Thank you for your reply. I actually didn't say that nibbana was merely a meditative experience. I said that the sutta could certainly apply to the experience of the nibbana element in meditation, by which I mean the occasion in which the mind ceases its constructing, including the constructing of a self, an experiencer, a subject to whom things are happening, and takes as its object the stillness/cessation of constructions itself. When there is unconstructed ("unconditioned" in the OP sutta), there is no more constructing of a self. When the experience of self is stilled and it disappears, even if momentarily, one can then know that it was merely a construction to begin with.davidbrainerd wrote:If Nibbana is merely a "meditative experience" then it is something arisen and conditioned in the mind. I'm finding it impossible to avoid the conclusion that by the unconditoned Buddha means the uncreated essence that is what we truly are, which is why parinibbana is described as unbinding. If you have an object bound in cloth (a sword maybe) and you ubind it then what it truly is becomes apparent whereas before it could have been thought the cloth was part of the object. If you are unbound from the aggreates what are you? They're conditioned but are you also conditioned? How could the conditioned "go to" the unconditioned? It seems ultimately the point is you are already the unconditioned, just wrapped up in the conditioned in such a way that you've begun to identify as the wrapping rather than what's underneath the wrapping. After all the whole notion that things and reality are created by your mind is extremely presumptuous if you are thinking of a conditioned rather than an unconditioned mind creating reality. Its like saying "everything is created by my physical brain, including my physical brain itself"...does not work.
To use this analogy, it would be more accurate to say that when you remove the cloth, there is no sword there. It was an assumption, based on the appearance of the cloth.davidbrainerd wrote:If you have an object bound in cloth (a sword maybe) and you ubind it then what it truly is becomes apparent whereas before it could have been thought the cloth was part of the object.
This seems to posit a "you" to begin with, which I can't agree to.davidbrainerd wrote:If you are unbound from the aggreates what are you?
Yes, in the sense that "you" is a construction, a sankhara.davidbrainerd wrote:They're conditioned but are you also conditioned?
When constructing stops, there is asankhata, unconstructed.davidbrainerd wrote:How could the conditioned "go to" the unconditioned?
If there is asankhata, unconstructed, there would not be any "you" to be "the unconstructed".davidbrainerd wrote:It seems ultimately the point is you are already the unconditioned, just wrapped up in the conditioned in such a way that you've begun to identify as the wrapping rather than what's underneath the wrapping.
I wouldn't say that reality is created by the mind, only the mistaken perception of reality -- that there are inherently existing "things" (including a "me"), rather than dependently arisen phenomena that are impermanent, dukkha, and without essence.davidbrainerd wrote:After all the whole notion that things and reality are created by your mind is extremely presumptuous if you are thinking of a conditioned rather than an unconditioned mind creating reality. Its like saying "everything is created by my physical brain, including my physical brain itself"...does not work.
Kind wishes,
katavedi