It must also be remembered that in the Yamaka Sutta and similar ones, there is a consideration from an enlightened point of view, where the Arahant sees the aggregates as suffering, emptiness and burden and does not cling to them (and also does not create a sense of his own real being). Two theses - there is only visible, audible, cognizable - but there is no conjecture of certain entities, I, and so on. Second, there are aggregates, but they are recognized as alien, non-self, empty. An ordinary person has an illusion of I and appropriation, therefore such a point of view is not available to him. And yes, indeed, the Buddha considered ordinary people from the same point of view - the impersonality of processes and the emergence / cessation of dukkha. If the conditioning process stops, that is param-sukkha. if it does not stop - dukkha and the cause of dukkha.
But that isnât rue @Nikolas , the Buddha said that beings where reborn all the time, it was when he was asked about the enlightened that he said that all of A, not A, both, neither didnât apply.
If what he was saying was that these things did not apply because âbeingsâ are a fiction then they would not apply to unenlightened beings and it would be inappropriate to ask about the rebirth of unenlightened beings in just the same way.
Yours and @Sunyo 's arguments just do not make sense.
And as for SN22, well, like practically every other sutta in SN, it just takes one philosophically interesting thing from Buddhism and smooshes it with a rote repetition of the aggregates formula. I have no interest in this ânumericalâ Buddhism, as I have said, I take SN to be late, a kind of proto-abhidamma and full of frankly contradictory and sometimes downright incoherent material.
When he switched to the language of absolute truth, the being, too, ceased to be described as being reborn. Only dependent arising. In one of the suttas, the Buddha directly says - someone realizes, makes contact, desires - not the correct formulation of the question. it is correct to say âunder what condition arises: contact, consciousness, desireâ - without the assumption of a certain subject or agent. When the Buddha switches to the language of conventional description, then the Arahant also begins to be one who is not reborn, one who has achieved salvation from rebirth (there will be no new birth, a holy life has been lived, etc.).
In other words, at the conventional level of description, beings bear the consequences of their good and bad deeds. Aggregates are like a heavy load. They are reborn. An arahant is not reborn, he has gone beyond the scope of samsara. In the language of absolute truth, there is only the dependent arising of the elements and their nature are the three characteristics. in the case of an arahant, there is a dependent cessation of the elements and a quality of rest. Do not confuse these two levels of skillful description.
Again @Nikolas we just disagree, and I get it, you are a Theravada and I am not, but just on this whole conventional/absolute distinction I will qoute from a monk in your own tradtion @sujato who says in How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist
the two truths
Theravada makes much of the doctrine of the âtwo truthsâ, conventional (sammutisacca) and ultimate (paramatthasacca). Conventional truth is the domain of such ultimately unreal notions like âpersonsâ, ânationsâ, and the like, while the ultimate truth deals with the fundamental phenomena of existence (dhammas). This distinction applies both to the expression of the truthâwhere the Suttas are supposed to deal with conventional truth, while the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate truthâand the underlying realities spoken of, where the âultimately trueâ phenomena are so by virtue of the fact that they have an âintrinsic essenceâ (sabhÄva).No such distinction is found in the EBTs. There we find the Buddha easily moves between discussions framed in terms of people and those in terms of phenomena, without having to impute any ontological significance to this distinction.
The fact that words have specialized meanings, and that what is true in one domain of discourse may not apply in another, is a normal feature of specialization and is not a characteristic of the Dhamma. In physics, for example, what we take to be solid matter is seen as energies moving in space. That doesnât mean that the idea of âsolidityâ is wrong or lesser, it just means that it applies when considering things from some perspectives but not others. In the ordinary world we live in, âsolidityâ is perfectly real: no physicist tries to walk through walls.
When the term paramattha appears in the EBTs, it does not mean âultimate meaningâ or âultimate realityâ but âultimate goalâ, and is a word for Nibbana.
And yet this distinction is there and it is perfectly visible in the suttas.
Well, IMO (not that anyone cares 
) all discrepancies resolve once we get over the implicit âentity thinkingâ (atta thinking) that lies at the heart of seeing a Being as some existing âthingâ.
Any kind of Being can alternatively be seen as a process, based on fractal subprocesses, which IMO is the reasoning behind DO. This is also the whole point of pointing out that any âthingâ that exists is Anicca⌠of the nature to arise, change and pass away.
The life process nominally termed as an âunenlightened Beingâ is an ever changing Process, continuously producing its own fuel of craving by way of volitional action based upon ignorance, which sustains it both in this lifetime and beyond into other lifetimes. In every lifetime a Self/ego illusion is produced based on the underlying processes of the aggregates⌠each Self is somewhat different (âJotipalaâ was not exactly the same âpersonâ as âGautamaâ) but these are all linked into an overall thread of a Process (Jotipalaâs kamma resulted in the Buddhaâs enlightenment).
While the Process continues in this self sustaining way, it is perfectly correct to speak of the Death and Rebirth of the overall Process (a âBeingâ) in various different loci within the system of Samsara. Certainly, being a process it has the capacity to cease, but its cessation cannot be spoken of till the time it is running DO in origination mode.
The life process nominally termed as a Noble one has irreversibly entered into DO in cessation mode. It will inevitably run out of fuel in a maximum of 7 lifetimes for a Sotapanna, and at the breakup of this very lifetime for an Arahant.
When all fuel ends, the process ceases irreversibly. That which was being clung to viz the Self/ ego illusion (prior to Nibbana) of the very last lifetime is seen no more at Parinibbana since there is no underlying process to support it, ergo Extinguishment.
IMO, the conventional/ absolute truth differentiation is just a muddled (but simple!) way of expressing the difference between the ultimately unreal illusion of an âentityâ created by a Process and the essentially empty nature of a Process based upon fractal subprocesses itself. The EBTs donât need it because everything is described in terms of Process (DO / iddapaccayata).
But the problem is that your NOT âgetting overâ that thinking- you just rename âSelfâ with the word âProcessâ and then assert that the âUnenlightened, ordinaryâ Process goes on and on existing forever while the ânoble, enlightenedâ Process ceases to exist.
So you still have a âthingâ which you call âProcessâ and it still âexistsâ and then âdoesnât existâ.
This explanation, like @Sunyo âs and like @Nikolas âs contradicts the assertion that âexistenceâ talk and ânon-existenceâ talk (as well as âbothâ and âneitherâ) âgo beyond the limits of language and wisdomâ when used to attempt to describe âone gone this wayâ.
So I am sorry @faujidoc1 (and @Sunyo and @Nikolas ) but for me the âdiscrepanciesâ are NOT resolved by the standard Therevadan boiler-plate, not even when souped up with fractals!
Metta
Maybe think of it like this
A process, in the way that we are speaking, isnât a thing (noun) it is a Verb (action). It is like a perpetual motion apparatus, and it ceases action when there is an interruption in the process. The process of becoming is interrupted - âcut off like a palm stumpâ (Full awakening/Arahant). > No more re-birth. As such the two different levels that are sometimes alluded to are; 1. the process that is uninterrupted > perpetually in motion/becoming/re-birth, and 2. that when the process has been interrupted ie. removing one of the links in the chain (Avija) > Nibbana, and the residual momentum just keeps going till it runs out and the âbodyâ dies - no more re-birth in any state (PariNibbana).
Just another angle 
All the best
And PS - as far as Iâm concerned, there is nothing âTheravadanâ about this, it is pure EBT.
Iâm sorry @Viveka but
is very difficult for me to accept, perhaps you can point me to a sutta source that makes this Noun Verb argument or a Process versus Thing argument.
For the record here is a qoute from âpureâ EBT land:
âThen is this your view: âA Realized One doesnât exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are sillyâ?â
âThatâs not my view, Vaccha.â
âŚ
âMaster Gotama, when asked these ten questions, you say: âThatâs not my view.â Seeing what drawback do you avoid all these convictions?â
âEach of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views. Theyâre beset with anguish, distress, and fever. They donât lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.â
âBut does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?â
âThe Realized One has done away with convictions. For the Realized One has seen: âSuch is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling. Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.â Thatâs why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all identifying, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.â
âBut Master Gotama, when a mendicantâs mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?â
ââTheyâre rebornâ doesnât apply, Vaccha.â
âWell then, are they not reborn?â
ââTheyâre not rebornâ doesnât apply, Vaccha.â
âWell then, are they both reborn and not reborn?â
ââTheyâre both reborn and not rebornâ doesnât apply, Vaccha.â
âWell then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?â
ââTheyâre neither reborn nor not rebornâ doesnât apply, Vaccha.â
âŚ
âNo wonder you donât understand, Vaccha, no wonder youâre confused. For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. Itâs hard for you to understand, since you have a different view, creed, preference, practice, and tradition.
âŚ
âIn the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. Theyâre deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. âTheyâre rebornâ, âtheyâre not rebornâ, âtheyâre both reborn and not rebornâ, âtheyâre neither reborn nor not rebornâânone of these apply.
MN72
And of course in many other places also.
A few points:
- you say âno more rebirthâ but the EBT says âTheyâre not reborn doesnât applyâ
- It was open to the Buddha to say, âA Realized One doesnât exist after death because a âSelfâ does not exist either before or after death. the Buddha does not say this, rather they DO say ââThatâs not my viewâ
- âThe Realized One has done away with convictions." this EXPLICITLY includes âââTheyâre not rebornâ and âA Realized One doesnât exist after deathâ.
- This is not an âoutlierâ sutta, exactly the same arguments about the limitations of conceptulisation and language and the transcendence of ALL positions in relation to the tetralemma are given at DN1, MN1, SN44 and elsewhere.
Metta
and one more (from DN15)
It wouldnât be appropriate to say that a mendicant whose mind is freed like this holds the following views: âA Realized One exists after deathâ; âA Realized One doesnât exist after deathâ; âA Realized One both exists and doesnât exist after deathâ; âA Realized One neither exists nor doesnât exist after deathâ.
Why is that? A mendicant is freed by directly knowing this: how far language and the scope of language extend; how far terminology and the scope of terminology extend; how far description and the scope of description extend; how far wisdom and the sphere of wisdom extend; how far the cycle of rebirths and its continuation extend. It wouldnât be appropriate to say that a mendicant freed by directly knowing this holds the view: âThere is no such thing as knowing and seeing.â
A very long reply ⌠and Please excuse me, I am not being critical, but just focused on the issue - ie not personal in any sense 
There isnât one⌠and itâs not an argument! this is me trying to give a perspective ( a pointing) that may assist and trigger a new way of looking at the issue. I picked up on your use of âthingâ and saw that it may indicate that you are still thinking of the group of Khandas as an entity rather than a sum of components that are simply working together (chariot versus wheels, chassis, etc or as the separate balls/components/khandas in the pendulum picture above). As in the Buddhas teaching framework of analyzing the Elements and Khandas. This is the difference in perception from seeing a pendulum apparatus or a chariot or a person as an entity, as opposed to a number of component parts (not identifiable as that whole thing) that produce a specific action ONLY when they work in aâ dependent arisingâ relationship. In the case of the pendulum sequence - if you remove any of the balls, the process stops. It requires the action of each ball for the process to work. In my above comment - this is what highlghting that it is a verb as opposed to a noun was trying to convey - the focus is on the (inter)action
In the quote you give, Vaccha keeps asking where âtheyâ are reborn or exist etc. The Buddha refuses to identify the subject of the question as a âtheyâ⌠a better way to ask would be âWhatâ is reborn. He frames his answer as none of the statements with a âTheyâ as subject apply. Same goes in your later quote of âa realised oneâ. There is no ârealised oneâ from this perspective in this specific simile. The way the terms are utilized varies across suttas, depending on what he is drawing attention to.
I agree it is frustrating to have this tetralemma word play, but from my understanding (which comes from Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali) is that this was a standard form that was used in debates at the time of the Buddha. It feels alien and muddled to us - but itâs not such a big problem - this is just one example/perspective from within the suttas eg flame going out or DO. The trick is to uncover the understanding that will unify ALL of the ways the Buddha refers to this, and this is what Ven Sunyo, and Nikolas and Faujidoc and others prior, have attempted to do. If one had to quote all the suttas, it would take days because there are so many to go through for that thorough picture.
I believe that this is particularly a problem that arises when relying on a logical textual analysis without the commensurate progress on the Path through practice. Practice changes perception. Hence the necessity for all Sila, Samadhi and Panna to be developed to a sufficient extent to alter perception to the extent necessary.
The quotes you gave is just one means among many which the Buddha gives to explain it. One needs to understand them all, to be able to see how the description varies. It is like the blind men describing the elephant⌠each one accurately describes his section, but this is not the same as describing the whole elephant. Itâs not a good simile, but just meant as a rough indication. The Dhamma/teaching is pointing out where to look to get past the delusion inherent in the process of re-birth. This is very hard to do. The different similes and metaphors the Buddha gives throughout the suttas are all different fingers, pointing from different directions at the same thing. While the finger is absolutely necessary - without it one wouldnât know where to begin, the finger is simply guiding one to look⌠The Practice enables one to look and see beyond the finger to that Dhamma/truth. The suttas are the finger. The suttas are the vehicle not the destination.
I know that you are well read and familiar with the suttas, but still Iâd really suggest doing a sutta retreat (lots on line and I can recommend any of Ajahn Brahmalis recent 9 day retreats) where this topic is covered. Each time, as ones view and perception evolves, different things stand out. And it basically needs to cover the entire Dhamma - what we are talking about here is the summation at the absolute end of the Path - everything leads up to it, like a meticulous jigsaw. But this conclusion is really about penetrating the mechanisms of Dependent Arising/ iddapaccayata and to see how it works in relation to Dependent Origination/ paticca samupada. That is really the bottom line. All that arises, ceases - second and third Noble Truths.
There is nothing wrong with not getting it fully, or for finding the prospect either horrifying, life denying or as a cognitive dissonance. These reactions are expected! If one doesnât feel like this, then one should be worried, that it hasnât been understood deeply enough⌠This is completely turning reality on itâs head. There is no cause for frustration, stress or anger at not being able to understand it clearly. - it is an expected part of the process. It just takes a LOT of time, with an open mind, and even then it is not guaranteed. This open (defilement free) Mind is a requirement to penetrate the truth. I believe it cannot be done with intellect alone - just as in your quote above. It requires perfection of each of the 8 elements in the N8FPath. These are the conditions necessary for awakening to occur.
A âwait and seeâ approach works best and is advised by many excellent teachers a long way along the path⌠holding views lightly⌠I suppose that that is the main thing that is important - remaining open rather than choosing and then adhering to a view (note there is a fundamental difference between how the Buddha talks about views versus Right View /sammaditthi) - just because one has not yet seen the deeper Dhamma for oneself. That is the purpose of Saddha in the interim.
As far as Iâm concerned, it ONLY becomes a problem when people make strong arguments and try to convince others of their views, tossing it out as a wrong understanding because they canât see it for themselves as yet. There is NO benefit to assuming it is wrong when one just doesnât know yet - just keep it on the back-burner⌠âmaybeâ⌠thatâs all.
That way everyone can explore the Buddhas teachings freely for themselves, and these âargumentsâ donât undermine confidence and strengthen the Doubt in people, which just makes that hindrance harder to overcome in the long run.
Just an open mind exploring and using Right view as a guide - to hold to interim views lightly, until one has Sammaditthi for oneself.
I hope something in here may provide some food for thought.
Best wishes for your journey, may you be happy and well
May all Beings have the opportunity to awaken to the Dhamma. 
Depends on how we look at rebirth. if we look at rebirth as a dhamma that arises conditionally, then the Buddha clearly said - there will be no more new bhava (existence), the holy life has been lived. And MN 140 says directly, not being born how can he die? in the pattern of paticca-samuppada it is clearly stated: with the cessation of clinging, existence (bhava) ceases, with the cessation of existence, birth ceases. Everything is very clear and precise. On the other hand, if we look at this process as a kind of Self or the personality of an Arahant who has dhamma - rebirth, or loses dhamma - rebirth. That is, we describe this process as I and what belongs to I - then indeed the Buddha refuses to use such expressions. And we can say - âhe is rebornâ - not applicable.
Firstly thank you so much for your reply @Viveka , I respect your generosity to take so much time in writing all that out.
but,
The tetra-lemma does NOT feel alien and muddled to me, rather it is a brilliant and concise way of indicating that nibanna (and the status of âone gone thusâ) are beyond
âlanguage and the scope of language; terminology and the scope of terminology description and the scope of descriptionâ.
And your explination;
In the quote you give, Vaccha keeps asking where âtheyâ are reborn or exist etc. The Buddha refuses to identify the subject of the question as a âtheyâ⌠a better way to ask would be âWhatâ is reborn. He frames his answer as none of the statements with a âTheyâ as subject apply. Same goes in your later quote of âa realised oneâ. There is no ârealised oneâ from this perspective in this specific simile. The way the terms are utilized varies across suttas, depending on what he is drawing attention to.
Is frankly muddled, in that in order for it to work when the Buddha says that they do NOT hold the view ââA Realized One doesnât exist after death.â what they have to REALLY mean is that they DO hold the vew ââA Realized One doesnât exist after death.â but wonât affirm that because a Realized One doesnât exist BEFORE death either. So on your argument what Vacchagotta must have REALLY meant was âdo you hold the view that a really existing entity called a realized one exists during life but is destroyed at death?â
But this ISNâT what is asked, and is NOT what the Buddha says.
Both arising AND cessation are conditioned, both âexistsâ and âdoesnât existâ are conditioned:
using conditioned concepts to describe what is unconditioned is not possible hence;
It wouldnât be appropriate to say that a mendicant whose mind is freed like this holds the following views: ââŚexistsâŚâ; ââŚdoesnât existâŚâ; â⌠both exists and doesnât existâŚâ; ââŚneither exists nor doesnât existâ.
Why is that?
A mendicant is freed by directly knowing this:
how far language and the scope of language extend;
how far terminology and the scope of terminology extend;
how far description and the scope of description extend;
how far wisdom and the sphere of wisdom extend;
how far the cycle of rebirths and its continuation extend.
It wouldnât be appropriate to say that a mendicant freed by directly knowing this holds the view: âThere is no such thing as knowing and seeing.â
âexistenceâ is an illusion but ânon-existanceâ is an illusion too.
I get that your heart is in the right place, but Iâm honestly not sure you even understand the issues I am raising here, and as for
I would just say that you know nothing at all about my practice, nor much about how I have come to my understanding of the Vacchagotta and other philosophical suttas.
Best wishes for your journey.
Thank you.
Of course i know nothing of your practice, and i wouldnât presume. It was meant as a general comment , that practice is a necessary part of the path, as per the context
I guess the metaphorical words used, i.e. saášsÄra and nibbÄna maybe give us an understanding that this is the case? So maybe something like sn15.1 perhaps gives us the idea of process? Maybe?
Itâs exemplified in SN12.12 and SN12.35
Thank you @Dhammanando
From SN12.35:
When this was said, one of the mendicants asked the Buddha, âWhat are old age and death, sir, and who do they belong to?â
âThatâs not a fitting question,â said the Buddha. âYou might say, âWhat are old age and death, and who do they belong to?â Or you might say, âOld age and death are one thing, who they belong to is another.â But both of these mean the same thing, only the phrasing differs. Mendicant, if you have the view that the soul and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life. If you have the view that the soul and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: âRebirth is a condition for old age and death.ââ
Now just to tease out something;
âIf you have the view that the soul and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life.â
Now an existing thing is different from a non-existing thing is it not?
So if one says that bodies (or âaggregatesâ) exist but souls do not exist then one posits a difference between bodies and souls does one not?
There is so much evidence that the âmere cessationâ position is rejected in the suttas that even its defenders canât help but give examples of it in the suttas they cite!
