Conventional versus Ultimate

People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" — and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (*Sammuti Sacca*) versus Ultimate Truth (*Paramattha Sacca*). 1. 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#Pali_Canon) says that the "two truths" distinction is *not* made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning". 2. 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*? 3. 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.