I am the Destroyer of Worlds!

Painting with reflections of light on my iPhone

Alexius´ Enlightened Non-Teachings talks about two kinds of enlightenment: the enlightenment of that which is one, which cannot be experienced as that requires more than one, and glimpses of it experienced through the inner senses when the outer ones are partly closed. Photo © Alexius Jorgensen.

After a long, intense night of driving a taxi many years ago, Alexius forgot what and where he was, and so there was nothing to hide the enlightenment of that which is one.

When he later read The New Testament and Bhagavad Gita, there were passages that triggered memories of the enlightenment of that which is one. They were vague, though, because Alexius did not experience it since it takes more than one to do so. Nevertheless, the faint memories of something indefinable are enough to know that everything definable is an illusion. That is why he is to be compared to the enlightenment of that which is one.

The enlightenment of that which is one is enlightenment in a very literal sense, like when Jesus said: When your eyes become single your whole body will be full of light – or like St. Paul when he was blinded by light – or like Arjuna according to Bhagavad Gita said after having been initiated by Krishna: »It is brighter than thousands of suns. I have become the destroyer of worlds …«

A dream can be compared to a simulated world meanwhile layered on top that which is real. As long as you believe the simulated world to be real, it will seem to cover that which is real, as if it does not exist.

But Alexius would not put it like that. There is nobody in the enlightenment of that which is one, so there is not a body to be full of light, neither a world to destroy. The world is not there, and there is no memory of it ever having been there. It is like a dream that is no more when you wake up in the morning.

The translations of both The New Testament and Bhagavad Gita differs from translator to translator, and as the above quotes are from memory, they may not be the exact words in your addition. But it does not matter because regardless of how you speak about it, the enlightenment of that which is one cannot be described. In other words, what is said about it in Alexius´ Enlightened Non-Teachings should not be taken as the real thing, nor as pointers towards it, as that requires more than one.

Imagine you want to describe an orange to somebody who has never seen or tasted an orange. Maybe you say it has the colour of an orange sunset, is round like a ball and taste like sweetened water. Yet the person that you have given this description will never find out what an orange is by drinking sweet water from a rounded cup at sunset.

You have to see and taste it yourself to know what it is. But in the context of the enlightenment of that which is one, you will never know what it is because a person cannot be enlightened. You as a person is erased by the enlightenment of that which is one. Thus there is nobody there to experience it.

In the enlightenment of that which is one, the world is not anymore. Not because it has been destroyed, but because it has never been – except as a fantasy. The graphic is grabbed from the web.

Some think the enlightenment of that which is one is to see god in everyone. This is delusional. There is no god in the world. In the context of god and the world, think of electricity illuminating a room via a bulb. You see the room due to the power of electricity. But you cannot see electricity. It is not in the room illuminated by the bulb. In the context of god, however, god is not anywhere because it takes more than one to be somewhere, and there is no more than that which is one since it is formless and therefore endless.

If you return to a world where there seems to be more than one after the enlightenment of that which is one, there is no more need to search for the meaning of life because you know there is no more than that which is one. Hence there is no life in a world where it seems to be more than one. Besides, searching for something requires more than one, so whatever you think you realise is not real.

One who is to be compared to the enlightenment of that which is one has no need to be forgiven or loved, as there is no ´I´ deciding what to do and therefore nobody to forgive or love. But when there is no ´I´ to protect and preserve, there is the freedom to pretend to be anyone, so in the context of a game like Monopoly, you may appear to be a red car one day and a blue one another day.

To make long short: There is no need to keep together an appearance of someone with coherent opinions and behaviour. You are free to use the ´I´ as a tool, just like you use your leg, hand, eyes, and so on.

Alexius, for example, has pretended to be a child, teenager, taxi driver, monk, husband, daddy, adult, business Man, millionaire, designer, teacher, photographer and recently non-teacher.

Regarding the enlightenment of that which is one, it is best to forget everything you have ever heard or read about it – including what is said in Alexius´ Enlightened Non-Teachings. Any idea of any form that you might think it has is wrong. It has no shape, it is formless. Yet, if you look for something intangible, you still look for something. But if you do not believe to be someone definitive – or do not care about it – there does not seem to be something hiding it.

NOTE: This article is part of hack #6.1 From the inner senses through a black hole into that which is one.