1. This Tiffin Lecture does not appear in any of the “Tiffin Lectures” source manuscripts (TTL/FF, TTL, or TLD/FF); the current text is based, rather, on ChD 57: pp. 182-86. The editors have chosen to incorporate it into this collection because of the extraordinary description that Meher Baba provides here of the character and significance of his philosophical explanations.
2. This Marathi phrase (literally translated in the first part of this sentence) appears (without English translation) in ChD 57: p. 183.
3. The original Marathi text of ChD 57: p. 183 reads “jāgā jhālā khudā.” The editors have emended this into an expression that fits the sentence grammatically.
4. The original text of ChD 57: p. 183 reads “ek paygāmthī.”
5. The text of ChD 57: p. 184 reads: “(sārū chhe ke sukhaḍ nā jhāḍabī hame pedā kīdh chha) – nahi to – bāvaḷanā lākaḍ nā bī vāndhā rahete).” Literally, this translates: “(it is good that we have grown the trees of the sandal wood) — or else—the wood of the bāvaḷa would come into doubt).”
6. The original text of ChD 57: p. 185 reads: “they take the sharīyat as the Goal sevaṭ of realizion [sic], instead of the way mārg. (rather foundation).”
7. At the bottom of ChD 57: p. 186, separated from the preceding by a few lines and in a slightly smaller handwriting, we find the following: “Ex – of Mr Angarh Vakil (purāṇī), who claims himself to have read the Scriptures (hīdu-shāstrā) & even other religions books. And in spite of these, he is stupefied, every time.” The word “hīdu,” written in a way as could be read “hīk,” is clearly intended to be “hīndu” (hindu in good Gujarati), that is, Hindu, with the anusvār mark inadvertently omitted; one finds “hīndu” spelled in full, with the -du formed in the same problematic way, in ChD 62: p. 483. The “Mr Angarh Vakil” here is undoubtedly Angal Pleader, who regularly gave talks to the Meherabad school children on the Puranas and other Hindu scriptures during this period. Is the idea here that even a man so well versed in Hindu scripture as Angal Pleader finds himself astonished by Baba’s talks? The manner in which this note has been taken down suggests that it might represent not a comment of Baba’s but an observation and reflection by Chanji. In any event, since the editors do not find themselves able to interpret this obscure line with confidence, they have not attempted to incorporate it into the main text.