1. TTL pp.59-62 (and TTL/FF pp. 59-66, their carbon copies) have running head that date this material to 30th June 1926. In the middle of TTL/FF p. 62, however, the discourse is interrupted by a new rubric or section title:

Continuation of the lecture on

“THE CIRCLE & ITS PREPARATION”

given on 28-6-26.

The editors understand this to mean that, on 30th June, Baba was reverting to the topic he had discussed two days earlier. Does this imply that Baba was embarking on a new Tiffin Lecture? The typographic layout of TTL/FF p. 62 (and TTL p. 62) is ambiguous on this point; but TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 1 and TLD/FF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 1 start a new page with the section title as above, use the typographic layout design characteristic of the first page of a new Tiffin Lecture, and begin their pagination over again (from pages 1 to 5). The compilers of these two manuscripts, in other words, viewed these two sequences as constituting different lectures by Baba. Following these hints, the editors have divided TTL/FF pp. 59-66 (and TTL pp. 59-66) into two lectures, the first from TTL/FF p. 59 through the rubric (as above) on p. 62, and the second from the rubric to the end of p. 66. Since both of these lectures were given on the same date, the editors have differentiated by calling the first the “first session” and the second the “second session.”

2. The original text of ChD 57: p. 42 seems defective: “Shree B. – thereupon said – that he truly knew of all this, nor had he paid any serious thought to this request. . .” But the point of Baba’s comment seems to be precisely that he did not know about all of this; for as the Tiffin Lecture explains in detail, miracles like this come about automatically, without the Sadguru’s direct involvement. Probably Chanji left the words “did not” out of this sentence; this supposition is corroborated by the appearance of the word “nor” in the phrase “nor had he paid any serious thought. . .” The editors have emended accordingly.

3. ChD 57: p. 42 reads “Hindu gentlemen” at this juncture, even though in the opening lines of the account he had been characterized as a “Jain gentleman.” The editors take the earlier reference to be the correct one.

4. This episode does not appear in any of the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts —TTL/FF p. 59, TTL p. 59, TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 1, TLD/FF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 1—but has been taken from Chanji’s account in ChD 57: pp. 42-43.

5. The analogy of the whip in this paragraph and the next cannot be found in the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts (TTL/FF p. 59; TTL p. 59; TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 1; TLD/FF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 1). It does occur in this point of the lecture, however, in both ChD 57: p. 44 (mostly in English) and ChD 62: p. 495 (mostly in Gujarati); undoubtedly it belonged to Baba’s original exposition before the mandali. In both diary versions the analogy is presented confusingly, and the versions contradict each other on certain details. The gist, however, is clear enough; and the overall metaphor expresses Baba’s idea so marvelously that the editors have thought it desirable to restore this content into the edited Tiffin Lecture here.

6. A version of these last three sentences appears as saying no. 52 in “Sayings of His Divine Majesty Sadguru Meher Baba,” Meher Message, vol. 1, no.11 (November 1929), p. 1. For further information, see Appendix 5, Table 10, p. 514.

7. In the source manuscripts (TTL/FF p. 60, TTL p. 60, TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 2, TLD/FF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 2, and ChD 57: p. 45, though not in ChD 62: p. 495, since that account is too abbreviated to exhibit this feature), this incident is narrated in an odd hypothetical voice: “One comes with the news to Shree . . . . Then Shree would say . . .” (TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 2)—as if Chanji is not describing what actually happened on that day but a typical incident of the sort that occurred often. The editors have tried to preserve some of this sense and flavor while sustaining the coherency of the exposition.

8. The wording of TTL/FF p. 61 is obscure: “Not only that, but the very first idea (of a Serpent) in itself was a mere ‘Illusion (bhās), which shows its power to suffice (the first-created) Maya.” (This wording matches closely that of TTL p. 61, TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 3, TLD/FF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 3, and ChD 57: p. 46.) The puzzle here centers on the word “suffice,” which seems to have been used erroneously as a transitive verb with “Maya” as its direct object. But even if we construct Maya as an indirect object, by which reading the “powers” (of the illusion) suffice to Maya, the sentence remains enigmatic. Trying to render the sentence into an intelligible form, the editors have taken the underlying thought to be that the powers of Maya suffice for the creation of an illusion like this (that is, for the creation of an idea of a serpent which gets superimposed on a string). Moreover, the original creation of the idea of a serpent lies quite within Maya’s powers, since Maya herself was the first-created of all.

9. In the two typed “Tiffin Lectures” sources (TLD/DF: 30-6-26, p. 4 and TTL/FF p. 61), the word in parentheses takes the Gujarati oblique form māyāne. These typed versions appear to be based on the diary source text, ChD 57: p. 47, in which māyāne has been written in the left hand margin, off and apart from the poetic line, which is enclosed in quotation marks. Perhaps Chanji inserted the word in his diary as an explication, to clarify who the “you” is (tujhe is written in the diary as tuje); and subsequently this got inserted into the text of the poetic line in TLD/DF: 30-6-26, p. 4 and TTL/FF p. 61. The result is a line in which the Hindi oblique form tujhe (tuje) gets restated and explicated parenthetically through the Gujarati oblique form māyāne. This mix of languages does not make for good reading, however, and accordingly the editors have emended to Māyā. It is possible that Baba was quoting from a line of Hindi verse, providing his own glosses and explications, which the compiler or typist later worked into the primary text.

10. At this juncture in the “Tiffin Lectures” manuscripts (TTL/FF p. 62, TTL p. 62, TLD/DF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 4, TLD/FF: 30-6-26 (first session), p. 4) the typed Tiffin Lecture ends. But the source diary (ChD 57: p. 47) shows clearly that Baba’s talk to the mandali continued. The diary material up until this point is annotated with a large marginal checkmark, while the material following has a marginal question mark: these are Chanji’s standard signs that material should be included or excluded (respectively) from the typed version of the manuscript. Perhaps he felt that the “mad dog” analogy made for a good ending, while the material that follows suffers from a certain ambiguity, especially in the last paragraph. The editors have deemed it best to restore this content nonetheless, particularly because the analogy of the hair and the head illuminates Baba’s discussion on the nature of Maya so superbly.

11. At this juncture (in ChD 57: p. 47) there appears an inserted note that probably expresses a thought and observation from Chanji himself: “To my mind, the law of Māyā of the whole Universe applies here, too, i.e. the very idea, appearance of hairs growing, being cut off etc. is – all a bhās . . .”

12. ChD 57: p. 47 reads: “Who created it? (Don’t say – God! but take it that) Paramātmā is being freed from the Clutches of this māyā, and it is always His duty & working to destroy māyā from all-as best as it can.” While the idea here is presented clearly and intelligibly, one puzzles at the representation of Paramātmā as being bound and thus needing to be freed, in view of the fact that the lecture throughout has insisted on Paramātmā’s utter transcendence and immaculate dissociation from the world of Maya. Possibly the diary sentence should have read “Paramātmā is free from the clutches of this māyā”; but the editors do not find the arguments and evidence for this sufficiently decisive as to warrant an emendation.

13. “Sadguru’s” is an emendation for “His”; the relevant sentence from the diary is quoted in full in the previous endnote. Ostensibly, in the grammar of the original diary sentence, “His” refers to Paramātmā; yet it is hard to believe that this could be so, in view of the way in which the lecture vehemently dissociates Paramātmā from worldly involvement. The fact that the previous sentence characterizes Paramātmā as a jīvātmā in bondage only makes the problem worse: how can this be assimilated to a Paramātmā who destroys Maya and sets jīvātmās free? This final paragraph seems to have been drafted in a confused and hurried manner; it is more than likely that Chanji had in mind some referent for the pronoun “He” that he did not actually write down. What the “He” does in this sentence sounds like the activity of the Sadguru as described earlier in the lecture, and the editors have emended accordingly.