user8157: DN 1 states the view of nihilist wanderers, as follows:

Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.

Is the word 'self' used here in conventional language? 
Or does the word 'self' here actually represent a belief in self by those nihilist wanderers? 
If those nihilist wanderers did not believe in 'self' ( and thus used 'conventional language'), why were they not considered to be enlightened? 

user11009: It appears to me those Brahmins believed in none existence.
It appears they did not believe in kamma and rebirth.
What Buddha taught was the dependent origination.
It is not enough to understand the not self. That has to be realised through dependent origination.

user-1: This hypothetical person regards the 'self' as the individuality physically distinguishable -- the physical body composed of the elements, born from mother/father.
Then, arguably such 'self' as used by this person might be the same 'self' as used in conventional language by the Buddha and the Arahats. The word, then, could have the same function for both groups, in this context.
While such person likely denies the existence of an enduring self  -- which would be in agreement with the Buddha -- the quote suggests the view that death marks the end of experiencing, that death is the end of experience. And this, according to the Buddha, is wrong view.
The best argument I know of in the suttas for this stance is that, if such was the case, then karma (and, consequently, morality) would be fiction: there would be no results of actions according to their moral nature (and consequently, morality would be an unnecessary obstacle to gains and benefits, to happiness). Or, more precisely, such results could only occur during this very life -- so one better do all evil things as fast and careful as possible and enjoy the benefits of it while avoiding any bad external outcomes (outcomes that are not really governed by karma law, but exclusively by social conventions of a given time and given culture, e.g. criminal laws and law enforcement).
Another argument against this view can be inferred from the suttas around Nirvana. That is, under this view, Nirvana would have a doubtful value. Why would anyone spend a lifetime avoiding worldly pleasures, enduring hardship, for the promise of an hypothetical "best pleasure" that would only last for a few years? That is, until the person dies. And yet, such person would still suffer physical pain, just like anyone else. Under this view then, once he/she dies, it doesn't matter who attained Nirvana and who didn't, since the same thing happens to everyone equally: the end happens.

8157: <p>DN 1 states the view of nihilist wanderers, as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is the word 'self' used here in conventional language? </p>

<p>Or does the word 'self' here actually represent a belief in self by those nihilist wanderers? </p>

<p>If those nihilist wanderers did not believe in 'self' ( and thus used 'conventional language'), why were they not considered to be enlightened? </p>
 11009: <p>It appears to me those Brahmins believed in none existence.
It appears they did not believe in kamma and rebirth.
What Buddha taught was the dependent origination.
It is not enough to understand the not self. That has to be realised through dependent origination.</p>
 -1: <p>This hypothetical person regards the 'self' as the individuality physically distinguishable -- the physical body composed of the elements, born from mother/father.</p>

<p>Then, arguably such 'self' as used by this person might be the same 'self' as used in conventional language by the Buddha and the Arahats. The word, then, could have the same function for both groups, in this context.</p>

<p>While such person likely denies the existence of an enduring self  -- which would be in agreement with the Buddha -- the quote suggests the view that death marks the end of experiencing, that death is the end of experience. And this, according to the Buddha, is wrong view.</p>

<p>The best argument I know of in the suttas for this stance is that, if such was the case, then karma (and, consequently, morality) would be fiction: there would be no results of actions according to their moral nature (and consequently, morality would be an unnecessary obstacle to gains and benefits, to happiness). Or, more precisely, such results could only occur during this very life -- so one better do all evil things as fast and careful as possible and enjoy the benefits of it while avoiding any bad external outcomes (outcomes that are not really governed by karma law, but exclusively by social conventions of a given time and given culture, e.g. criminal laws and law enforcement).</p>

<p>Another argument against this view can be inferred from the suttas around Nirvana. That is, under this view, Nirvana would have a doubtful value. Why would anyone spend a lifetime avoiding worldly pleasures, enduring hardship, for the promise of an hypothetical "best pleasure" that would only last for a few years? That is, until the person dies. And yet, such person would still suffer physical pain, just like anyone else. Under this view then, once he/she dies, it doesn't matter who attained Nirvana and who didn't, since the same thing happens to everyone equally: the end happens.</p>
