1. This account is based on the information in the 30th June 1926 entry in ComD 1: ff. 285-86.
2. TTL/FF p. 67 and TTL p. 67 read: “When the Mind gets Samadhi (Higher concentration), it is prepared to rise upwards-towards realization”; TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 1 and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 1 read almost identically. The best diary source in ChD 57: p. 61 reads: “Jyāre manane samādhī (higher concentration) lāge chhe, tyāre tenī upar javānī (realizn taraf) taiyārī thāy chhe.” This translates: “When mind goes into samādhi (or higher concentration), then it is preparing to move upwards.”
3. The original text of TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 1 reads: “‘Internal Knowledge’ acquired haphazard [sic] is nothing”; TTL/FF p. 67, TTL p. 67, and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 1 read almost identically. This translates ChD 57: p. 61: “Tuṭfāṭ antar jñān to kãīj nahi”; that is, “Incomplete inner knowledge is nothing.” Presumably such knowledge is acquired “haphazard[ly]” when it does not come in the course of the pilgrim’s struggle and endeavor.
4. These first two sentences do not appear in TTL/FF p. 67 or TTL p. 67, but they do in TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 1 and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 1. The corresponding lines in ChD 57: p. 61 and ChD 57: p. 60 (two separate occurrences) read similarly, if one allows for an admixture of Gujarati.
5. “Permanent” and “true” appear in all the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts; “kāyam-satat” with or without the hyphen appears in TTL/FF p. 67, TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 1, TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 1, and ChD 57: pp. 60 and 61. Grammatically satat is an adverb that means “continually”; yet it is glossed in the “Tiffin Lectures” as “true,” a rendering which the editors have retained.
6. This phrase “like the perfect yogis” does not occur in the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts (TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 1 gives us: “And these ‘valis’ too, who have gone . . .”; TTL/FF p. 67, TTL p. 67, TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 1 read almost identically). But what could the adverb “too” refer to? The previous paragraph described perfect yogis in these same terms, viz., as having advanced to the extreme limits of the mind. The editors have construed “too” as an allusion to them and have emended accordingly.
7. The original text of TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 2 reads: “Even then i.e. in that realized state too, he (Mujzoob) is in ‘No Dualism’ state (advait avasthā)” (TTL/FF p. 67 and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 1 read similarly, and also TTL p. 67, except that here the Gujarati words are missing.) Now in its implications this sentence seems to be at odds with itself, since, through the adverbial conjunction “even though,” it opposes what are actually two names for the same state—the “realized state” and the “No Dualism state.” Drawing on content from the previous sentence, the editors have emended so as to bring out what seems to be the real relevant contrast, that is, between the Majzūb’s embodiment and his non-duality. This accords with ChD 57: p. 61, which reads: “Ā realizn bād je tyj rahe chhe tene sharīr chhe, man chhe, paṇ ahaṅkār ane buddhī nathī tobi te a-dvaitamj chhe.” That is, “After this Realization, those who remain there have body, have mind, but egoism and intellect are not there. Yet they are in non-duality.”
8. Here and throughout this Tiffin Lecture, the English words of this trinity translate the Indic words ānand, shakti, and jñān (the source for this present occurrence is ChD 57: p. 61).
9. The original text reads ambiguously here: “. . . a Sadguru has the control and submission of both the Subtle and the Gross, and then he can make use of these ‘consciously’ with the aid of his Knowledge Bliss and Power, which he naturally can ‘give’ to others, if he so desires” (TTL/FF pp. 69-70 and TTL pp. 69-70; TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 4 and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 3 read very similarly). Grammatical ambiguity afflicts the word “which”: does it refer to the Knowledge, Power, and Bliss (the proximate nouns), or to the “Subtle and the Gross” (which, as we have just been told, the Sadguru controls)? In the former case, the Sadguru would be giving Realization; in the latter case, he would be fulfilling gross and subtle desires. Since no clear resolution offers itself, the editors have opted for inclusiveness, and have emended to suggest that the Sadguru can give any part or all of these.
10. Though the texts of TTL/FF p. 70 and TTL p. 70 have a lacuna here (“reach the [lacuna] plane”), TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 4 shows no such reticence: “reach the 5th. plane” (and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 4 reads similarly). This follows the diary source: ChD 57: p. 65 supplies the phrase “5-mā bhuvan (5th pl.).” (ChD 57: p. 64 gives the same information.)
11. The texts of TTL/FF p. 70 and TTL p. 70 appear to be garbled here: “The reason for this is that the Yogis can only use the SHADOW of the Real Knowledge, Bliss and Powers, and with these very knowledge, Bliss and Power do they lead other ans [sic] give them that ‘experience’ (realization).” This appears to miscopy the text we find in TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 4: “The reason for this is that the Yogis can only use the SHADOW of the Real Knowledge, Bliss & Power, and not the Original. Those that have reached that ‘Perfection’ state can only make use of the Real Knowledge, Bliss & Power, and with these very Knowledge, Bliss & Power do they lead others and give them that ‘experience’ (realization).” TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 4—a separate typing of the lecture—reads very similarly. The Gujarati diary source passage in ChD 57: p. 65 generally confirms this (though it mentions only the Shakti or Power of those who have attained, not their Knowledge and Bliss also).
12. TTL/FF p. 70 and TTL p. 70 read: “Only a Sadguru, who comes down for duty can use the Highest Knowledge, Power & Bliss, full consciously and that too, not only in ONE state.” TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 5 and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 4 read very similarly. The diary source (ChD 57: p. 67) reads: “parantu te bī ek sthītī m nahi” (“but that too, not in one condition”). In all these sources the precise sense remains elusive. The editors have interpreted it to mean that the Sadguru does not wield his Knowledge, Power, and Bliss only from his unitive state of oceanic consciousness but does so from many different stations in creation in the course of his work; and the text has been emended accordingly.
13. This phrase (“poor fellow”) does not appear in the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts; it translates the Gujarati of ChD 57: p. 67, “bachāro te.”
14. The diary source for this passage, ChD 57: p. 69, gives the word “Prabhu” rather than “Īshwar”: “Prabhu eṭale shakti, ānand, jñān,” that is, “Prabhu means power, bliss, knowledge.” Probably in the course of compiling “Tiffin Lectures,” Chanji thought that the word “Īshwar” better expressed Baba’s meaning. This suggests that “Īshwar” does not in this usage carry the specialized meaning (of Creator-Preserver-Destroyer) that it does in Infinite Intelligence. Probably it is just a synonym for God, or perhaps for God in His personal, theistic aspect.
15. The “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts read disjointedly here, e.g., TLD/DF: 1-7-26, p. 6: “God (Ishwara) means ‘Knowledge, Bliss & Power’ (Nothingness sunya), i.e. one must get the real experience that all these (the whole Universe etc.) is ‘Nothing.’” (TTL/FF p. 72, TTL p. 72, and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 6 read similarly.) Note that the word “Nothingness” has been introduced abruptly; and the same is true stylistically in the Gujarati of ChD 57: pp. 69 and 66. The underlying continuity of idea is clear enough, however.
16. The last few lines appear in garbled form in TTL/FF p. 72 and TTL p. 72: “. . . a hard fact to you, human beings – but which, to us (real) is a mere ‘dream state’ (of Truth) is so vividly ‘Perfect’ and that he who . . .” Plainly this miscopies the text recorded in TLD/DF: 1-7-26, pp. 6-7, which reads: “. . . a hard fact to you, human beings – but which, to us(realized) is a mere ‘dream state’. Then, where remains the doubt? That state (of Truth) is so vividly ‘Perfect’ and ‘Real’ that he who . . .” (TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 6 reads almost identically).
17. The manuscript sources are at variance with each other in this passage; probably Baba’s dictation got garbled in the transcription. The best texts are those of TLD/DF: 1-7-26, pp. 7-8 and TLD/FF: 1-7-26, p. 7, which differ from each other only trivially; the former reads: “Suppose, a man, being intoxicated, (with some drink) forgets his own self (bhān gumāvī chhe). Now, although, he is quite unaware of his own existence during that time, he himself IS i.e. does exist there. Now, the real ‘experience’ (realization) is not only thousands but crores of times more real and assured than this assurance of one’s existence during his state of intoxication (or ‘Forgetfulness of one’s own-self). Here, i.e. in this life and reference of intoxicated state, there is body even, but there, i.e. in the ‘real experience state, there is no body too.” While this verbiage is confusing enough, TTL/FF p. 73 appears to have lost a phrase: “Suppose, a man, being intoxicated, (with some drink) forgets his own self (bhān gumāvī de). How, although, he is quite unaware of his own existence during that time, he himself IS i.e. does exist there. How, the real ‘experience’ (realization) is not only thousands but crores of times more real and assured than this assurance of one’s existence during his state of intoxication (or ‘Forgetfulness of one’s own self). Here, i.e. in this life and [with] reference of intoxicated state, there is nobody too.” (TTL p. 73 reads identically except that a lacuna has not been filled.) The text of the diary source, ChD 57: pp. 70 and 71 , is written in Gujarati: “Example – ādmīne koī chījhnī nīshā chaḍhe chhe, tyāre (potānu bhān gumāvī) ‘gung’ thai jāy chhe, te vevā potānī hastīnu te ne jarā e bhān nathī rahetu, chhat te pote to hastī dharāve chhej. Haiyāt chhe j. Ā bīnā jeṭlī sāchchī chhe (yāne nīsham paḍelo insān bhān bramīṣṭa chhat haiyā chhe te) te kart karoḍo ane abajo ghaṇī khātarī to te anubhav chhe. (Amastho jahi) Temā body to chhej nahi.” This translates: “For example: [take] a man [who] gets inebriated with something, so then (he loses his consciousness) he becomes intoxicated; at that time he is not conscious of himself, yet even then his existence is still there, he remains. This fact is true (meaning that a human intoxicated and retaining no awareness whatsoever still exists): but crores and trillion times more than that is the conviction, and that is experience (it is not meaningless), in it there is no body.” None of these versions resolve the central problem in this passage: what is the point of comparing the certitude of Self-awareness of the God-realized person with the (non-existent) self-awareness of a drunk who has lost all consciousness of himself? There can be no proportion between infinity and nothing: so what exactly is being compared with what here? No easy way of creating coherency and intelligibility among these various versions suggests itself. The edited text primarily follows those of TLD/DF and TTL/FF p. 73.