1. ComD 2: ff. 118-29.

2. The “Tiffin Lectures” sources (TTL/FF p. 154, TTL p. 154, TLD/FF: 6-2-27 draft A, p. 4 & 11-2-27 draft A, p. 1, and TLD/FF: 6-2-27 draft B, p. 4 & 11-2-27 draft B, p. 1) refer to a diary account here through the phrase “vide diary.” This probably refers to the 11th February 1927 entry in Chanji’s Diary (ChD 20: pp. 18-26), in which Chanji devotes nine pages to the events of this day. It is also possible, however, that the reference is to the 11th February entry in “The Combined Diary” (see previous endnote).

3. TLD/FF: 11-2-27 drafts A and B, p. 3 give this reading—“Guru or Cause.” TTL/FF p. 155 and TTL p. 155, however, give the reading “Guru or Gurus.” Either reading is plausible. But since the previous passage has talked about “Guru” and “Cause” in the original manuscripts, and since this lecture has emphatically stressed fidelity to the Master (in the singular) without reference to the unusual case of a disciple with several Masters, the TLD/FF reading seems preferable and has been selected here.

4. The original “Tiffin Lectures” text is somewhat confused: “[Chhagan] was quite firm, resolute, determined to stick to Shree, renouncing all else, and to that end, he actually disobeyed and broke a series of Shree’s orders, specially given to him to go to his family and wife etc. in advance before a party arrived at the destination, and he creditably stood all the trials and tests intentionally put on him by Shree” (TTL/FF p. 156 and TTL p. 156; TLD/FF: 11-2-27 drafts A and B, p. 3 read similarly). Literally this sentence indicates that Chhagan disobeyed Baba’s orders given prior to their arrival in Akolner—to the effect that he should stay with his family. Yet we know from “The Combined Diary” that Baba’s order given previously while still at Meherabad was just the opposite of this. The editors have emended in light of the diary account and the underlying idea, which is that Chhagan should have ignored the orders which Baba gave publicly in front of his family so that he could obey the prior order (to stick to Baba no matter what) that Baba had given privately.

5. TTL/FF p. 157, TTL p. 157, and TLD/FF: 11-2-27 draft A, p. 4 all read “Shree and Man.” Conceivably, “Man.” could be intended as an abbreviation for “mandali.” TLD/FF: 11-2-27 draft B, p. 4, however, provides the reading “Shree and Mah.” In several other passages in the source manuscripts in various places in the “Tiffin Lectures” collection “Mah.” has stood as an abbreviation for “Maharaj”; and ChD 20: p. 19—a source for the very passage under consideration—may indeed contain a reference to “Maharaj” under that name, though the text is difficult to make out. Now since both Meher Baba and his Hindu Sadguru from Sakori were viewed with extreme skepticism among many traditional Brahmins at this time, it seems not at all unlikely that Chhagan’s family would have denounced the two of them together. This reading has accordingly been preferred. (“The Combined Diary” gives no pertinent information on this textual crux.)

6. The next few sentences on “grasping the shadow” as they appear in “Tiffin Lectures” were in another version published as saying no. 97 in “Sayings of His Divine Majesty Sadguru Meher Baba,” Meher Message, vol. 2, no. 8 (August 1930), p. 1. For further information, see Appendix 5, Table 10, p. 514.

7. The “Tiffin Lectures” sources (TTL/FF p. 157, TTL p. 157, and TLD/FF: 11-2-27 drafts A and B, p. 4) read: “For, though he is near you, never beyond imagination . . .” This contrasts with Baba’s usual way of characterizing God as “beyond imagination and conception.” If the text here is not corrupt, probably it means that God belongs to the immediacy of the here and now; He does not stand at some remote distance, beyond imagination, separated from where we are.

8. TTL/FF p. 157 reads: “It is so easy [a] task as all think . . .” (TTL p. 157 and TLD/FF: 11-2-27 drafts A and B, p. 4 read similarly). The word “not” appears to have been inadvertently left out of this sentence; the editors have reinstated it.

9. The “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts (TTL/FF p. 157, TTL p. 157, and TLD/FF: 11-2-27 drafts A and B, p. 4) read: “A question of the disposal of the dead was discussed from M’s desire to bury him on the hill) . . .” The phrase “M’s desire to bury him on the hill” leaves open the question, who is “him”? Possibly “him” represents an infelicitous use of what should have been the pronoun “himself,” and the whole phrase should have been, “from M’s desire to have himself buried on the hill.” Since no other obvious interpretation offers itself, the editors have emended accordingly. Presumably “M” is one among the mandali; his wish to be buried (if we accept this interpretation) implies that he was not a Hindu, and his presumption of the prerogative to be buried on Meherabad Hill suggests that he was one of the original mandali and perhaps an older man. Baba’s uncle Masaji presents himself as the most likely candidate; but we cannot be sure.

10. The passage in “Tiffin Lectures” that provided the source for the last three sentences has been rendered in another form as saying no. 98 in “Sayings of His Divine Majesty Sadguru Meher Baba,” Meher Message, vol. 2, no. 8 (August 1930), p. 1. For further information, see Appendix 5, Table 10, p. 514.