Is there a polemical context here, Gabriel ?
Just a straight answer to a straight question.
We have already covered SN 35.82 that has a poor parallel, and that should be overidden by SN 35.68 - which seems to be the sturdiest definition of the Buddhist “world”, among all suttas. And SN 35.85 seems quite to agree with that.
SN 35.84 and AN 9.38 have no parallel.
If we go over all these suttas, we see that the range involved, seems to be: the external ayatanani, to the appropriated (clinging) khandhas.
This range is what is empty of self and of what belongs to self?
Which takes us back to the liberation by discernment (pañña) and liberation of the citta. That is to say liberation from the “I am this”, and then from the “I am”.
Id est, liberation from the appropriated (clinging) khandhas, and from the external ayatanani. As in SN 22.89.
So it is about first, not identifying with khandhas - and then about not identifying with the external ayatanani.
I suppose these are what is “called the world in the training of the noble one”.
Once the citta is definitely liberated, you are into the higher jhanas. The senses are no more involved - if for a modicum, for life purpose.
I have already covered that with the proper definition of the 5th jhana.
I suppose there is another definition of loka here. As in: arupa loka.
MN 22 is, first of all the criticism of Ariṭṭha’s view, that considers that obstructive things (sensuality) are not obstructions.
And what we are just talking about, is just about that sensory “world”.
MN 22 has quite a good parallel on this criticism, and on what we are just talking about. But not on the rest.
I suppose that both things are quite related, aren’t they ?