user-1: Are the six sense faculties just the sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses, considered all together, that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional) person? 
Does it make any difference if we think about "ourselves" in terms of them, rather than any other scheme? What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six sense Indriyas?

user-1: 
Are the six sense faculties the sense organs, sense objects, and sense
  consciousnesses, considered all together?

There seems to be, in Theravada Buddhism, differences between

sense faculties (control of the eye)
internal sense bases (the material of the eye necessary for vision)
sense doors (how consciousness gains access to visible objects)

See the The Abhidhammattha Sangaha, By Bhikkhu Bodhi, p144


Is there anything else that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional)
  person?

The internal sense bases, along with the external sense bases, make up all that there is. But this isn't, it seems, the case for the sense faculties and their objects.
See The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p1122


What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six
  sense Indriyas?

Enlightenment seems to involve understanding 

as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape of
  these six faculties

Connected discourse 48 III.
Furthermore, an arhat understands they are beyond training by knowing that 

the six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder

ibid p1697


what difference does it make if we think about "ourselves" in terms of
  them

Aside from stressing the active nature of the senses, as opposed to the more passive internal bases, the Buddha in the Pali tradition said different things in different terms. Concerning the six sense faculties

ibid p1241

I believe that e.g. ch'an Buddhism treats the faculties no differently to the internal sense bases.

-1: <p>Are the six sense <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indriya" rel="nofollow noreferrer">faculties</a> just the sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses, considered all together, that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional) person? </p>

<p>Does it make any difference if we think about "ourselves" in terms of them, rather than any other scheme? What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six sense Indriyas?</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
  <p>Are the six sense faculties the sense organs, sense objects, and sense
  consciousnesses, considered all together?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There seems to be, in Theravada Buddhism, differences between</p>

<ol>
<li>sense faculties (control of the eye)</li>
<li>internal sense bases (the material of the eye necessary for vision)</li>
<li>sense doors (how consciousness gains access to visible objects)</li>
</ol>

<p>See the The Abhidhammattha Sangaha, By Bhikkhu Bodhi, p144</p>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there anything else that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional)
  person?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The internal sense bases, along with the external sense bases, make up all that there is. But this isn't, it seems, the case for the sense faculties and their objects.</p>

<p>See The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p1122</p>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p>What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six
  sense Indriyas?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Enlightenment seems to involve understanding </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape of
  these six faculties</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Connected discourse 48 III.</p>

<p>Furthermore, an arhat understands they are beyond training by knowing that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder</p>
</blockquote>

<p>ibid p1697</p>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p>what difference does it make if we think about "ourselves" in terms of
  them</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Aside from stressing the active nature of the senses, as opposed to the more passive internal bases, the Buddha in the Pali tradition said different things in different terms. Concerning the six sense faculties</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/zL5mz.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/zL5mz.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>ibid p1241</p>

<hr>

<p>I believe that e.g. ch'an Buddhism treats the faculties no differently to the internal sense bases.</p>
