In ‘Pancupādānakkhandha – It is All Mental” 3: “We can translate the term, pancupādānakkhandha, as “five clinging aggregates”.
This may be taken to mean (relying on grammar alone) that it is the aggregates themselves that are responsible for the clinging, that ‘do’ the clinging Which of course is not the case. It is the being who is responsible for clinging to the five aggregates, so why is it not called instead : pancakkhandhaupadana?