Jonathan Marks:
There is no deathless in the sense that there is an "unconditioned element", there is no Absolute or "everlasting thing". Nor is there a "mystical reality".
What do you base your assertion that there is no Absolute or unconditioned or everlasting thing?
Unfortunately these are all translated but I think the meaning can be discerned...
Mv 1.23.1-10:
Then to Sariputta the wanderer, as he heard this Dhamma exposition, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."
That is, the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye is the realization that "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation", not in addition "there is nothing that is not subject to origination."
For a simple example, samsara in
SN 15.3 is not subject to origination (does not have a beginning):
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.
or a
clearer one:
(AN 10.61: ) "A first beginning of ignorance cannot be conceived,[58] (of which it can be said), 'Before that, there was no ignorance and it came to be after that.' Though this is so, monks, yet a specific condition[59] of ignorance can be conceived. Ignorance, too, has its nutriment,[60] I declare; and it is not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of ignorance? 'The five hindrances,'[61] should be the answer.
(I'm aware the comments say that this is an incorrect understanding of the words, but I disagree. The (translated) words say that it cannot be said of any time "Before that, there was no ignorance and it came to be after that." This means there was never a point before which ignorance did not exist - thus ignorance does indeed have no beginning.)
Then there is also
Ud.8.03:
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]
And also
Iti 43 (emphasis added):
The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
is unfit for delight.
The escape from that
is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.
Of a stream-enterer, in
SN13.001 it is said:
"In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye."
Is your mass of suffering now that far reduced as compared to your previous one?
Jonathan Marks:
What you mean by the Deathless, is some transcendent, ultimate state, of which there is none, that is nothing but glorified craving and spiritual addiction/compulsion/obsession (tanha), which leads to suffering.
There is however, the giving up of that craving, which is the deathless.
So yes I saw the deathless and the path that leads to it.
It sounds more like you have constructed a notion of what the Deathless is and now you say you have attained that, vs. learning what the Deathless is from a Noble One (or from seeing it for yourself, uninstructed, as the Buddha did) and then glimpsing that.