Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00144)

Just another one Eldon:
You wrote:
<<<I've heard people reading from the original edition and followed
in my copy of the book, and haven't seen the materials and ideas
diverge, except when others were reading Blavatsky's quotes of
the books of others.>>>

In the original edition, on page 5, after the 6th symbol, a circle with a
vertical line, the text reads:

"the circle, or sexless life modified or separated -- a double glyph or
symbol. With the races of our Fifth Race it became in symbology the sacr',
and in Hebrew n'cabvah, of the first-formed races;*"

In the de Zirkoff edition it becomes (capitals added to try and make the
alterations clearer):

"the circle, or sexless life modified or separated -- a double glyph or
symbol. With the [SUB]races of our Fifth Race it became in symbology the
HEBREW ZAKHAR and NEGEBAH of the first-formed races;*"

The footnote in the original reads:

* See that suggestive work, "The Source of Measures," where the author
explains the real meaning of the word "sacr'," from which "sacred,"
"sacrament," are derived, which have now become synonyms of "holiness,"
though purely phallic!

The footnote in the de Zirkoff edition reads:

* See that suggestive work, "The Source of Measures," (1875, PP 326-237)
where the author explains the real meaning of the word "ZAKHAR," from which
[HE DERIVES] "sacred," AND "sacrament," which have now become synonyms of
"holiness," though purely phallic!8

Boris de Zirkoff has completely done away with the word "sacr'" WHY?

In a note at the end Boris elaborates and writes in part "...but when the
ordinary Hebrew word ZAKHAR is taken into consideration the interpretation
becomes somewhat strained..." Boris de Zirkoff is the one who introduces
and uses the word ZAKHAR, not H.P.B., nor Ralston Skinner. Neither of them
mention it. So what is he going on about? He has become his own strain.

The last word on page 5 is "PHALLIC!" And going through "The Secret
Doctrine" making all these alterations, page after page, sifting through the
dead-letter, if that ain't PHALLIC, what is? Surely this isn't going to
the heart of the book, and reading between the lines as you are suggesting
we try and do? It is about altering the lines and sense of what H.P.B. and
the Masters are attempting to convey? What ever possessed him to do it?

These are fair examples Eldon, and when it comes to H.P.B. and Boris de
Zirkoff, there is no contest. It is just a matter of sitting down and
checking the de Zirkoff edition against the original edition for a short
time, and it then soon becomes clear.

Who did play that trick on H.P.B.?

Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@theosophy.com]
Sent: 17 May 2001 3:06 pm
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World original versus Boris de Zirkoff editions of THE
SECRET DOCTRINE