1. In TTL/FF pp. 80-81 and TTL pp. 80-81 this Tiffin Lecture and the next bear the same date, 9th July 1926, conveying the impression that they constitute one lecture only, not two. But TLD/DF: 9-7-26, p. 1 and TLD/DF: 11-7-26, p. 1, TLD/FF: 9-7-26, p. 1 and TLD/FF:11-7-26, p. 1, and Chanji’s Diary (ChD 57: pp. 81 and 87) establish convincingly that we are dealing with two separate lectures whose dates, according to these sources, are 9th and 11th July, respectively.
The same 9th July 1926 entry in Chanji’s Diary that provides the source for this 9th July Tiffin Lecture (ChD 57: pp. 81) records certain remarks of Baba’s concerning Hazrat Babajan, to the effect that her spiritual workings would come to an end on 10th July and that she would drop her body ten, twenty, or 200 days thereafter. Yet the “Combined Diary” (ComD 1: f. 292) gives another version of these same remarks in its 10th July 1926 entry; and the 10th July 1926 diary entry of Chanji’s Diary 35 (ChD 35) provides certain supporting evidence (the pages of this diary of Chanji’s have not yet definitively been numbered, but this entry appears as the diary’s last two pages). In other words, these three diary accounts divide against each other on the matter of date.
The editors of this present volume concur with the editor of Lord Meher in the view that Baba’s comments about Hazrat Babajan were probably misdated in ChD 57: p. 81 and that the true date for these is 10th July, as reported in “The Combined Diary.” The dates in “The Combined Diary” are generally found to be more reliable than those in Chanji’s Diaries; and the fluency of the handwriting in ChD 57: p. 81 suggests that it may have been written out by Chanji some time after the event, creating scope for error. But in that case, the possibility cannot be discounted that this present Tiffin Lecture, too, has been misdated, since its diary source (ChD 57: p. 82) belongs to the same entry that provides the misdated remarks about Babajan (ChD 57: p. 81).
At present no unequivocal grounds present themselves settling the date of this Tiffin Lecture definitively. Yet since the evidence for emending its date to 10th July does not appear substantial enough to have achieved a critical mass, the editors think it best to adhere to the primary Tiffin Lecture manuscript sources—TTL/FF p. 80, TTL p. 80, TLD/DF: 9-7-26, p. 1, and TLD/FF: 9-7-26, p. 1—which explicitly attribute the lecture to 9th July.
2. All the “Tiffin Lectures” sources (TTL/FF p. 80, TTL p. 80, TLD/DF: 9-7-26, p. 1, TLD/FF: 9-7-26, p. 1) have lacunae here: “Somewhere ([lacuna]) it is said that . . .” The Gujarati text of ChD 57: p. 82 sheds no further light on the matter. Plainly Chanji intended to locate the source of this aphorism but never did so.
3. The text of TTL p. 80 seems to have omitted a clause: “i.e. Perfect Sadgurus. (State). Because, this state is the Highest order.” TTL/FF p. 80, the carbon copy of TTL p. 80, has the missing words written in by hand. But TLD/DF: 9-7-26, p. 1 reads more intelligibly: “Because, this state is the Highest, and the deserving (lāykāt) for such a state must be of the Highest order.” TLD/FF: 9-7-26, p. 1 reads similarly. The Gujarati of ChD 57: p. 82 concurs.
4. Both TLD/DF: 9-7-26, p. 1 and TTL/FF p. 80 fill the lacuna in TTL p. 80 with ākāsh, a peculiar word choice, since it means “space.” However, TLD/FF: 9-7-26, p. 1 and the diary source for this passage, ChD 57: p. 82, supply svarg, “heaven.” The editors have opted for svarg, since it translates “heaven” and so better suits the context.
5. This extended English gloss of the couplet of Kabir translates the original text of ChD 57: p. 82, which reads:
Sadgurū samān ko nahi, sapta dvīp nav khaṇḍ,
tīn lok na pāiye, aur ekbīs brahmāṇḍ
sāt dvīp ane nav khaṇḍomā pharī vaḷo, pātāḷ, pruthvī ane svargmā pharī vaḷo, 21 brahmāṇḍmā paṇ pharī vaḷo – ne juvo ke khodānī mulākāt karāvnār guru jeṭlu apṇu bhalu karnār bījo koīe badhāmā kāy paṇ chhe ke? Ke chhej nahi.