Experience is a story from Steven Kaufman's blog

All experience is a story,

something said about

What Is Actually There

as viewed from

a particular perspective.

 

But the story is never

and can never be

What Is Actually There.

 

And so all stories,

no matter how accurate,

are a sort of fiction

because no story

can truly capture

What Is Actually There.

 

The moment one speaks about

What Is Actually There

one has told a story

that must deviate in some respect

from What Is Actually There.

 

For What Is Actually There

is not a story,

for What Is Actually There

is not an experience,

is not a form.

 

What Is Actually There

is formless.

 

This too is a story

that is accurate

and yet is a fiction

because it still is not

What Is Actually There.

 

Religion tells a story

about What Is Actually There.

Science tells a different story

about What Is Actually There.

LaoTzu also told a story

about What Is Actually There.

 

Lao Tzu knew

that he was only telling a story

about What Is Actually There.

 

Religion and science,

on the other hand,

each believe they have captured

in their stories

What Is Actually There.

 

Because Lao Tzu knew

that he was only telling a story

What Is Actually There

was not obscured

and so he was able to describe it,

to tell a story about it,

with great and timeless accuracy.

 

On the other hand,

because religion and science

each believe they have captured

What Is Actually There

in their stories about

What Is Actually There,

What Is Actually There

is hidden from them,

and so their stories about

What Is Actually There

become increasingly inaccurate

with the passage of time.

 

How can one tell a story

with any accuracy

regarding That which one cannot see,

and which one can only obscure further

when speaking about it

while not recognizing the difference

between That which the story is about,

between That which any story about it

can only ever point toward,

and the story itself?

 

The more the descriptions,

the more the stories

are mistaken for

What Is Actually There,

the more What Is Actually There

becomes obscured.

 

And the more obscured

What Is Actually There becomes,

the more the stories deviate

from the truth

of What Is Actually There.

 

And so religion now tells the story

of a vengeful and jealous god,

of an egoic god,

that is completely separate from its creation,

completely separate from the universe

and the beings that dwell within.

 

While science now tells the story

of a godless and lifeless universe

composed of energy and matter

that gives rise by pure chance

to the phenomena

of life and consciousness.

 

Increasing belief

in the story told by science

has lessened the belief

in the story told by religion.

 

The ironic thing is,

with respect to What Is Actually There,

the story told by religion,

as inaccurate as it is,

is somewhat more accurate

than the story told by science.

 

Because the story told by religion

about What Is Actually There

at least contains a character

that represents an intelligence,

a consciousness,

that underlies what we perceive and conceive

as the universe,

and so contains a character,

however distorted,

that has as its basis

What Is Actually There.

 

Whereas the story told by science

about What Is Actually There

eliminates that character

from its story altogether,

and in so doing

removes from its story

any mention

of What Is Actually There.

 

Science is very accurate in its story

about what lies at the surface

of  What Is Actually There.

 

But in mistaking what lies at the surface

of  What Is Actually There

for What Is Actually There,

science has mistaken

what is only a reflection

that lies upon the surface

of What Is Actually There

for What Is Actually There,

and in so doing

has completely obscured

what it thinks,

what it believes,

it is describing.

 

Science believes it is describing

What Is Actually There.

But what science is actually doing

with its present story

about the nature of reality

only obscures more effectively,

more completely,

more thoroughly,

What Is Actually There

underlying the surface reflection,

underlying the story,

that is experiential reality.

 

And so in telling its current story

about What Is Actually There,

science is not revealing to humanity

What Is Actually There,

but is obscuring from humanity

What Is Actually There,

and so is hiding from humanity

both the true nature of humanity

and the true nature of the universe.

 

For What Is Actually There

underlying the surface reflections,

underlying the shadows,

underlying the stories,

that we call experience,

that we call reality,

is what we truly Are

and what the universe truly Is,

which is not a story

but is the formless Consciousness,

the infinite Intelligence,

by which all stories are told

and by which all stories are known.

 

And What Is Actually There

can Itself be Known,

but it cannot be Known

as a story,

as a form,

as an experience.

 

What Is Actually There

can only be Known

as it Is,

once it is no longer obscuring Itself,

once it is no longer hiding Itself,

behind some form,

behind some story,

behind some experience,

that it once mistook for Itself,

that it once mistook for

What Is Actually There.

 

And once you Know

What Is Actually There,

once you Know

That by which all the stories are told,

and That by which all the stories are known,

then you Know

what you actually Are

and what the universe actually Is.

 

And once you Know That,

then the fairy tales one has been told

by both religion and science,

the mutually exclusive horror stories

of a lunatic god

and a meaningless universe,

become transformed into and retold as

a story more wondrous and wonderful

than any Storyteller,

while their true Self remains hidden,

could ever imagine.