The Sandorian Grove: First Split and the Godhead concept    
 First Split and the Godhead concept12 comments
picture11 Apr 2010 @ 13:50, by Max Sandor

...continuing some notes from the last BLOG entry, where I talked about Nordenholz's [link] musings about the fine (?) line between the mundane and the divine, I should outline how he arrived at his contemplations, at least according to his reasonings in his book 'Scientologie', published in 1934.

Instead of a raw translation of his condensed formulation of the character of mathematical formulas, I'll rephrase his line of thought anew in modern English:

Nordenholz perceived all individual life forms as splits from a unified Whole. The way the first split occured then gave the pattern of all subsequent splits and he described its parts in his 'Axioms of Scientologie' as a triad with the whole and the part linked by the phenomenon of the split. Without using the word 'fractal' [link], coined by Mandelbrot in 1975, he described the continuous re-application of this split as the structure of the world as a whole and in its parts.

When and how the 'first split' occured was not the object of Nordenholz's description of the 'eternal process' of the world's 'volutions', exvolutions followed by involutions.

What he described though in the process is at first glance consistent with the Vedic philosophy (which probably reached him via his idol Schopenhauer), but he also provides a clearer characterization of HOW the split worked.

In the beginning of the chapter 'Total Afformality, A-Conscientiality, A-Worldliness', of the book 'Scientologie' in the 1934 edition, he states the result of the initial individuation/separation as TURNING ITSELF AGAINST its SOURCE.

This creates the worldliness and, from the view of worldliness, the RISE OF THE CONCEPT OF GODHEAD (German 'Gottheit'), a concept that only and only has sense because of this very split, says Nordenholz.

This reminds us Augustinus and medieval (German) philosophers of course and the impact of their philosophy of the 'original sin'. In German, 'Erb-suende' is the inherited separation (old-german 'sund') between God and Man. And for Nordenholz, indoubtedly familiar with these concepts, 'all religion is characterized by the effort to close the initial gap'. And, in this light, 'Scientologie' for Nordenholz was of course, the 'religion of all religions', as it proposes that the very same phenomenon of the split itself, which he called the Second Axiom of Scientologie and in short 'mediation' (in German itself) may be used to RE-INTEGRATE what was broken, split apart.

For this and other purposes he introduces two different characters of consciousness: 'Bewusstheit' and 'Bewusstsein' of which only the latter is commonly used in German.
The first describes the transcendent existence of consciousness, non-individuated as Nordenholz would say, the second in consequence being the 'Conscious-Beingness' after the separation.

Nordenholz implies in this chapter that the manifesting consciousness 'turns itself against' its source, thus creating the split. This describes roughly what I called in the Concur theory 'an inversal' which occurs at every level of descendence from the transcended to the manifested.

What is interesting to note, is that a contemporary fellow philosopher (of Nordenholz), equally an ardent admirer of Schopenhauer, tried to do away entirely with the concept of 'Consciousness', stating that there it truly is a 'process' and not a 'state'. To this avail he created the word 'Bewusst-werdung', the 'becoming of conscious(ness) in contrast to 'being conscious' as a definite state of mind (cp. Georg Grimm, 'Die Lehre des Buddho' ('The Teachings of the Buddho'), published in 1915, badly translated into English in 1926 and available as 'The Doctrine of the Buddha' here: [link] What assistance could come out of Nordenholz's contemplations for a modern-day-truth-seeker?

Hubbard 'Scientology' restated the Nordenholz Axioms in this aspect (knowingly or not (who would be the judge?) as the triad of 'as-is / alter-is / not-is'
, very interestingly resonating Nordenholz' concept of 'Auflehnung' (antivolution) as 'not-is' against the 'Godhead' of the Whole (as-is) as such. Nordenholz seems to imply that through the consciousness of this split, salvation would be achieved.

Looking back to the post-Vedic Indian philosophers we find a corresponding idea particularly clear in Patanjali who taught that only through 'redoing the splits of the whole into polarities' (together forming the primal triad of the 'Gunas'), the impurities ('doshas') of ALL THREE are being cleaned. Continuing relentlessly until all such splits are cleared on MUST, so Patanjali, arrive at the ORIGINAL split, an act which would unite ('yoga') the Being itself with that from which it split, its original godhead.

[< Back] [The Sandorian Grove]

Category:   Tags:


11 Apr 2010 @ 17:01 by Jeffrey Trenton Crace @ : Yanging of Yin and the Yinning of Yang
Those dots. Those little dots in the symbol of Tao. Everyone ignores those dots. They represent the original lie. The original 'tainting' of Yin and Yang. The INVERSION. Maybe Ed will become a part of this discussion but he patiently helped me see that due to this original inversion, Creator-Beings sit at the Top and created-beings sit at the Bottom--the illusion that yang creates yin. And, this inversion creates impure polarities that necessitate mediators.

Above, you mention how the Godhead forms AS A RESULT of individuation, from the perspective of individuation. That means that a Creator is objectively at a lower status ontologically than an individual. I remember Geoff telling me that. Man is greater than God. That's important. It's important to be properly oriented to the Truth.

Is the problem literal, or does it arise only due to awareness? Because the highest truth of which we can speak is that there is no reason for creation, and there is no one creating it...  

11 Apr 2010 @ 17:38 by mx @ : ...looking back...
yes, the inner dots, one could interpret them as a 'Being that individuated looking back to its source thinking it is itself' on one side, and then 'the Source looking at its split-off recognizing itself in that' on the other.

Both are right and wrong at the same time, creating the first dichotomy, and making the many discussions people have about what they call 'God' pointless. Or, in the end, demonstrating that whoever talks about God MUST tell a lie and at the same time some tautologic truth (or a semantic derivate), something that always is true and therefore invalid as senseful information.

I don't see how to derive 'Man is greater than God' from the above, rather 'God is the multitude of Beings'. For me, Man (as a Human Being at least) is not necessary the final product of Creation. To know this for sure, gotta wait till the fat lady sings...  

11 Apr 2010 @ 17:51 by Ed Dawson @ : Right...
And so the original sin would not be "knowledge of good and evil" but a consciousness SEPARATE from God which the consciousness KNOWS is inherently evil. The christians got Descartes before the horse on that one. ;-)

Hubbard's people emphasize MUST and MUST NOT, which are adjacent tones on the CDEI scale: enforce and inhibit. With both of those, the flow of life has gone "black". What is far more key than MUST and MUST NOT is Desire, the lowest positive tone on that scale and just above enforce and inhibit. Check Desire against the Hindu materials (Buddhism is a hindu sect, by the way) and they call it KAMMA. If KAMMA is Desire, then what is that tantalizing word they use, tan.ha? I suspect that this is what a meditator/processor is cleaning. Tan.ha I suspect is the flow that produces the entire CDEI scale as a decay scale of itself. Is tan.ha the cause of ALL DECAY, and all descending scales? And if so, what IS tan.ha? I suspect it is the urge to reunite that which has been divided and turned against its source, as Max says above. :)

11 Apr 2010 @ 17:55 by Ed Dawson @ : actually
(small correction, to Jeff) The visible beings are created beings and they are of Yang, and junior to yin. The creator hides in the BOTTOM, and the created beings all lie above that, from the full range of the middle and up into the top.  

11 Apr 2010 @ 18:37 by Jeffrey Trenton Crace @ : Mmm-hmm...
Mx: "Man is greater than God"--The individual, at it heart, is a Being outside the Game. This would make the individual, in its relationship to its own Source, greater than any image of a Creator-being (Ialdaboath?). Perhaps I am speaking out-of-context...

Ed: Correction ack'd--thank you! Great deconstruction of the CDEI scale. Very useful and inspiring for meditation! Oh, and "Descartes before the horse"? You're too much!:)


11 Apr 2010 @ 19:41 by mx @ : greater than the image.. YES!
Jeff, absolutely! if you put it the way you did!

Ed, I was investigating more the DESIRE TO INDIVIDUALIZE/SEPARATE. The re-union urge I saw as a reflex. Gotamo's ta.nha needs a re-eval to perhaps spot which of the two he meant (if not the compound two as polarity creating continuosly 'goals'). I can perceive the machinery that urges new splits but I have no clue yet where to look for a 'motivation' for that. Gotamo himself advised to not even look as it would be kind of too far out, an advise I shall not accept :)  

12 Apr 2010 @ 07:31 by daniela @ : indipendence
and 'interesting in this context have a look at the desire for independence (rather the way to no dependence of the cell that detaches from the source) and want to consider yourself to be brother rather than son
. The cell that detaches is a daughter or son? or sister or brother? . How strong dependence of arrogance and imposing the first on the second? and how much should surrender his second on the first? They can be for this war with a great desire and identification in this case the second turn against their source, or
peace and brotherhood with a great sense of desire to re unification ....  

12 Apr 2010 @ 14:29 by Mark @ : Yin-Yang-dots
Coincidnece - I was just putting something together about the polarities and thought: these dots are the eyes, that mirror the opposite.
It's Yin saying: Im not Yang, and Yang saying 'Im not Yin' - lol

12 Apr 2010 @ 16:27 by Ed Dawson @ : urge to split
The urge to split is the DOWNWARD focus of the root of ofun. This is the first manifestation I can find. it causes the first binary split, usually called yin/yang but more accurately prakriti/purushu, and all subsequent splits. It is found in a limited and upward focused form at level 16 as ofun. But the original is not ofun, which as I said is focused upward toward orun. The original urge (call it proto-ofun?) to split causes the binary tree, just as the counter urge (proto-oshe?) forms the tree of tertiary splits.  

12 Apr 2010 @ 21:08 by luc @ : apocryphal gospel
Thanks Max This is simply great. The history of Obara as the holy apocryphal gospels tried to tell us but with the scientific "Western" language of the 21st century.  

3 Sep 2016 @ 05:09 by mobogenie for pc @ : xdr
I like all posts in very much  

25 Sep 2016 @ 17:32 by xender for pc @ : xender
Very use full and Interesting Good blog
xender for pc  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other articles in
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:18: A summary of the summaries of Max Sandor's projects
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:04: Project Summary 6. Game Theory - why and how do we manifest?
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:02: Project Summary 5: Polar Dynamics - theory and praxis of polarities
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:01: Project Summary 4: Quantum Fá - a practical guide to this Universe
23 Sep 2016 @ 16:45: Project Summary 3: The Book of Numbers
22 Sep 2016 @ 16:12: Project Summary 2: UrTon - the basis of spoken languages
18 Sep 2016 @ 00:32: Project Summary 1: The ConCur Paradigm - the structure of Reality
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Robot Psychologist (by Awaz)
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Project Summary 7: Archetypology of the Human Being
1 Aug 2016 @ 00:40: Victory, submission or what else? Sign and symbol of the Rio 2016 Kickoff

[< Back] [The Sandorian Grove] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?