanent, chariot is impermanent, wheels are impermanent and distance is impermanent.
Meaning hands arise , change and vanish,,fire arises , changes and vanishes,,burning arises, changes and vanishes,,horse arises , changes and vanishes,,pulls arise ,change and vanish,, wheels arise , change and vanish,, distance arises , changes and vanishes.

No, I think it exists. Babies don't have a self. Everything is the same for them. They can't make a difference between them and the world. It's like insanity.
Proof: mirror-test babies solve at 24 months old not before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

@blue_ego Can they what? What is your question?