Siebe wrote: This stable element is ever present and all pervasive. Also now. It cannot be not present.
Siebe, you have made a common error in trying to define what Nibbana is. Nibbana is realized after the removal of causes for existence in sansara. With the structure of our language, it is more appropriate to think of it in negative terms (what it is not), rather than in positive terms (what it is).
Nibbana is spaceless and timeless, unconditioned by space and time. Therefore it is invalid to think of it as being ever present. To be ever present, it must be present in space all the time. Likewise, we cannot think of Nibbana as being all-pervasive. It is simply not possible to define Nibbana by space and time.
Time is indeed conditioned. When we experience the present, it almost immediately passes into the past. Therefore, it changes.
Furthermore, according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity (if Lal agrees with the theory), two people can experience time very differently if they are travelling at vastly different speeds from each other. Time slows down more and more the closer we approach the speed of light. In fact, when a massless particle travels at the speed of light, time will stop for that particle. Lal, am I right to say so or is there something you disagree with?
In addition, beings in different realms also experience time differently. What may be one day in a deva realm might be years in the human realm.
Siebe also wrote: But even in this life the nature of an arahant or Buddha cannot be explained/designated anymore in terms of khandha’s. Even while others think the rupa (body) they see, is the Buddha, this is not ultimately true.
That is certainly true. Although Buddha is still functioning after attaining enlightenment and before Parinibbana, He cannot be defined in terms of the khandhas anymore because He has stopped clinging to them. This is supported by SN 22.36.
However, those who still cling to the khandhas, can still be defined in terms of the khandhas, although there is certainly no immutable, unchanging, permanent ‘self’.
Next, I would like to give my views on sakkaya ditthi. In my opinion, the identification with self consists of two parts — ‘objectification’ (due to the samyojana ‘sakkaya ditthi’) and ‘subjectification’ (due to the more subtle samyojana ‘mana’).
Those who have not attained the sotapanna stage may tend to think: ‘I am rupa’; ‘I am vedana’; ‘I am sanna’; ‘I am ‘sankhara’, or ‘I am vinnana’. They still identify themselves with the pancupadanakkhandha, thinking ‘rupa is mine’; ‘vedana is mine’, and so on.
Upon attaining the sotapanna stage and eradicating sakkaya ditthi, however, the being no longer identifies with the pancupandanakkhandha. However, a subtle ‘I am’ conceit still exists. This must be mana. It is only eradicated at the arahant stage. Support for this view of mine may be found in the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89).
I hope this helps. Please let me know if there is anything you disagree with.