Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00145)

Sunday, May 20, 2001

Dear Tony:

I did not realize there were all those changes. Thanks for
letting us know.

If you find more will you share ?


Dallas

===============================

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony [mailto:alpha@dircon.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 12:14 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Theos-World original versus Boris de Zirkoff
editions of THE SECRET DOCTRINE

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





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/