[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Theos-World Hoping for more light on sacr' / sacr / Zachar, n'cabvah / n'cabrah / Nakobeh

May 23, 2001 10:21 AM
by Peter Merriott


This is just a quick response from a flick through the pages references you

(1) vol 1 page 5, == sacr' n'cabvah == the context here is a reference to
the hidden spirit Principle fructifying nature. Hence the reference in the
footnote to the real meaning of the word "sarc'" from which "sacred,"

(2) vol 1 page 390 == sacr' and n'cabrah == (text says the literal
meaning is phallus and yoni) The context here is the symbolism of time
periods. Solar and lunar time, but especially LUNAR.

(3) vol 2 page 127 == Zachar va Nakobeh == is said to mean the "male and
female" which together are the one Adam created by God. The "one Adam" is
here a reference to the "Divine Hermaphrodite". It is interesting the
spelling is different here because the Divine Hermaphrodite would be PRIOR
the stage symbolised in 390 above (ie sacr' and n'cabrah, solar and lunar,
phallus and yoni). Adam and Eve (whatever they symbolise) are not separated
yet. This ADAM is sexless.

(4) vol 2 page 467 == sacr and n'cabvah == (note again the emphasis in
text on literal translation or lingham (phallus) and yoni. We are back
talking about GENERATIVE powers here. And the reference to Adam is a
different stage to that above (SD II 127) where he was the Divine
Hermaphrodite (sexless) created by God. This time the context is Adam
himself as creator and "progenitor of the Race". In the text we have
another reference to the MOON, the Lunar. (This may well be because the
reference to Jehovah links to the Lunar Pitris who 'created' the astral form
around which the physical was built.)

Daniel, while no.1 above is a reference to Ralston Skinner, I believe 2, 3,
and 4, are all passages from Ralston Skinner's work. Now, he knew a thing
of two about the occult significance of numbers and letters. See his
suggestive remark in SD II 467:

"He who is a Kabbalist and accustomed to the incessant permutation of
Biblical names, once they are interpreted numerically and symbolically, will
understand what is meant."

Well, we certainly have some permutations of sacr' and n'cabrah in his
works as used in the SD, and each permutation is used to symbolise a
different meaning, as can be seen. It would be interesting to look at the
numerical values of those different spellings, permutations to see if they
added anything deeper to the meanings and stages symbolised above. He gives
out some of these values in his work. But I suspect many are blinds.

So, I really don't understand why de Zirkoff felt compelled to alter the
spelling of the words in question. I think I would have left well alone.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blavatsky Archives []
> Sent: 23 May 2001 15:57
> To:
> Subject: Theos-World Hoping for more light on sacr' / sacr / Zachar,
> n'cabvah / n'cabrah / Nakobeh
> As a student of HPB's writings, I am always trying to understand what
> she is writing about. Many times I have to try to grapple with a
> word that I don't understand and I try to ascertain what is the
> meaning of the term, etc.
> Take the words on the following pages of the SD:
> QUOTATION A: sacr' n'cabvah SD, I, 5
> QUOTATION B: sacr n'cabrah SD, I, 390
> QUOTATION C: Zachar Nakobeh SD, II, 127
> QUOTATION D: sacr n'cabvah SD, II, 467
> Are we to conclude that there are only TWO Hebrew words under
> discussion and on these pages of the SD we have 3 variant English
> spellings of each Hebrew word?
> Hebrew Word 1 = sacr' = sacr = Zachar
> Hebrew Word 2 = n'cabvah = n'cabrah = Nakobeh
> What is the significance (if any) of the differences in spellings?
> I assume Boris de Zirkoff concluded that the subject matter involved
> only two Hebrew words and that for whatever reason(s) variant
> spellings had crept into the SD manuscript. He probably consulted
> with Anava Kantor about this matter. See Vol. I p. [79] in CW
> edition of SD. Following guidline 3 on p. [77] Vol. I he corrected
> all spellings to "zakhar" and "negebah". [He was not totally
> sucessful in these corrections since there is still one variant
> spelling in the CW edition!]
> If anyone believes that there is some significances to these variant
> spellings I would like some feedback on what these variant spellings
> are intended to convey that is not apparent to the "scholarly eye".
> Also I do not completely understand what HPB is trying to convey in
> the following quotation:
> ". . . With the races of our Fifth Race it became in symbology
> the
> sacr', and in Hebrew n'cabvah, of the first-formed races;* then it
> changed into the Egyptian . . . ." SD, I, 5
> What does the first "it" stand for?
> Specifially, what does this phrase mean:
> "in symbology the sacr', and in Hebrew n'cabvah"
> One student has emailed me saying that he believes HPB is writing in
> this phrase about only ONE Hebrew word; not two.
> I notice in the Boris de Zirkoff edition that Boris has not only
> changed the spelling of the two Hebrew terms but has also rearranged
> and changed some of the other words in the sentence. Why was this
> done????
> Daniel
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> ---------------------------------------
> Publishes rare & hard-to-find source
> documents on Madame H.P. Blavatsky.
> ---------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
> This new book contains a unique collection of
> rare reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky's life.
> ---------------------------------------
> Theosophyonthe.NET
> Easy Net Access to the Classics of Theosophy
> ---------------------------------------
> You can always access our main site
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES by simply typing
> into the URL address bar the following
> 6 characters:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application