if only to experience essence

is essence ever evidential?

essence is never less than its presence.

evidentials are cue techniques of claimed reception

within our limited sensory.

even our ultra-sensory range

only gives indications or inferences, 

alluding to what vacantly appears.

we are always there, but not there.

we are of the want for experience of there,

but experience is only an interpretative means.

experience does not take us there.

experience makes us visitors in a foreign land,

where we take our versions back home with us,

where we come to claim, having been there,

but are not of that which is there.

we are of ourselves essence,

but only presently conscious in that regard.

we can exude an essence,

but not be the consciousness of its presence.

we can have vibes and auras and presence,

but they travel as us, through us, 

not easily as the consciousness of us.

essence dwells but not as a projective means.

we are the escort, at best, for what deeply is ongoing.

we can be supportive, custodial, representative thereof,

but essence is of itself,

not prone to being pronounced or becoming evidential.

that which is, does not seek further representation.

impressions taken are the burden of receivership.

and what is received is, 

made of what resembles 

by the experience method we commonly used.

essence in replicas, 

we may be claimed as a discovery, 

may want to possess,

may portray as if such,

but evidential is only in the mind of the beholder,

at best as a prop-fest of presentation.

but the beingness still resides as essence,

un-reducible to the idles of being, made to appear,

as if evidential has essence as its just reward.

knowing of essence is only 

essence made known.

and knowing has no intention, no technique 

of immersion into essence, 

as made possible.

we are, as for the apparent evidences of a now,

as if only to inwardly experience, 

the ongoing essence of ourselves . . .