text:
How to reconcile the "right view" in the Noble Eightfold path with Snp 4.5?
The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path.
However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost:

“Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best,
supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by
this he does not become free from disputes.“

Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5? If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons the right view of the Noble Eightfold path??
If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path?
It has been pointed out (quite astutely!) that the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path can be divided into two. (MN 117) There is the right view with effluents and the right view without. Are either one of these, both, or neither the same type of "views" as described in Snp 4.5?
Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

The four noble truths are a tin opener. If you held onto a tin-opener like a child holds a Teddy bear, if you worshipped the tin-opener, studied the tin-opener and its finest mechanical intricacies, how would you get to enjoy your food? I guess your mind is looking for some academic playfulness.

Actually AN 3.136 only talks about the three marks of existence.

@neuromax answers should be put in answers not in comments, thanks

@ruben2020 right, but you asserted in your other answer that the Four Noble truths were the same type of thing as was discussed in AN 3.136 ;)

@YesheTenley I changed the answer.

I've edited this OP appropriately given your edited answer.

Enlightenment is important for reading Sutta, or at least memorizing. Actually, the noble one in love with memorizing Sutta, so it's same ^.^

It’s been asserted that the Four Noble Truths were profound universal truths as described in AN 3.136. The Four Noble Truths include the Noble Eightfold Path which importantly includes “right view” as the first step on that path.

In DN22 SammaDitthi of SaccaPabba, right view is professional understanding of the four noble truth.
The right view is a factor of knower, 4 noble truth is the object.

However, it is said in Snp 4.5 that a Realized One does not hold any “views” nor declare any view foremost:
“Whoever should take to himself certain views, thinking them best, supreme in the world, and hence he proclaims all others as low— by this he does not become free from disputes.“

Holding means clinging, craving, addict.
Holding  on View means DitthUpadana.
Upadana must arising with  Delusion, Shamelessness, Fearlessness, Restlessness and having clinging-object which receive via 6 doors by  contact, feeling, perception, intention, one-pointedness, life,  attention, thinking, keeping thinking, decision, keeping trying, (sometime maybe conceit or wrong view or Sloth (mind) and torpor (body)).
But the right view can't arise with above factors. The right view must arise with wholesome Nama.
sobhana-sadharana cetasika
(Beautiful Ones - 19 which arise with all whole some mind)

saddha = faith, confidence
sati = mindfulness, attentiveness
hiri = moral shame
ottappa = moral dread
alobha = non-attachment, greedlessness, generosity
adosa = hatelessness, goodwill
tatramajjhattata = equanimity, mental balance
kaya-passaddhi = tranquility of mental concomitants
citta-passaddhi = tranquility of consciousness
kaya-lahuta = agility or lightness of mental concomitants
citta-lahuta = agility or lightness of consciousness
kaya-muduta = elasticity of mental concomitants
citta-muduta = elasticity of consciousness
kaya-kammannata = adaptability of mental concomitants
citta-kammannata = adaptability of consciousness
kaya-pagunnata = proficiency of mental concomitants
citta-pagunnata = proficiency of consciousness
kayujjukata = uprightness of mental concomitants
cittujjukata = uprightness of consciousness

virati cetasika
(Abstinences - 3)

samma-vacca = right speech
samma-kammanta = right action
samma-ajiva = right livelihood

appamanna cetasika
(Illimitables - 2)

karuna = compassion
mudita = sympathetic joy

pannindriya (1)

pannindriya = wisdom or insight

1.phassa = contact or mental impression
2.vedana = feeling
3.sanna = perception
4.cetana = volition or intention
5.ekaggata = one – pointedness, concentration (samadhi)
6.jivitindriya = vitality or psychic life
7.manasikara = attention or advertence
1.vitakka = initial application or thought conception
2.vicara = sustained application or discursive thinking
3.adhimokkha = decision or determination
4.viriya = effort or energy or exertion
5.piti = rapture or interest
6.chanda = wish, desire or will
So, you can notice the difference of your mind by analysis it's factors. However, it is hard for people who have no skill in wholesome meditation especially concentration meditation because it is the base of soft analysis (first step of the insight meditation).
See https://www.bdcu.org.au/bddronline/bddr12no5/bddr12no5.html

Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5?

Yes.

If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons a profound universal truth which is true whether a Realized One arises or not??
If not, then what is a “view” as described in Snp 4.5 and how is it different from the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold path?

Yes, in meaning "abandons clinging on a profound universal truth".
No, in meaning "thinking of  a profound universal truth".
The noble one can know both wrong view and right view, but they understand the truth of them without addict, clinging, craving on the wrong view.
To analysis them see above factor list to analysis each mind whether wholesome or unwholesome by checking it's factors.

Also, the Buddha often described things with the adjective “foremost”; does this mean those things so described were not “views” as meant in Snp 4.5?

It is about 4 bias. When one is clinging on a view and deny other views without understanding the truth, they may decide the right as wrong.
For the example, one decide to cling whether "there is no next life" only, but if it is possible, he miss the truth. Or one decide to cling whether  "there must be next life" only, but if it is impossible, he miss the truth. Then when they meet each other, they will argue and fight each other "all me right, all you wrong" without trying to understand the truth.
This is basic explanation. It is more very complex and advance for the insight meditation. We study and practice each mind moment in trillion times arising per second whether "which is wholesome? which is unwholesome? Which is 3 characteristics". And for this very big data analysis, we practice advance concentration meditation.

That you for your straightforward answer!

Even today, in English, there are two distinctly different, even opposite meanings of the word "view". In one view we see with our eyes -- in other words, gaining direct knowledge through an experience. In the other view we see only with our mind's eye -- in other words we think something. The first is literal, the second uses the literal as a metaphor to describe something figurative. I would suggest that the suttas you cite are using the word diṭṭhi in the same way.
It is possible for the second kind of view to equate to the first. We can see, with the mind's eye, something we have experienced directly. If we literally saw something, we later have it in mind. Or maybe we literally felt something or tasted something -- still direct knowledge -- and later we imagine that experience. In all those cases we would still have the first kind of view, drawn from direct experience, as long as we don't overlay the experience with opinions about it.
It is also possible for the second kind of view to have no equating to the first kind. In this case we can also call it 'an opinion'. It is not based on actual direct experience, but it is based on imagination alone, concocted from things others tell us, or what we have read, or -- as in the Kalama Sutta -- what seems logical to us, or even what our teacher told us.

by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical
conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering
views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our
teacher."

The "right view" of the path is the first kind: drawn from direct experience. The "view" in Snp 4.5 is the second kind: an opinion. It is easily distinguished by the sign the Buddha provides in the lines you quoted: the holder of the view tells others their opinions are low, and those views result in disputes.
But also note that, according to MN 117, there is more than one kind of "right view":

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There
is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

As for "the foremost" I think we might need examples of suttas where you think the term might relate to "views".

This is great! Thank you :) Regarding the “foremost” question, I was not asserting that when the Buddha used foremost as an adjective to describe a thing that those things were “views” as described in Snp 4.5. Rather, I was asking a question if this is what others believe :)

Voting this up as there is much to like even though I disagree with some parts and would phrase others differently, but I think it correct that “right view” of Noble Eightfold path is not the type of “view” as discussed in Snp 4.5.

I think the two types of right view in MN 117 is excellent information. The right view that is noble is the type of right view that Anathapindika had in AN 10.93 because he said "Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."

@ruben2020, I agree. The Buddha speaks of it in a different format -- with no direct reference to merit -- in MN 78.

Yes, the description of right view with effluents as “opinion” is one of the things that seems troublesome

I take this answer as saying that it is the Right View with effluents that is subject to Snp 4.5 and this I also disagree with.

Right View with effluents is clearly not a Good Thing -- it comes with those effluents/taints, and brings about another round of "acquisitions" leading to becoming. Could it be that, back then, the most common view of karma-merit-rebirth tended to make one cling to ideas of the self? It may be then it was different from the way you understand it, Yeshe Tenley.

I disagree with this and updated my answer. Based on the raft simile of MN 22, I believe the fully enlightened ones have stopped clinging to ALL views, including noble Right View.

@Linda Blanchard how about right effort with effluents? that is also not a Good Thing? “And what is the right action with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? Abstaining from killing, from taking what is not given, & from illicit sex.”

Not killing living beings and refraining from lying are not Good Things? They should be given up by non-lay people?? After achieving Noble right action we should abandon refraining from lying???

@Yeshe Tenley. It is the one aspect that is not a Good Thing -- that which I pointed out. Interesting, the strawmen arguments you come up with that distract from the point I'm making.

IMO, it is not a Good Thing to say that Right View with effluents is not a Good Thing. Just like it is not a Good Thing to say that refraining from killing is not a Good Thing. That phrase would better be reserved for Wrong View and Wrong Action.

Clinging to ideas of the self has been going on since time immemorial. If anything I would say that modern people are even more mired with such clinging compared to the people of Buddha’s day.

@Yeshe Tenley. So are you saying that the people in general back in the Buddha's day understood rebirth and its relationship to self/not-self with the exact same clarity you do now?

It is a major downfall to claim realizations that one has not actually realized and so with this in mind: I claim no direct knowledge of rebirth, yet what miserly insignificance I've known is not through faith alone nor easy to come by.

Yes, I believe the people of Buddha's day - generally speaking - had much less dust in their eyes than modern people. Many were liberated. Of course, many more were not and still had views of all kinds of real and genuine facts and so they've migrated down through generations to comprise us: modern people, animals, hungry ghosts, hell beings and probably a number in the heavenly realms.

"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the
purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen
& pay close attention. I will speak."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done
with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over,
would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in
dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I
have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having
dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I
like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the
raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a
raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding
onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you
should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

MN 22

The noble eightfold path is a fabrication.  The arahant has gone beyond. But he might still use it as its evident from this sutta :
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five
clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness,
not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do,
and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when
developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the
here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

Snp 4.5 is describing someone who has gone beyond :

A brahman not led
by habits or practices,
gone to the beyond
—Such—
doesn’t fall back.

I take this to mean that you think the "right view" of Noble Eightfold path (both with/without effluents?) is the type of "views" described in Snp 4.5?

This answer is definitely the right one. A fully enlightened one has stopped clinging to all views and even the Dhamma itself. He has nothing further to do.

Excellent and correct answer.

Both statements can be valid, if you consider that the statement regarding realization is non-dualistic. Otherwise said:
AN 3.136 is an upaya, a dualistic description of reality to direct the practitioner in the right "direction".
SNP 4.5 is the perspective of a "realized one", meaning that he/she no longer sees a separation between him/her and the world.
Otherwise said: all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature, and since a "view" requires an observer and something to be observed, the concept of "view" in itself is dualistic and therefore cannot be a non-dualistic expression. This is expressed in SN 4.5 as taking a view not making oneself free of "dispute", since taking a view inherently creates a separation between "my" view and "other" views (e.g. duality).

This is very good, but it doesn’t quite answer the question. Is the “right view” of the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is discussed in Snp 4.5?

As Bonn has explained, "holding a view" means clinging to a view (ditthi-upadana). The fully enlightened ones no longer have clinging (upadana).
The fully enlightened ones see things as they truly are (yathabhutam pajanati).
The fully enlightened ones see the universal laws (the three marks of existence from AN 3.136) as they are, without having to cling to them as a view. They do not have papanca, meaning they do not objectify and classify what is sensed and perceived, relative to the self.

“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened,
directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth,
he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in
earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not
conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is
that? Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water… Nibbāna as Nibbāna… Why is that?
Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say.
MN 1

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

I read with interest the answers by Linda Blanchard and ChrisW, in which they suggest that the "view" of Snp 4.5 is about mere opinions, or conceited opinions, and this is not the same as the noble Right View, unless correct knowledge and understanding of the Dhamma is used for conceited disputes, as shown in the snake simile of MN 22.
I disagree with this, because the same statement appears elsewhere too, like Snp 1.8:

By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.
Snp 1.8

I feel that the noble Right View of MN 117 is good and correct, and is a factor of the path for noble disciples who are still striving for Nibbana.
However, the fully enlightened ones (arahants and Buddhas) have let go of all views as in they have stopped clinging to views, even the noble Right View.
This is explained by the Buddha using the raft simile of MN 22.

“Bhikkhus, suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great
expanse of water, whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose
further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferryboat
or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: ‘There is this
great expanse of water, whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and
whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no
ferryboat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect
grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bind them together into a raft,
and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet,
I got safely across to the far shore.’ And then the man collected
grass, twigs, branches, and leaves and bound them together into a
raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands
and feet, he got safely across to the far shore. Then, when he had got
across and had arrived at the far shore, he might think thus: ‘This
raft has been very helpful to me, since supported by it and making an
effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore.
Suppose I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder, and
then go wherever I want.’ Now, bhikkhus, what do you think? By doing
so, would that man be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with that
raft? Here, bhikkhus, when that man got across and had arrived at the
far shore, he might think thus: ‘This raft has been very helpful to
me, since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet,
I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose I were to haul it onto
the dry land or set it adrift in the water, and then go wherever I
want.’ Now, bhikkhus, it is by so doing that that man would be doing
what should be done with that raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma
is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for
the purpose of grasping.
“Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you
should abandon even the teachings, how much more so things contrary to
the teachings.
MN 22

After writing this, I noticed that Arkaprava Paul quoted the same sutta.

After reading this I still don't know whether you believe the "right view" of the Noble Eightfold path is subject to Snp 4.5 and/or if the "right view" is the same type of thing as the "views" of Snp 4.5.

@YesheTenley I have updated my answer to make it clear.

Is the “right view” as described in the Noble Eightfold Path the same kind of “view” that is described in Snp 4.5?
Snp 4.5 is describing conceit, associated with disputes.
Wikipedia

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride.1 It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
I guess it -- disputes about the Dhamma -- was a common problem among monks or other wanderers, see also the famous Ud 6.4.
If so, does this mean that a Realized One abandons a profound universal truth which is true whether a Realized One arises or not?
Part of the message I get from MN 22 is to avoid reading too much into, avoid inferring too much from, the buddha-vanaca -- it says what it says, and that's what it says. Note the Translator's Introduction:

Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.

So the point is to understand what the Noble Truths are -- not to pose a dilemma, question whether they should or shouldn't be held -- apparently the point is to grasp them (as in the Water-snake simile), and not to use them "both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate" (back to the topic of disputes).
I find Piya Tan's a fairly detailed analysis, 50-odd pages, of what the Four Noble Truths are or what the Buddha says about them. Here is an excerpt:

There is something there about what "Realised" means, i.e. the objects become "perfect" or past-tense: "has been"...
You seem familiar with the doctrine that the Buddha is trackless, so... and I guess that "abandoning" truth might be one extreme, and that that extreme might have some opposite extreme, and neither extreme description is applicable to the Unbound.
Another sutta (in terms of what the suttas actually say), SN 6.2 describes what the Buddha says is his attitude towards the Dhamma.

After reading this answer I still don’t know whether you believe the right view as taught in the Noble Eightfold Path is the same kind of thing as the “views” described in Snp 4.5.

I guess there are two aspects to "view", i.e. objective (e.g. something we share) and subjective (one's personal relationship to it) and you're not making that distinction whereas Snp 4.5 is -- it's not so much criticising views, it's criticising using (or having) views as objects of conceit and dispute.

Another thing is I think that a view is a habitual or trained or learned response to a situation -- like I have Physics formulae which arise in the context of various specific problems, so I've a "view" that gravity has an inverse square law -- and it might be misleading to say that I've abandoned that view, but I find the view doesn't arise because I no longer work with Physics problems.

I disagree with this and updated my answer. Based on the raft simile of MN 22, I believe the fully enlightened ones have stopped clinging to ALL views, including noble Right View.

@ruben2020 I'm not sure it's fair to say that I cling to the view that "gravity has an inverse square law" -- because it doesn't even occur to me in daily experience -- yet I'd depend on it for solving or for teaching solutions to a certain narrow type of problem.


text:
Can long sits be easier than short sits?
I tend to write down when I meditate, and also note the length of the sessions. Observing my notes, I had the impression that when I sat for longer times (40m - 1h), I also was paradoxically more consistent.
Is such a thing ever mentioned in Buddhism? Usually, in habit formation psychology, it is the easiest habits that develop the most. Could lengthening meditation sessions also establish greater consistency?

If you have already established a robust meditation practice, it would be far more advantageous for you to bring those meditative qualities into everyday living, rather than look to increase your time sat on a useless zafu cushion. Entertaining the longevity of meditation sessions are egocentric motivations - in other words: it's easier to not want to face the reality of the world and instead choose to firmly root yourself within the identity of a practicing Buddhist.

In the suttas, the night is broken up into three watches that can be devoted to practice. For example:

AN8.20:1.4: “Sir, the night is getting late. It is the first watch of the night, and the Saṅgha has been sitting long.
AN8.20:1.5: Please, sir, may the Buddha recite the monastic code to the mendicants.”

From the above, one may infer that a watch is quite some time and that monks consistently meditated extensively. But it's not a Spartan marathon where one drops dead after gasping out the news of a victory. Indeed, in DN34, we have:

DN34:1.2.5: What one thing should be developed?
DN34:1.2.6: Mindfulness of the body that is full of pleasure.

So the monks meditated consistently and happily throughout the night, taking good breaks now and then. Personally, I tend to nod off at night, and therefore choose an earlier time to meditate mindfully.

AN7.61:2.1: “Are you nodding off, Moggallāna? Are you nodding off?”
AN7.61:2.2: “Yes, sir.”
AN7.61:2.3: “So, Moggallāna, don’t focus on or cultivate the perception that you were meditating on when you fell drowsy.

Meditating consistently at the proper time tends to favor longer meditations. If we are pressed for time, that can be difficult.

Immediately the longer sitting is more difficult. Sitting for a second is generally easier than sitting for two.
However if one trains then one will enjoy sitting longer and his longer sittings will be easier than the earlier short sittings but is really not a fair comparison because the longer were sat up by the shorter.
If one master's meditation then the longer sitting is definitely easier and is infinitely more pleasant in the circumstance when one enters & remains in manifold attainments for up to 7 days & 7 nights percipient of pleasure.
Eventually dwelling in the world as not percepient of the world becomes the inclination of the mind and a person might at that point emerge only due to necessity as there is no passion associated with the perceptions of ideas, sounds, colors & etc.
That person will be equanimous upon emerging, pleasing to good people as his good qualities because those have been perfected in course of the attainment to those peaceful liberations.

Can long sits be easier than short sits?

Sometimes yes, and other times no.
It's more about quality of mind than quantity. If you sit for 1 hour but are only mindful 10% of the time it's better to have a shorter and more "productive" session and do many of them daily.
Quality of mind is always above everything else. The time one is not mindful the defilements can really get their hooks in.
Also, very importantly, we're not trying to make the practice easier. It is what it is. If one sits in meditation and thinks the practice is difficult then that mindstate should be noted with mindfulness. If aversion towards the practice arises then that mindstate should be noted - and so forth.
In short; it's about quality over quantity and it's about being mindful of the present moment, i.e. what has arisen at this very moment. That is the practice and you don't have to sit on a cushion to do that - bring it into daily life. That's where the practice really lies (and the key to consistent practice).
Hope this helps.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can the Buddha (after he was enlightened) reflect that he was not at ease and then became at ease in seclusion?
This is from the Theravada Vinaya:

While he was staying by himself, the Buddha thought, “When I was
previously surrounded by people, I was not at ease because of those
monks at Kosambī who were quarreling, arguing, and creating legal
issues in the Sangha. But now that I’m alone, without a companion, I’m
happy and at ease because I’m apart from those monks at Kosambī.”
Pli Tv Kd 10: Kosambakakkhandhaka

How could the Buddha be thinking this way post enlightment? This seems related to this question.

You can find the another account of the same thing in non-Vinaya canon here:

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambi, in
Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time Buddha lived crowded by monks,
nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, and
teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, he lived in
suffering and discomfort. Then he thought, “These days I live crowded
by monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers,
and teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, I live in
suffering and discomfort. Why don’t I live alone, withdrawn from the
group?”
Ud 4.5

Why he wouldn't prefer seclusion? Why is this a surprise?

I don’t think it is..

Obviously that entire text was authored by someone else, speaking about the Buddha in the third person.
In my understanding, the part about the Buddha leaving the quarreling Sangha is based on real events, while the thoughts going through Buddha's mind must be the author's conjecture.
To be clear, I'm not saying Buddha did not leave the quarreling Sangha for seclusion. That part is in accordance with Dharma. I'm saying, the part that represents Buddha's thoughts as speaking in terms of "before I was X and now I'm Y" must be a simplification and not the exact thought that crossed the Buddha's mind. Why? Because buddhas don't think in such terms. Why don't they? Because that would be "I-making".

Virtually the entire Tripitaka texts start with "thus have I heard" and refer to the Buddha in 3rd person, because the entire canon was written down centuries after the Buddha lived.

That's right, and this is why we should be careful and not take every single word there as literally The Dharma.

Then on what basis do you conclude that this particular verse does not represent the Dharma? Many teachers are recorded to have lived in seclusion in the years following their attainment.

To be clear, I'm not saying Buddha did not leave the quarreling Sangha for seclusion. That part is in accordance with Dharma. I'm saying, the part that represents Buddha's thoughts as speaking in terms of "before I was X and now I'm Y" must be a simplification and not the exact thought that crossed the Buddha's mind. Why? Because buddhas don't think in such terms. Why don't they? Because that would be "I-making".

I'm with you on not taking every poetic word as literal and not every literal world as poetic and not taking any word as some magical invocation past the point of being just the tool that it is. @AndreiVolkov as this is a Theravada question do you have or know of a pali reference to the 'I-making' as being something the Buddha utterly gave up?

I think your answer is def. right when it comes to the Mahayana/Sanskrit traditions interpretations of such things, but I am not so sure it is the case for the Theravada... and it seems Ruben's and Chris' answer(s) are evidence of this?

Similar to Andrei's answer I note (as fact) that it's a narration of what the Buddha thought, not what he said.
Going even further I might speculate that it's similar to Mother's saying to children, "While sitting in his office, Dad thought, 'Isn't it good that the children are playing quietly, and doing their homework'" -- i.e. it's said to convey a message, needn't be understood (except perhaps by children in question) as a direct and verbatim quote.
Lastly I don't get the impression from the suttas that the Buddha had no preferences. Apparently he preferred what's ethical, skillful, conditions for successful practice, compassionate, etc. (and that doctrine may be easier to understand than a doctrine like, "lol, nothing exists: good, bad, it's all the same..." -- especially for inter-personal relationships).
I wonder whether we're meant to see literally-all the Buddha's actions as motivated only by this kind of preference and this kind of intent -- so much so that any spark of evidence to the contrary (like a preference for avoiding quarrels) is seen as questionable and demanding an explanation.
I suppose it is possible -- that the basis for the preference is that his hanging around while people quarrel would be unskillful.
I'm not sure -- which is why I think this is a good question and which I hope someone answers.
Canonically perhaps there are specific types of preference which an arahant is free from:

Sensual desire (kāmacchando)
Desire for existence and rebirth, both material and immaterial (rūparāgo and arūparāgo)

To be logical perhaps it would be enough to explain that the preference isn't based on one of these fetters.

I'd say it's a transcription of what the Buddha said about what he thought :) That is, if you trust the compilers of the Theravada suttas and vinaya to have done an accurate job.

You know "the four great references", right? So some isolated detail which doesn't fit other suttas, I might be skeptical of (see e.g. this answer). But what's mentioned again and again in different suttas becomes a memorable theme that I wouldn't want to deny -- and there are many which admonish quarrelling; maybe another where he won't speak unless everyone is listening (paying attention) properly; others where he praises seclusion ...

I don’t disagree in the slightest

... another, AN 10.70 where talk about "kings and ministers" and so on isn't a fit topic of conversation; so the bits you quoted in the OP seem easy to believe. I'm not sure about the question -- about feeling unease due to material or social conditions/surroundings. Apparently he up and left, and felt just fine, no remorse, about doing so (I don't know how he came to be there, perhaps the place evolved). I'm not sure what to answer to "how could he be thinking this way?" I guess it implies that "post enlightenment" ...

... isn't entirely other-worldly, it isn't him losing his senses.

All of the following quotes come from MN 44.
One of the five aggregates is feeling (vedana) or sensations.
It's a mental process.

Perception and feeling are mental. They’re tied up with the mind,
that’s why perception and feeling are mental processes.”

There are 3 types of feeling.

“There are three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling.”
“What are these three feelings?”
“Anything felt physically or mentally as pleasant or enjoyable. This
is pleasant feeling. Anything felt physically or mentally as painful
or unpleasant. This is painful feeling. Anything felt physically or
mentally as neither pleasurable nor painful. This is neutral feeling.”
“What is pleasant and what is painful in each of the three feelings?”
“Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
perishes. Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when
it perishes. Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and
painful when there is ignorance.”

The Buddha has discarded identity view or self view.

“It’s when an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is
skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen
good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good
persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in
self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception …
choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness,
consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity
view does not come about.”

So, based on your quote, the Buddha experienced painful feelings from the six sense media but it doesn't mean that he clung to them, or had self view associated with them, or suffered from them. These painful feelings did not give rise to aversion or hate (dosa), in the absence of clinging and defilements.
Furthermore, an enlightened being is inclined to seclusion.

“But ma’am, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the
cessation of perception and feeling, what does their mind slant,
slope, and incline to?”
“Their mind slants, slopes, and inclines to seclusion.”

Living arahants having five aggregates still functional but without defilements and clinging is discussed in Iti 44.

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
no fuel remaining."
Iti 44

In many traditions, attainment is not regarded as a permanent mental state, but requires constant practice. This is why, for example, Dogen Zenji wrote: "we do not practice to become enlightened, we practice because we are enlightened".
Before his enlightenment the Buddha spent extended periods alone in the forests:

“Such was my seclusion that I would plunge into some forest and live
there. If I saw a cowherd, shepherd, grass-cutter, wood-gatherer or
forester, I would flee so that they would not see me or me them”
(M.I,79).

Even after attaining enlightenment he would occasionally go into solitude. In the Saüyutta Nikàya he is recorded as saying:

“I wish to go into solitude for half a month. No one is to come to see
me except the one who brings my food” (S.V,12).

Many teachers from different lineages lived in physical seclusion before they took students. Famous examples include Bodhidharma & Hanshan.

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


text:
What is world (loka) in SN 12.44? Why is it called "world"?
What is world (loka) in the context of SN 12.44?
Why is it called "world"?
Is it related to "The All" (SN 35.23)?

“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the
eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is
contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling
as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with
clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth;
with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of
the world.
“In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and
odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the
body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental
phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is
contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling
as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging … existence
… birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This,
bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence
on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the
three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with
feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away
and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging; with
the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation
of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth,
aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair
cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This,
bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world.
“In dependence on the ear and sounds … … In dependence on the mind and
mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three
is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with
feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away
and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging …
cessation of existence … cessation of birth; with the cessation of
birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
This, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world.”

The world is whatever a sentient being perceives as "the external world" or "the real world". If the being is sleeping it may be a world of its dream, if the being is a child it may be a child's world, if the being is having a drug trip it may be a nightmare world or a fantasy world, if the being is a business person it may be the world of business, if the being is a Buddhist practitioner in the second jhana it may be the world of the second jhana, if the being is a frog, an owl, a bat, a mosquito - it may be one of their corresponding worlds.
An experience of a world arises based on conditions and circumstances that shape the sentient being's life. These conditions and circumstances are themselves combinations of actions and choices made by this and other beings in the past. The actions and choices (including mental actions and choices) that we perform now shape the world to be experienced in the near and long-term future.
A certain world continues the same way for as long as it has the same sustenance. Certain actions shape certain experiences, these experiences shape certain consciousness, this consciousness conditions certain perspective and interpretation, certain perspective and interpretation leads to certain choices, certain choices lead to certain actions, thus closing the loop. This is called the sustenance of the world.
Sentient beings sustain their worlds and the worlds sustain their beings. This process rolls forward from generation to generation to generation, like a water stream carving a rock or a wheel rolling down a rut formed by the previous passage of the wheels. This phenomenon of the cyclic sustenance of the worlds and the beings is called Samsara.
At the root of the cycle is the fundamental ignorance: the emerging awareness is trapped in a certain cyclic experience and is not aware that its world is a loop. Once a sentient being understands the mechanism by which the awareness emerges and gets trapped in a world, it gets disenchanted, the cyclic process loses its grip and that particular world ceases.
Dharma is also a cycle, embedded within the cycle of Samsara. It's a cycle of getting fascinated with the perspective of The Teaching, craving and pursuing understanding of the Teaching, and shifting the focus of being's experience and activity from sustaining a world to liberation from the cycle of Samsara. Buddha's students are turned by the wheel of Dharma and as they mature they turn the wheel on. In that sense Dharma is also a world with its own cycle of rebirth. It's the rebirth of motivation, rebirth of selflessness, rebirth of good morals, rebirth of peace-making, rebirth of wisdom. It's a good world cycle.
The end result of Dharma is liberation from entrapment in any and all worlds, including the world of Dharma.
P.S.
To clarify, the "world" of SN 12.44 must not be confused with "The All" of SN 35.23. The All of SN 35.23 is simply saying that the immediate phenomenology is all we really have. The world is inferred, it's more than just the objects of the senses, it's one's personal Matrix that emerges with The All as the input, so to speak. The All refers to the phenomenological reductionism as a tool for disconnecting attention from "the world". The two are not the same.

Is it a correct paraphrase of your answer that the "world" in SN 12.44 and "The All" in SN 35.23 are relating the same basic meaning generality? That's at least what I took from the answer...

Not at all. The All of SN 35.23 is simply saying that the immediate phenomenology is all we really have. The world is inferred, it's more than just the objects of the senses, it's one's personal Matrix that emerges with The All as the input, so to speak.

The All is without fabrication and the "world" is full of it? The All is pristine and the "world" is what ignorance superimposes over it?

No, I wouldn't idealize The All like that. If you see shit you see shit. I'm just saying, The All refers to the phenomenological reductionism as a tool for disconnecting attention from the world. The two are not the same.

The All is merely saying our ways of knowing anything are limited to the senses... "worlds" are fabricated realities where ignorance superimposes shit on all that data coming in...?

I have spoken :)

'Tis true, 'Tis very true :)

Your could update the answer to show the connection of the "world" to The All.

i marked this answer up. It logically says: "To clarify, the "world" of SN 12.44 must not be confused with "The All" of SN 35.23. The All of SN 35.23 is simply saying that the immediate phenomenology is all we really have. The world is inferred, it's more than just the objects of the senses, it's one's personal Matrix that emerges with The All as the input, so to speak....  The two are not the same."

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas,
tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This,
monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All,
I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the
grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and
furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond
range."
That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a
conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s
Discipline. And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a
perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in
the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the
world . The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that
in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of
the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world,
a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s
Discipline.
"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what
disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate.
Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye
disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or
neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate… "The nose disintegrates.
Aromas disintegrate… The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate…
"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The
intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the
intellect consciousness disintegrates.
Contact at the intellect disintegrates.
And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the
intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain
— that too disintegrates.
"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

For example take 'contact'. 'Contact' is a word and it's meaning is a demonstrably inferrable element grasped as the idea of contact.
It is inferrable by smart people who can agree that seeing exists if the eye exist.
I've given this example before;
Seeing demonstrably doesn't exist if;

person is unconscious
person is without an eye
person is in darkness (without visible objects)

Seeing demonstrably exists if there is contact between eye-consciousness, the eye and the visible light.
Therefore we can infer that contact is a truth like the eye is a true requisite.
This is general contact meaning, if we talk about a speacial case of contact, such as the origin of a particular feeling that arose for us, that is then a special case and that there particular instance of contact is the referent for the word 'contact'.
Further any likewise true element we can infer about the truth of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing & cognizing; will be included in the two-fold classification as to;

Included in the allness of the all (conditioned & disintegrates)
Not included in the allness of the all (unconditioned)

The unconditioned is also here a word, it's meaning is conceived as a truth of extinguishment of the conditioned.
This truth is inferable because if All is demonstrably conditioned and conditions can be known by us and are generally held to be extinguishable. The question arises is this possible in a definitive sense, unlike a qualified cessation seen among the past, present & future classes of phenomena, can percipience be extinguished?
Smart people have to assume that yes it wouldn't be an extraordinary assumption that seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, sensing & cognizing could cease with no sequel and that this wouldn't be the same as change in percepience in this life or the next.
We are conceiving of a totally different truth to be known & seen as it actually is and unlike anything we can otherwise think about as real or unreal.

All words are conditioned.
All meanings are conditioned.
Not all referents are conditioned.

All is of the world
All is in the world
'That which isn't included in the allness of the all' is to be held in mind correctly as to the meaning of that expression and it's referent is to be directly known & seen as a release from this world, neither of this world nor the next.

i marked this answer down because "a world conceiver" ("lokamānī") certainly creates "the world". But The All is not explicitly about "conceiving" ("māna").

I'm adding an answer here to quote Piya Tan's commentaries on this, which agree with Andrei's answer. I will not accept my own answer.
In Piya Tan's commentary on SN 12.44, he drew a connection from the arising of feeling to the arising of mental proliferation (papanca).

And what, bhikshus, is the arising of the world10?
Bhikshus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.
The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition,
there is feeling.12
10 On the 3 types of “world,” see Rohitassa
S
12 From hereon, Madhu,pindika
S (M 18.16) continues: “What one feels, one perceives. What one
perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one mentally
proliferates. What a person mentally proliferates is the source
through which perceptions and notions due to mental proliferation
impacts one regarding past, future and present forms cognizable
through the eye.”

In Piya Tan's commentary on the Rohitassa Sutta (SN 2.26), he explains the three types of worlds:

In the Rohitassa Sutta, the word “world” (loka) is used in two
senses: in the sense of the physical world and the world of
formations. Rohitassa asks the Buddha a question on the physical world
(cakka-vāla loka, “universe world”), but the Buddha answers him
referring to the world of formations. Through-out the Buddhist texts,
the word “world” has three senses:

Sankhāra loka - the world of formations,
Satta loka - the world of beings,
Okāsa loka - the world of space (ie the space-time reality).
(Vism 7.37/204 f; DA 1:173; MA 1:397, 2:200)

The world of formations is defined in the Patisambhidā,magga thus:
“One world: all beings are sustained by food.” (Pm 1:122).

So, the "world" of SN 12.44 corresponds to the world of mental formations (sankhara loka) arising from mental proliferations (papanca), that is derived from the feelings (vedana) coming from the contact of consciousness with the six sense media and their sense objects (The All).

this answer appears wrong. i marked it down. Piya Tan appears wrong, as he often is.

SN 12.44 literally says the world arises from craving, as follows:

With craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition,
existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as
condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
With the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving
comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation
of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth;
with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation,
pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this
whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the
world.

SN 35.23 is not explicitly about craving and has not explicit relationsip to SN 12.44. SN 35.23 is merely about the range of experience & what is knowable, as follows:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.  Anyone who would
say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
lies beyond range."

Thus, for example, SN 35.23 applies to Arahants. Where in SN 12.44, only the ending of the world applies to Arahants. Thus Arahants are "lokuttara" or "beyond the world".


text:
Were monastic training texts written down during the Buddha's life?
It seems a commonly held notion that the actual written text of Buddhadharma were only recorded well after the life of the Buddha. However, this sutta seems to indicate that was not so:

"Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this
in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’
And so you should reject it."
AN 4.180

Isn't this prima facie evidence that contrary to this belief that actual teachings were written down and consulted during the life of the Buddha?

it might be evidence AN 4.180 is fake and written after the buddha. the only True Dhamma is what can be verified as true & real in the here & now

I suspect that "text"  there is an artefact of the translation-into-English -- it says "texts" and you think "written".
A simpler and more common translation is just, "found in the suttas and the vinaya".
You can use the "views" icon on the page menu to enable side-by-side display of the Pali.

Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training.
Anabhinanditvā appaṭikkositvā tāni padabyañjanāni sādhukaṁ uggahetvā sutte otāretabbāni, vinaye sandassetabbāni.

I'm not sure any of the Pali words say "written text".
I haven't found a clear translation of sandassetabbāni, here's a footnote from Buddhism: Buddhist origins and the early history of Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia
edited by Paul Williams (in a chapter titled, "On the very idea of the Pali canon"):

... which at least implies it's understood to mean something like, "compared with", not, "written text".

This is an inaccuracy in the translation of Ven. Sujato.
Let's compare it against the translation of Ven. Anandajoti on this page:

Sutte osāretabbāni Vinaye sandassetabbāni.
they should be laid
alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

Here the latter translates "Vinaya" as "Discipline". The former translates it as "texts on monastic training".


text:
What is the "sensual desire" fetter?

What is the "sensual desire" described as one of the fetters, which is:

Reduced or weakened in a once-returner
Abandoned in a non-returner

Are kāmarāga and kāmacchando used interchangeably?

Does it have a specific meaning, perhaps identified in a sutta or commentary -- or can we only imagine what it means by analysing the words (kāma, rāga, chanda)?
For example, the words micchacara and abrahmacariya -- used in the two versions of the 3rd precept -- have explicit canonical definitions (or at least specific examples of prohibited behaviour) beyond what can be inferred from only the etymology of the words.

What about any "exceptions which prove the rule" in suttas which describe arahants -- for example the Buddha's experiencing discomfort of old age in DN 16:

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.

Are we to understand there's no "desire" associated with this? That it's not "sensual"? Or perhaps that it is if anything a desire for "neutral" feelings (i.e. for not feeling pain), and therefore within the scope of enlightened thinking?

If the senses are the All (SN 35.23), are there any desires which aren't "sensual" -- even a preference for seclusion, for example, or for good health? Or even, for morality?

In my understanding, when used in the Buddhist technical sense, kamaraga and kamacchanda refer to two different things.
Kamacchanda is an active (current) desire, usually for a fairly specific object of material senses. For example, someone sees (or remembers) an attractive person (typically of the opposite gender) and experiences excitement, longing, and a desire for contact. That's kamacchanda. Technically it is based on a chain of associations that begins with grasping on a sign of beauty, a sign of pleasant taste, a sign of pleasant tactile experience etc. - i.e. a sign that promises a pleasant sensory experience.
Kamacchanda is abandoned by abandoning the clinging/sustenance of the chain of associations. In other words, by switching attention away from the sign and its connotations and inferences and the narrative they generate.
Kamaraga is deeper. It is the latent ever-present hunger for pleasure or fondness of enjoyment, in general. Its fundamental quality is "not having enough" or "not being at peace because of lacking something". Its root is the deep lying conviction that there must be something desirable in the world that can make one happy. This makes Kamaraga sort of the opposite of disenchantment, a somewhat romantic attitude to the world.
It is my guess that the two are related as the latent tendency and its active expression. Kamaraga underlies all instances of kamacchanda.
Kamaraga weakens with attainment of insight into the nature of true happiness, the peace that lacks any non-suchness. In other words, when one understands that nothing, no hypothetical pleasure, can possibly be better than the pleasure of being at peace now and not craving anything else. Kamaraga completely ceases with disenchantment, dispassion, etc. of Liberation.
As you can see, with these definitions Buddha's preference for peace and seclusion is not a kind of kamacchanda nor an expression of kamaraga. Why? Because it's not based on the idea of drawing pleasure from the (so-called) external world. When Buddha was leaving the Sangha he was not seeking or pursuing a source of pleasure or enjoyment, nor did he lack anything. The Buddha is the completely disenchanted one, by definition. He was simply abandoning the unhealthy environment for a more healthy one.
Another interesting question one might ask is whether this preference can be considered an example of aversion (to noise, quarrels etc.) but I'll leave that for another question.

I haven't encountered anything in the suttas that make me think kama chanda and kamaraga are entirely different things as you describe (one being present moment, another being more deeply rooted). Many words are used to refer to 2nd noble truth, tanha, raga, chanda, nandi, abhinandi, etc., but some of those words are often used in positive context (chanda as part of 4 iddhipada, 4 right efforts), and even kama occasionally is used in a postiive context "dhamma raga" a passion for Dharma teaching that a non-returner hasn't given up yet.

Sensual desires (kāmacchanda) are thoughts expressing an intention to get sensual pleasures, from the six sense media (including mind). It's a hindrance.
Sensual lust (kāmarāga) is an underlying tendency or habitual obsession (anusaya) to seek sensual pleasures (AN 7.11). It's a fetter.
If one is still afflicted with the fetter of sensual lust (kāmarāga) due to not being fully liberated, then when careless attention (ayonisomanasikara) is applied due to lack of mindfulness (sati), the hindrance of sensual desires (kāmacchanda) will arise if not already arisen, and increase if already arisen.
If one is still afflicted with the fetter of sensual lust (kāmarāga) due to not being fully liberated, then when careful attention (yonisomanasikara) is applied due to the sustenance of mindfulness (sati), then the hindrance of sensual desires (kāmacchanda) will not arise, and if already arisen, it will be abandoned.
If one is no longer afflicted with the fetter of sensual lust (kāmarāga) due to being fully liberated, then careless attention (ayonisomanasikara) will never be applied due to a lack of mindfulness (sati), and so the hindrance of sensual desires (kāmacchanda) will never arise.

Bhikkhus, when one attends carelessly, unarisen sensual desire arises
and arisen sensual desire increases and expands ...
When one attends carefully, bhikkhus, unarisen sensual desire does
not arise and arisen sensual desire is abandoned.
SN 46.24

Bhikkhus, when the perception of impermanence is developed and
cultivated, it eliminates all sensual lust, it eliminates all lust for
existence, it eliminates all ignorance, it uproots all conceit ‘I am.’
SN 22.102

In DN 16, the Buddha talked about his discomforts of old age, simply to prepare his disciples for a future without his presence.
Furthermore, simply avoiding painful physical sensations do not necessarily indicate the arising of mental aversion. However, trying to distract oneself from painful sensations by actively seeking out pleasant sensations, or throwing tantrums, would be a sign of mental aversion. Also please see SN 36.6 (the arrow).


text:
Where in the canon does the Buddha teach about mindfulness?
I wanted to know if someone could reference passages from the canon where the Buddha teaches about mindfulness. If such passages exist that is.
I was wondering about it because terms and explanations surrounding mindfulness can sound very modern and almost technical at times, depending on who explains it. Has mindfulness, as practiced in this modern age, any roots in the original teachings of the Buddha (as taught by Himself), or did this arise in more recent times?
E.g. Vietnamese Monk Thich Nanh Hanh's school of mindfulness is an entire sect devoted to the practice of mindfulness.
But is there any canonical, textual evidence? I couldn't find anything.
Thanks.

"Right mindfulness" -- samma sati -- is the seventh of the Noble Eightfold Path; and yes there are things in the canon about that. But would that answer the question, is that the "mindfulness" you're asking about? Because you're asking about "mindfulness as practiced in this modern age" ... Does this topic begin to answer your question -- What are the differences between vipassana and mindfulness meditation?

@ChrisW Yes, it does shed some light on the matter for me, thank you.

Here is a good description of mindfulness (sati) directed to the body. It's similar for mindfulness directed to other things.

“Bhikkhus, suppose that on hearing, ‘The most beautiful girl of the
land! The most beautiful girl of the land!’ a great crowd of people
would assemble. Now that most beautiful girl of the land would dance
exquisitely and sing exquisitely. On hearing, ‘The most beautiful girl
of the land is dancing! The most beautiful girl of the land is
singing!’ an even larger crowd of people would assemble. Then a man
would come along, wishing to live, not wishing to die, wishing for
happiness, averse to suffering. Someone would say to him: ‘Good man,
you must carry around this bowl of oil filled to the brim between the
crowd and the most beautiful girl of the land. A man with a drawn
sword will be following right behind you, and wherever you spill even
a little of it, right there he will fell your head.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, would that man stop attending to that
bowl of oil and out of negligence turn his attention outwards?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“I have made up this simile, bhikkhus, in order to convey a meaning.
This here is the meaning: ‘The bowl of oil filled to the brim’: this
is a designation for mindfulness directed to the body. Therefore,
bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will develop and
cultivate mindfulness directed to the body, make it our vehicle, make
it our basis, stabilize it, exercise ourselves in it, and fully
perfect it.’ Thus, bhikkhus, should you train yourselves.”
SN 47.20

There are 56 samyutta's in the SN, the 47'th SN is devoted to the topic of "mindfulness" (sati).
SN 47 Sati-'paṭṭhāna  Saṃyutta
https://lucid24.org/sn/sn47/index.html (disclosure: my website, my translations are derived from B. Sujato)
The first 10 suttas especially are particularly important on the subject. But even reading various English translations of those 10 suttas, you can get quite a different idea of what the practice of sati means. With a bad translation it's easy to arrive at wrong interpretations of 'sati' that totally miss the mark.
So SN 47 should be your first stop for authoritative passages, other suttas are mentioned here, along with brief explanations:
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/7sati/index.html
A great way to check if your understanding of 'sati' is correct, is with the fortress sutta simile, of AN 7.67.
https://lucid24.org/an/an07/an07-0067/index.html
If it's a correct sati, then the wise general who guards the gate is going to be effective. If it's a wrong understanding of sati, like many modern "mindfulness" teachers teach, then the guard is going to let bad guys waltz right into the fortress.

Abhidhamma

Therein what is mindfulness-awakening-factor? Herein a monk is
mindful, furnished with excellent mindfulness-penetration, he
remembers, remembers constantly, what has long been done and long been
said (concerning release). This is called
mindfulness-awakening-factor. (1)
That which is mindfulness, recollection, recall, mindfulness,
remembrance, bearing (in mind), not losing, not confusing,
mindfulness, the Faculty of Mindfulness, the Strength of Mindfulness,
Right Mindfulness: this is called ‘mindfulness.’
The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back
to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the
opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as
faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness—this is the faculty
of mindfulness that there then is.

Sutta

Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
concentration."


text:
What is the meaning of the word 'Emptiness' as it was used in the oldest texts?
Want references/excerpts and inference pertaining to the references & etymology for the designation[s] of "Emptiness" as it is used in the Pali Sutta.

The article on Wikipedia seems well-referenced. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Early_Buddhism

Our friend Samana Johan used to advertise a book on this exact topic: "The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature" by Dhammajothi Thero, available for download on his community website.

This is well explained by Ven. Thanissaro in his commentary to MN 122:

This sutta gives many valuable lessons on practical issues surrounding
the attempt to develop an internal meditative dwelling of emptiness,
to maintain it, and to see it through to Awakening. Some of these
issues include the need for seclusion as a conducive setting for the
practice, types of conversation and thinking that are beneficial and
harmful for the practice, the dangers of being distracted by visitors,
and the proper attitude to have toward one's teacher. However, for an
explanation of emptiness in and of itself, it's necessary to look
elsewhere in the Canon.
There you find emptiness approached from three perspectives, treating
it (1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and
(3) as a type of awareness-release. The first approach is obviously
the most immediately relevant to the discussion in this sutta, but in
fact all three approaches play a role here.
Emptiness as a meditative dwelling is most fully discussed in MN 121.
Essentially, it boils down to the ability to center the mind in a
particular mode of perception, to maintain it there, and then to
notice the absence and presence of disturbance within that mode. The
process starts with perceptions of one's external surroundings —
village, wilderness, the earth property — and then moves internally to
the four formless states, the "themeless concentration of awareness,"
and finally to release from all mental fermentation. Each step is
compared to the one preceding it to see how its more refined
perception engenders less disturbance. For instance, if you move from
a perception of the wilderness to a perception of earth, the first
step is to settle and "indulge" in that perception. Then you notice
what types of disturbance have been abandoned in the move from the
perception of wilderness to the perception of earth — for example, all
thought of the dangers of wilderness are gone — and then to see what
disturbances remain based on the latter perception. Then you abandon
the perception causing those disturbances and move on to a more
refined level of perception. This process is pursued until it arrives
at the "themeless concentration of awareness." When noting that even
this refined level of concentration is fabricated, inconstant, and
subject to cessation, one gains total release from all mental
fermentations and the disturbances that would arise based on them.
This is the level of emptiness that is "superior and unsurpassed," and
is apparently what the Buddha is referring to in this sutta when he
says that by "not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in
internal emptiness."
Notice that in every step along the way of this process, the emptiness
is the lack of disturbance experienced in a particular mind state.
This means that the mind state is to be perceived simply as an example
of the presence and absence of stress. In other words, emptiness in
this sense relates directly to the second of the three characteristics
— stress or suffering. The pursuit of this emptiness relates to the
four noble truths, as it looks for the causes of stress and uses
tranquility together with insight to abandon those causes in a quest
to put a total end to suffering.
Emptiness in its second meaning, as an attribute of objects, is most
fully discussed in SN 35.85. That sutta describes emptiness as meaning
the lack of self or anything pertaining to a self in the internal and
external sense media. Whatever sense of self that may surround these
objects is not inherent in them, and is instead simply the result of
one's own penchant for "I-making" and "my-making." Seeing the
artificiality of "I-making" and "my-making" in this way helps lead to
a sense of disenchantment with these "makings," thus helping to
abandon any clinging associated with them.
Thus emptiness in this sense relates directly to the third of the
three characteristics: not-self. However, just as the three
characteristics are not radically separate from one another —
everything stressful is for that reason not-self — the practical
application of this sense of emptiness is not radically different from
the first. As SN 12.15 points out, when one no longer latches onto any
idea of "my self," one sees phenomena within and without simply as
examples of stress arising and passing away. To practice meditation
from this perspective — seeing each state of concentration as an
example of stress arising and passing away — is to develop emptiness
as a meditative dwelling.
Emptiness in its third meaning, as a type of awareness-release, is an
application of emptiness in its second. MN 43 describes this state of
concentration as follows: "There is the case where a monk — having
gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty
dwelling — considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything
pertaining to self.'" It adds that this awareness-release is different
from the awareness-release that results when one doesn't attend to any
themes. Thus this state of concentration cannot be entirely equated
with the emptiness as a meditative dwelling mentioned in this sutta.
MN 106 further adds that if one frequently abides in the emptiness
awareness-release, one may either attain the dimension of nothingness
— one of the formless states — or be committed to the discernment that
will lead to Awakening. The first of these two alternatives is another
way in which emptiness as an awareness-release differs from emptiness
as a meditative dwelling as defined in MN 121. However, because the
standard definition of discernment is seeing phenomena in terms of the
four noble truths, the second alternative — being committed to
discernment — would apparently follow the same pattern suggested by SN
12.15, above. In other words, as one no longer perceives phenomena in terms of self, one tends to view them simply as examples of stress
arising and passing away. So, again, this third meaning of emptiness,
like the second, eventually leads in practice back to the first. As MN
43 notes, when one attains full awakening, the themeless
awareness-release and the emptiness awareness-release come to differ
only in name, and not in actuality.
In reading the following sutta, you will notice that the various
meanings of emptiness will fit some contexts better than others.
Still, it is important to remember that in the course of practice, all
three meanings are related and all will inevitably play a role in
Awakening.

added an answer for comment

I have nothing to describe endlessly?

This is a low quality answer. Please see this page for advice on how to write a good answer.

Transcending form, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to space:

MN121:6.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of wilderness and the perception of earth—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite space.

Transcending space, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to consciousness:

MN121:7.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of earth and the perception of the dimension of infinite space—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness.

Transcending consciousness, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to nothingness:

MN121:8.1: Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the dimension of infinite space and the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.

Continuing thus, beyond signs, beyond even the signless, leaving stress behind, perception shifts to emptiness, without defilements:

MN121:12.4: They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.
MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

That is a summary of how emptiness is understood per MN121. Everything else is simply stressful commentary.

A lengthy comment on Ruben's answer;
I think Thanissaro wasn't necessarily wrong in meaning but is rather sloppy there saying;

"This process is pursued until it arrives at the "themeless concentration of awareness." When noting that even this refined level of concentration is fabricated, inconstant, and subject to cessation, one gains total release from all mental fermentations and the disturbances that would arise based on them.

The meaning should be close to this for it to be an agreeable expression to me;
The release is conditioned in as far as there is a conditioning of aggregates leading to the release but the truth & reality of the release itself is unconditioned.
A person does not become unsatisfied with the release but he becomes disenchanted with the aggregates that are grasped with wrong view as personal and are that from which there is a release.
It is the prior development of the aggregates that conditions emergence from the sannavedananirodha and these are only fully exhausted at parinibbana.

"What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"
"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

How the Blessed One Passed into Nibbana

And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.

And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."

"No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has
entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."[59]

Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of
nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness,
he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the
attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the
sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth
jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he
entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the
first jhana.

Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from
the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third
jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana,
the Blessed One immediately passed away. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Until Parinibbana the yogi will be said to be entering into & emerging from the percepience of extinguishment, whereas at parinibbana the faculties are scattered and life-force extinguished, therefore there is nothing left to be grasped as a person and one therefore does not say that a person is abiding in parinibbana or is going to be emerging from it.
In regards to the following;

"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven. Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, how many contacts make contact?"
"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]

Theravadin comy says;

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

I think it is appropriate to say that signless release removes taints in regards to this excerpt

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.080.wlsh.html

In that sense it is on the treshold of nibbana

“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the
removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The
destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.”
When this was said, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Venerable
sir, it is said, ‘the Deathless, the Deathless.’ What now, venerable
sir, is the Deathless? What is the path leading to the Deathless?”
“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction
of delusion: this is called the Deathless. This Noble Eightfold Path
is the path leading to the Deathless; that is, right view … right
concentration.” https://suttacentral.net/sn45.7/en/bodhi

Nibbana and other words are sometimes spoken of in a qualified and sometimes in a definitive sense;

“Reverend, they speak of a person called ‘personal witness’. What is the personal witness that the Buddha spoke of?”
“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. They meditate
directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the
Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a qualified sense.
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, enters and remains in the second
absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption. They meditate
directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the
Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a qualified sense.
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement,
not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is
infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. They
meditate directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this
extent the Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a qualified sense.
Furthermore, take a mendicant who enters and remains in the dimension
of infinite consciousness … the dimension of nothingness … the
dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains
in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with
wisdom, their defilements come to an end. They meditate directly
experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the Buddha
spoke of the personal witness in a definitive sense.”

or here;

“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha spoke of extinguishment in the present life in a qualified sense. …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the
cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom,
their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of
extinguishment in the present life in a definitive sense.”

Here another relevant part of the mn43 that should explain how it is prior development that is the cause for attainment, a cause for persistence and a cause for the emerging from and not the release itself or something released that upholds the truth of the release;

"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven. Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "Now, how does emergence from the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"
"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the
cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the
cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the
cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the
cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has
previously been developed leads him to that state."
"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven.
Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk is
emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, which things
arise first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental
fabrications?"
"When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling,
mental fabrications arise first, then bodily fabrications, then verbal
fabrications."
"Very good, venerable sir." And, delighting in and approving of Ven.
Kamabhu's answer, Citta asked him a further question: "When a monk has
emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, how many contacts
make contact?"
"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." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

And this;

"How many conditions are there for the attainment of the theme-less
awareness-release?"
"There are two conditions for the attainment of the theme-less
awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes and attention to
the theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the
attainment of the theme-less awareness-release."
"And how many conditions are there for the persistence of the
theme-less awareness-release?"
"There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less
awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the
theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three
conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release."
"And how many conditions are there for the emergence from the
theme-less awareness-release?"
"There are two conditions for the emergence from the theme-less
awareness-release: attention to all themes and lack of attention to
the theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the
emergence from the theme-less awareness-release." -mn43

The word 'extinguishment-cessation-element' means something close to an end of the burning things there; it doesn't mean that it is something that is literally left in the ashes and is in that sense not to be construed as a thing among the cessant conditioned elements that were burning and it is likewise with the extinguishment-cessation of that which is discerned to be changing as it persists [the conditioned: sankhata].
That state being the Asoka-state [sorrowless; without suffering], which is also an attainment of the deathless; and that seeing with wisdom is said to be a destruction of taints for a person.
This doing eventually makes it so one emerges an arahant, without defilement, this is said to be the foremost release and as a completed destruction of taints

venerable sir, whenever we want, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, we enter upon and abide in the cessation of perception and feeling. And our taints are destroyed by our seeing with wisdom. Venerable sir, this is another superhuman state, a distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a comfortable abiding, which we have attained by surmounting the preceding abiding, by making that abiding subside. And, venerable sir, we do not see any other comfortable abiding higher or more sublime than this one.”