Conventional versus Ultimate People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" &mdash; and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) versus Ultimate Truth (Paramattha Sacca).


When (historically) does this distinction begin: if the distinction is made in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, is there also doctrine like that in the Sutta Pitaka (and if not, do we know why not)?

This Wikipedia section says that the "two truths" distinction is not made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning".
Is "ultimate" in some way better or more right than "conventional"? Or are they both mere views or descriptions of reality, more or less equal (like a left hand and a right hand) and it's important to select (perhaps, I guess, by using 'wisdom') whichever of the two may be the more appropriate?

Is it OK to regard them both as "views" instead of as "truths"? Is there an important difference between e.g. sacca, vacana, dhamma, and ditthi?
If/when/after people have made a distinction between "conventional" and "ultimate", do people subsequently try to recombine these views? I'm thinking of the Zen-like aphorism, "after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water": is that something to do with "two truths"? Does it imply a continuation of or a return to the conventional? Or does it differ/vary a lot from school to school?


I imagine these questions could be answered with a paragraph each; but please tell me if any of them need to be separate questions, to allow a longer or more detailed answer.
The distinction goes back all the way to Buddha's students' original Maha-Sangha and its two sub-schools Bahushrutiya and Prajnaptivada. From Wikipedia:



  According to Paramārtha, the Bahuśrutīya school was formed in order to fully embrace both "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth."


and


  The Prajñaptivādins were early articulators of the two truths doctrine.



The relationship of the two truths is the main concern of Buddhist ontological tradition called "Madhyamaka". According to them, the "ultimate" that is defined in opposition to "conventional" is not the true ultimate. As you say, these two are mere views or descriptions of reality. The true "ultimate", they argue, is beyond all descriptions, and therefore complete and does not stand in opposition to anything (is all inclusive). One of the very many texts that elaborate on this point and its implications is Karmapa's commentary on an ancient little stanza known as The Cuckoo of Awareness.
As my Zen Master said, it is one thing if I explain this, and another thing if you get it yourself. Therefore I will leave this one unanswered.