1. TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 1 provides a very abbreviated account of this story: “(A Hindu Bhakta, who had observed many ‘Tapa-Japa-Vratas etc. and who had come and talked to Shree on Spiritual matters etc. before, one day came with an intention to speak to Shree on some monitary [sic] matters. Shree absolutely avoided him, for hours, which impressed him intensely, and he expressed his extreme regret before others) Thereupon Shree gave a nice piece of advice — . . .” (TTL p. 47 reads almost identically except that it substitutes the phrase “sanitary matters”—an obvious error; in TTL/FF p. 47 the first two letters of “sanitary” have been overwritten with a penciled “mo,” to read “monitary.”) The diary source for this is ChD 62: p. 472, which reads almost identically but supplies the word upadesh. By far the longest account, however, appears in ChD 57: p. 17. Since its rich details and fuller narrative make the story more intelligible and interesting, this last diary account has served as the basis for the text here.

2. The text of TTL/FF p. 47, TTL p. 47, and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 1 reads: “But the fact is that if one is lucky to get . . .” But the source text in ChD 57: p. 19 reads: “But the fact is that if one is not lucky to get . . .” (emphasis added); and in TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 1, “not” has been handwritten in pencil and marked for insert with a caret. Clearly the good sense of the passage calls for the insertion of the “not,” and the editors have emended accordingly.

3. In most of the sources—TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 2; TTL/FF p. 48 and TTL p. 48; ChD 57: p. 19; and ChD 62: p. 489—the name that appears is “Mah.,” presumably an abbreviation for “[Upasni] Maharaj.” This presumption is corroborated in TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 2, where “Mahārāj” in the Gujarati script has been handwritten over this abbreviation.

4. The text of TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 3, reads: “A Chargeman prepares his Circle, and then, after entrusting them their respective duties (with One Chargeman), he gets himself free. . .” This reading follows ChD 57: p. 23 fairly closely. But TTL/FF p. 49 and TTL p. 49 read: “A Chargeman prepares his Circle, and then, after entrusting them their respective duties (with the Chargeman) . . . .” (TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 3 reads almost identically). The text of TTL/FF (and TLD/FF) obscures or leaves ambiguous a critical distinction: that Baba is referring to two different Chargemen, the first, who, as a Sadguru, prepares his circle, and the second who, as a member of that circle, is destined to become a Sadguru himself. The editors have followed the text of TLD/DF and ChD 57 and emended slightly to mark this distinction. Baba amplifies on this point later in the Tiffin Lecture.

5. The text of TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 3, says that the twelve of the circle includes “1 Chargeman, 4 heads, 4 heads, 2 heads 1 goes off.” ChD 57: p. 23 reads “1 chargeman 4 heads – 4 heads – 2 heads – 1 goes. . .” ChD 62: p. 478 reads almost identically; ChD 62: p. 490 contains the same information, as does TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 3. Only TTL/FF p. 49 (and, of course, TTL p. 49) give the aberrant reading “1 Chargeman, 4 heads, 2 heads 1 goes off”—which totals only eight, not twelve. Plainly the text of TTL/FF is erroneous, probably the result of miscopying.

6. The text of these last two paragraphs mostly follows TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 3 and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 3, which, in turn, is largely based upon ChD 57: p. 23 and ChD 62: p. 478; TTL/FF p. 49 (and TTL p. 49) seem to be garbled throughout this passage. This last line, however, does not appear in TLD/DF but translates the Marathi of ChD 57: p. 23, “mag-te dādā ekālā banavtāt,” that is, “then they [the āchāryas] make [that] one the older brother.”

7. In all of the source texts, the number 56 is introduced abruptly, without any transition. TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 3 and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 3 simply read “Of the 56, one is a ‘Mujzoob’”; ChD 57: p. 23 and ChD 62: p. 478 read similarly. Most of the men Baba was speaking to, however, would probably have heard his talk of 12th June 1926 (ChD 62: p. 389), on which occasion the number 56 was explained. To convey textually what would have been situationally apparent during Baba’s actual lecture, the editors have interpolated the phrase “[Out of the fifty-six] we spoke of the other day . . .”

The other source for this passage, TTL/FF p. 49 (reproducing TTL p. 49), provides the aberrant reading “55” instead of “56.” This is another example illustrating the hazards of copying; the possibility of error, whether in the transcription of Baba’s original dictation or in the subsequent copying, has always to be allowed for. The most advanced and finished in a series of drafts is not always the most correct.

8. TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 3, and TTL/FF p. 49 (reproducing TTL p. 49) provide the reading “GOES OUT.” The diary sources, ChD 57: p. 23 and ChD 62: p. 478, both read “goes off,” as does TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 3. Again, none of these sources explains either of these phrases.

9. Nothing in TTL/FF p. 49, TTL p. 49, TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 3, or TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 3 indicates that Baba’s talk was interrupted at this juncture. The editors have inserted this section title and narrator’s interpolation on the basis of Chanji’s comment in ChD 57: p. 23: “Continuation — after an interval — of the Special Lecture on ‘The preparation of the Circle duty etc. etc. . . .’”

10. This wording has been adapted from ChD 57: p. 25. On the other hand, the text of TLD/DF: 28-6-26, pp. 3-4, following ChD 62: p. 479, reads: “He and the Circle (including the Chargeman) are one and the same, because, all are realized hence all are equal.” (TTL/FF p. 49, TTL p. 49, and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 4 follow with only small variations.) The problem here lies in the ambiguity of the phraseology, which does not make it explicit that the equality of Chargeman and circle members consists in their all being destined for Realization. Obviously they are not realized at the beginning of their discipleship under their common Sadguru, which this language, read literally, might be taken to mean.

11. The original text of TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 4, reads: “Of the ten in a Circle, One is a Chargeman . . .”; TTL/FF pp. 49-50 (which reproduces TTL pp. 49-50), TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 4, ChD 57: p. 25, and ChD 62: p. 479 read similarly. This phraseology implies that the Chargeman is one of the ten; yet the preceding passage clearly indicates that the Chargeman stands in addition to the ten. The editors have emended this sentence accordingly. (The same problem recurs later in this Tiffin Lecture; see endnote 15 on p. 109.)

12. The wording of the source texts does not fully clarify the sense here. TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 4 reads: “To one, he keeps aside (i.e. he either dies or has neither Knowledge nor Experience).” TTL/FF p. 50, TTL p. 50, TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 4, ChD 57: p. 25, and ChD 62: p. 481 read similarly, with no meaningful difference. Presumably the “one” being referred to here is the same “one” of the twelve who earlier was described as going out of the circle; and the editors have emended to clarify this sense.

13. The original texts of TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 4 and TTL/FF p. 50 (reproducing TTL p. 50) both read: “These ten mean He only”; TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 4 and ChD 62: p. 481 have the same, but underlined. In ChD 57: p. 27, however, much of this content of these last few lines appears in the left margin written vertically: “& then the ten of his circle who are realized prepare the 11th one, and make him Chargeman; this ten mean He only.” Plainly this marginal text is meant as a rewrite and replacement for two paragraphs in the main body of the page, written normally in the flow of diary prose but then crossed out. This crossed-out material reads thus:

Now, who is to take Charge of all this One? Himself one of them? Who are all these Ten? Mer. (one) only. No doubt about it. Then, to whom is the charge of Mer. to be given?

As he (Mer.) is only One, these ten gradually (in their preparation) actually prepare [illegible and crossed out] The chargeman as if [sic] for He cannot be in perfect circle without ten – hence his preparation of a Circle, may be taken as His own preparation – towards perfection of a circle –

We will not attempt to untangle this cryptic passage, whose obscurities open themselves to diverse interpretations. One puzzle is the word “Mer.,” which probably abbreviates “Merwan”; yet Chanji more characteristically refers to Baba as “Shree” or “B.” Concerning the passage as a whole, the possibility must be borne in mind that Chanji himself might not have fully understood what Baba was dictating and may accordingly have recorded it in an incomplete or garbled fashion. It is also possible that Baba himself was hinting at esoteric truths that he chose not to clarify fully.

14. The original text of TTL/FF p. 50, TTL p. 50, TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 4, TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 4, ChD 57: p. 27, and ChD 62: p. 481 refer only to a “shop,” not a “toddy shop” specifically. Yet clearly the mixing, pouring, serving, and so forth are referenced here as toddy shop activities. This identification is confirmed by the fact that the analogy of the toddy shop—specifically identified as such—recurs later in this lecture.

15. As we saw earlier (see endnote 11 on p. 107), here again, the original text describes the Chargeman as one of ten. Thus TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 5, reads: “Then who is this Chargeman? Of course one of the ten of the Circle prepared, who are all Masters, but who (all 10) eventually become ONE.!” TTL/FF p. 51, TTL p. 51, TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 5, and ChD 57: p. 27 read similarly. Again, this contradicts what has been said throughout this Tiffin Lecture, which has described the Chargeman as being in addition to the ten, not one among the ten. In the presumption that this discrepancy is due to infelicitous wording, again, the editors have emended to restore the total to eleven.

16. After this sentence ChD 57: p. 29 provides the additional parenthetical note: “(Mah. has also said so – and we shall see it here)”. Again, “Mah.” is doubtless the abbreviated form of “Upasni Maharaj.”

17. This is followed in ChD 57: p. 33 by an odd two paragraphs on the hazards of a man being reborn in bird form if the sanskaras of lust predominate excessively. This curious passage and this diary page conclude with notes indicating that Baba now resumed his discourse with explanations on the subject of matter and energy, as in the lecture presented here.

18. In TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 7, after a section break, the title reads, “Continuation of the Lecture on THE PREPARATION OF THE CIRCLE D/28–6–26” (TTL/FF p. 53, TTL p. 53, and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 7 read similarly). The discussion that immediately follows, however, has nothing to do with that topic, though Baba does come back to it at the end of his talk. In any event, this section title probably signifies that Baba was resuming his lecture with the mandali after a break of some kind. But since the section title in the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts plainly does not suit the content, the editors have substituted a new one, “Energy and Matter (Prāṇ and Ākāsh).”

19. ChD 57: p. 26 gives the reading khandīl (with dental consonants instead of the retroflex ṇ and ḍ); this Gujarati word does not appear in any other source, handwritten or typed. As a further problem, the anusvār (nasal diacritic) appears only uncertainly in the Chanji’s Diary manuscript; and without it, we would be left with khadīl, which is not an identifiable word. Nonetheless, the Gujarati word kaṇḍīl, “lantern,” “candle,” suits this context well; it could very reasonably translate into English as “lamp,” which is what we find in the “Tiffin Lectures” sources at this juncture. The editors have accordingly presumed that Chanji used a different form of this word familiar to him that substitutes d in place of ḍ; since nasal consonants assimilate in this context, the emendation to kaṇḍīl is warranted.

20. This paragraph is enigmatically written in the sources. TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 7 reads: “From ‘Atom’, it advances to the ‘Stone’ state. (Supposing ‘atom’ = the Lamp, if we go back to its root, it is ‘Akash’. (Ākāsh).” TTL/FF p. 53, TTL p. 53, and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 7 read almost identically. The first problem that presents itself concerns the referent of “it” in the sentence “. . . it advances to stone state.” What advances? The diary gives no help here: ChD 57: p. 26 simply reads “atom māthī stone,” which translates, “from atom, stone.” Taking the line in context, and interpreting it in the light of similar passages in Infinite Intelligence, the editors have supposed that “it” in this case refers to chaitanya, and they have emended accordingly. This brings us to the sentence in parentheses: what does “it” refer to in the phrase, “it is ‘Akash’”? The diary source in ChD 57: p. 26 reads: “atom = khandīl [sic] – pāchhu muḷm back jāy to ākāsh”; that is, “atom = lamp – if once again we go back to the source, then ākāsh.” Again, the reference may be to chaitanya: when one traces back along the line of evolving chaitanya to its source, one finds ākāsh—which, along with prāṇ, is present in the original point. The obscurities of this passage, however, make it impossible to assert this interpretation, or any other, with confidence. The editors have thought it best, therefore, to avoid determining what “it” is, and accordingly they have had recourse to the fairly neutral locution, “we find ākāsh.”

21. “Swelling and expanding” is the somewhat speculative interpretation of a word written in an almost illegible (Gujarati script) handwriting in TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 8. The entire phrase reads: “prernā – janma – upasa[v] buddhī.” The first, second, and fourth words of this phrase are clear enough; but the final letter of upasa[v] cannot be ascertained with surety; it could be the Gujarati letter for “t” or something else. Gujarati dictionaries supply us with the verbal form upasāvũ, “to swell, to expand, to spread out.” By this reading the phrase upasav buddhī could refer to the “swelling” or expansion of chaitanya from its earlier stage of instinct towards buddhi or intellect. It is not inconceivable, however, that the word is a Gujarati rendering of the Marathi upasaṇ, “approaching, advancing to.” Conjoined with buddhi, the phrase would mean “approaching intellect”—a sense admirably suited to the context. The editors have inserted an English translation suggesting movement and expansion towards, while sounding here the cautionary note that the manuscript reading may be unreliable.

22. This line has been constructed on the basis of TTL/FF p. 54 (reproducing TTL p. 54), TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 9, TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 8, and a sentence in ChD 57: p. 28.

23. TTL/FF p. 55 (like TTL p. 55) reads “conscious,” but TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 9, TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 9, and the diary source ChD 57: p. 30 all read “unconscious”—clearly the right meaning in this passage, which is trying to mark a contrast between Sat and Shiv where consciousness is concerned.

24. TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 10 and TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 10 make it clear that this section represents the continuation of this same Tiffin Lecture of 28th June—a point which cannot be ascertained with surety from TTL/FF pp. 55-56, TTL pp. 55-56, or ChD 57: pp. 30 and 32.

25. In TTL/FF p. 56, and TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 10 the “Question” and the “Answer” that follows it are designated through the abbreviations “Q.” and “A.” (TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 10 gives “Q.” and “An.”). None of these typed manuscripts nor the diary source (ChD 57: p. 30) gives any indication as to whether one of the mandali posed the question or whether Baba asked it of himself; but to judge by other such cases in “Tiffin Lectures,” it seems more likely that the question was asked by the mandali.

26. ComD 1: f. 283. The text here has been normalized in its spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.

27. The primary source for this line, TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 10, reads: “The same way, the number (of Spiritual workers) fixed is 56, just as there are 56 parts of the body. (Limbs avyavo – indrīyo). Eyes are only two, the nose is only one . . .”

28. This text is based on Godsī, p. 76, ghazal 9, couplet 3. TTL/FF p. 57 does not mention the name of Hafez and has a lacuna at the juncture where this couplet occurs, but the couplet appears in the Gujarati script in three of the sources, TLD/DF: 28-6-26, p. 11, TLD/FF: 28-6-26, p. 11, and ChD 57: p. 32. In ChD 57: p. 32 it takes the following form (here transliterated into the Roman alphabet, with English words incorporated): “(name of a kind of hen – here a Sadguru) Ūngā shīkāre kas na shavad dām bāz chīn/ Kīñjā hamīshe bād ba dastast dām rā.”