Siebe,
Please see SN 22.36 again.
“If you have an underlying tendency for form, you’re measured against that, and you’re defined by what you’re measured against. If you have an underlying tendency for feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, you’re measured against that, and you’re defined by what you’re measured against.”
I think the sutta is saying that if we cling onto rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana, then we can be defined by those pancakkhandha. Hence we could take ourselves to be a stream of ever changing physical and mental processes.
But there is a caveat though. The sentence ‘We could take ourselves to be a stream of ever changing physical and mental processes.’ sets us up for a language trap, in that it conditions us to think of there being a personal agent, or an inherent self in the term ‘we’.
Can you try to explain these streams of ever-changing physical and mental processes without subtly fitting in the idea of a personal agent or inherent self in our everyday language? It would be hard, if not impossible, right?
Hence, while we are an ever-changing stream of physical and mental processes, there is no personal agent or inherent self involved in ‘we’. As such, there really is no one to experience Nibbana in the ultimate sense. Anyone trying to argue otherwise that there must be someone who experiences Nibbana is setting himself or herself up for ‘subjectification’ or ‘objectification’ of PS processes. It is a thicket of mistaken views that sets us up for being bound in sansara, as some sutta footnotes would state.
‘If you have no underlying tendency for form, you’re not measured against that, and you’re not defined by what you’re not measured against. If you have no underlying tendency for feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, you’re not measured against that, and you’re not defined by what you’re not measured against.’
Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas and Arahants are different from us. They cannot be defined by the pancakkhandas, as they have ceased clinging to them. They are immeasurable like the drops of water in an ocean or probably more. Therefore, to even think of them as having a definable Self that ‘exists or does not exist, or both exists and does not exists, or neither exists or does not exist’ is not valid.
After all, what exists? What does not exist? What both exists and does not exist? What neither exists nor does not exist? These questions all become invalid and meaningless in the ultimate sense. Of course until their Parinibbana, Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas and Arahants are still functioning. However, it is best to avoid thinking about the nature of their identities, lest we become embroiled in misconceptions and wrong views.