It is my understanding that the principle of Paṭicca-samuppāda can be perceived in all instances of change. To perceive this principle regardless what it is that changes is the middle way. It is ignorance when a subject is added to this. In the perception of Paṭicca-samuppāda there is no addition of a subject. All ways of understanding what this means without being enlightened are provisional. The idea that Paṭicca-samuppāda can only be represented by one set of 12 or 24 conditions is common but I simply cant see how that is tenable. For me it is the principle which conveys contingency as a quality regardless of how we bifurcate a situation. To say that the Buddha continues to perceive Paṭicca-samuppāda after her body breaks up makes no sense whatsoever. But to differentiate between what she is before that break up and what she is after also makes no ultimate sense. It only makes conventional sense. Conventional sense is bound up with suffering. We should do our best not to project our suffering onto the Buddha. If we do I think its best that we project the most lofty, exalted and (dare I say) godlike suffering onto her. But of course we should not.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332