1. This is the second of two lectures based on manuscripts in the Beloved Archives collection in Hamilton, New Jersey. Consisting of four typed pages in the same general layout style and typed on the same typewriter as the previous lecture of 28th November 1926 (second session), this typescript has on its head page the following:

From Chanji’s Diary, November 24th, 1926 at Lonavla:

(A discourse by Meher Baba)

Each of the three succeeding pages has a running header with the words “Lonavla Discourse, Nov. 24, 1926” (page 3 has “No.” instead of “Nov.”) and then the page number (“Page 2,” etc.).

Now, many sources confirm that Baba and his party left Meherabad for Lonavala on 25th November, so the date on this manuscript, 24th November, cannot be right. “The Combined Diary” assigns Baba’s discussion on Shivaji and the seeds of the circle to 29th November. On this basis this lecture was dated accordingly—and was assigned its place in the lecture sequence of this edition. Yet very recent archival discoveries make it clear that Baba actually gave this talk on 27th November. For further details, see pp, 441-45.

Despite all of this, in references to the LLBA manuscript, we retain the date that the manuscript itself bears. Thus manuscript source pages for this lecture of 29th November (as we have re-dated it in the main text) have been abbreviated LLBA: 24-11-26, pp. 1-4.

2. ComD 2: ff. 32-33. The text has been slightly edited for improved readability.

3. The source text in LLBA: 24-11-26, p. 2, reads oddly: “But to be an atheist after the intellectual knowledge that one realized ( ? ) [sic] gives, would be no fraud and would enable you, too, to make an advance towards the goal of truth (realization).” But the text has just informed us that atheism blocks progress on the path. Does it or doesn’t it? How is it that one could remain an atheist after receiving knowledge from one who is “realized”? And even assuming its possibility, why would the question of fraudulence arise in such a case? From all appearances, at this juncture Baba’s discourse has been garbled in the recording. Effective emendation has no foundation and has not here been attempted.

4. LLBA: 24-11-26, p. 2 has lacunae with question marks in the final word position in this and the next two sentences:

Jivatma in sound sleep and unconsicous [sic] of its existence is ?

Jivatma in sound sleep but conscious of its existence is ?

Jivatma awake (in meditation) but conscious of its existence is ?

Two pages later, however, in LLBA: 24-11-26, p. 4, these three sentences are repeated almost exactly, and in this case the missing words are supplied: “God,” “Sadguru,” and “yogi.” The editors have interpolated these words from this source.

5. In LLBA: 24-11-26, p. 2, this passage has been obscurely written: “The sanskaras at first form like this ( ). They are in the beginning very faint impressions. Than dradually [sic], when they develop into the mental form (from atom to vegetable – animal – and human) they are like ( )- a snake bite. And this is the form of the mind with sanskaras.” (The illustrations in this note reproduce in facsimile the hand-drawn illustrations in the source manuscript.)

6. LLBA: 24-11-26, pp. 2-3 has a lacuna with a question mark: “there is no ( ? ), no sense, no feelings, no experience . . .” The editors see no way of supplying the missing word.

7. The manuscript source text for this passage on Mahāpralaya in LLBA: 28-11-26, p. 3, comes in a prose form that is obscurely written with many grammatical ambiguities. The paragraph on Mahāpralaya in the lecture of 28th November 1926, first session (see p. 329 and associated endnotes) suffers from some of the same problems, though not as badly as this present passage does. Perhaps the source of these problems lies in Meher Baba’s original explanations having been given in a cryptic manner. Meher Baba virtually never spoke about an upcoming Mahāpralaya as he does here; in these rare lecture moments recorded in these two Lonavala talks Baba may have veiled his meaning to a certain extent with ambiguities.

8. LLBA: 24-11-26, p. 3 refers to things “contemplated now by the Realized (Shree’s circle) . . .” The implication here that Baba’s circle members had already attained God-realization (as suggested by the capital R of “Realized”) is contradicted by many other statements of Meher Baba’s during this period. The editors take this to be another of the small mistakes in a lecture typescript that is riddled with them.

9. On the previous occurrence of these sentences, see p. 342 and endnote 4. In each of these three sentences in LLBA: 24-11-26, p. 4 “jīvātmā” is spelled “Gwatma.” That is, the note taker represented “jīv” as the letter “G” followed by a “w,” even though the very same word is spelled (reasonably) as “jivatma” two pages earlier. This gives us another clue that some of the notes for this lecture may have been taken by someone other than Chanji.