It seems that the traditional Theravada interpretation of the Buddha's use
of the term "person" (puggala) in SN 22.22, is that it was merely a lapse
into the use of conventional speech.
On the other hand, the Personalists taught that this puggala was neither
true in the ultimate sense nor just conventional speech. Also, that this
puggala was neither identical with, nor different from, the five aggregates.
The term "person" (puggala) is frequently used in the Sutta Pitaka, including
when refering to an arahant. I assume that all such references are understood
to be merely conventional speech, in line with the orthodox interpretation.
However, the Tathagata is not included in the eight noble persons.
Turning now to SN 22.22, I do not regard the use of the term "person" as a
problem, but I am puzzled by two things:
1. Why has there been so much debate over this discourse?
2. Why does the main text say that the burden is the five clinging
aggregates, while the verse at the end says that the burden is
the five aggregates?