Hello Venerable @Sunyo, 
I think the question is relevant to the overall topic regarding ”the world & khandhas” and how the immersion in question can only be attained thanks to Dependent Origination.
The preceding chapter in your upcoming book is about that very immersion: ”a seemingly paradoxical perception of nibbāna”
That is why I thought it was relevant, but we can avoid the whole ”nature of nibbāna thing”. 
What I wanted to highlight was more the khandhas in relation to the world (with sutta quotes regarding Nibbāna contrasting this 
)
But the focus is still on the world/khandhas and DO
‘There is such an attainment where the one who enters it does not feel anything at all.’” - MN 136
This attainment, where the one who enters it does not feel anything at all, is only possible thanks to Dependent Origination.
The point is, without DO one is pretty much forced to side with any of the prevailing views be it: eternalism/annihilation, plurality/unity, mind-body the same or separate, all exists/ all does not exist and so on = ”Most of the world is stuck because it is attracted to things, takes them up, and adheres to them.” - SN 12.15
The Buddha refutes eternalism, partial-eternalism and annihilationism like this:
Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.
Now the immersion in AN 10.6 I asked about ends with the following:
It is in this way, Ānanda, that a bhikkhu could obtain such a state of concentration that he would not be percipient…of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world, but he would still be percipient.”
I thought it was a very relevant question if we now take into consideration: ”The World & The Khandhas”.
You wrote the following about how this perception is a reflection:
Yet the sutta says:
he would not be percipient of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
- So that can only imply the reflection/perception being truly beyond this state and not in relation to it in any way.
And it also says:
he would not be percipient of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world.
- This also suggests the reflection/perception is beyond all worlds.
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
When asked, ‘Is there a specific condition for craving?’ you should answer, ‘There is.’ If they say, ‘What is a condition for craving?’ you should answer, ‘Feeling is a condition for craving.’ - DN 15
‘There is such an attainment where the one who enters it does not feel anything at all.’” - MN 136
“Reverends, extinguishment is bliss! Extinguishment is bliss!”
When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”
“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.
The following sutta is about neither getting rid of nor accumulating the khandhas, but still remaining after getting rid of them:
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
This is called a mendicant who neither gets rid of things nor accumulates them, but remains after getting rid of them. They neither give things up nor grasp them, but remain after giving them up. They neither discard things nor amass them, but remain after discarding them. They neither dissipate things nor get clouded by them, but remain after dissipating them.
And what things do they neither get rid of nor accumulate, but remain after getting rid of them? They neither get rid of nor accumulate form, but remain after getting rid of it. They neither get rid of nor accumulate feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, but remain after getting rid of it.
And what things do they neither give up nor grasp, but remain after giving them up? They neither give up nor grasp form, but remain after giving it up. They neither give up nor grasp feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, but remain after giving it up.
And what things do they neither discard nor amass, but remain after discarding them? They neither discard nor amass form, but remain after discarding it. They neither discard nor amass feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, but remain after discarding it.
And what things do they neither dissipate nor get clouded by, but remain after dissipating them? They neither dissipate nor get clouded by form, but remain after dissipating it. They neither dissipate nor get clouded by feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, but remain after dissipating it.
When a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and the Progenitor worship them from afar:
‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred!
Homage to you, supreme among men!
We don’t understand
the basis of your absorption.’”
So since DO is such a deep teaching that one can’t grasp in a logical/intellectual sense, we truly don’t know what cessation actually implies in relation to the world and the khandhas.