Talk:Manuscripts ~ Reports Timeline Extraction

From The Sannyas Wiki
Revision as of 22:22, 27 March 2020 by Rudra (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "Jyoti Shikha (ज्योति शिखा, Indian magazine)" to "Jyoti Shikha (ज्योति शिखा)")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

About "Jatubhai" Mehta: In the first instance, introducing the A sheets, it has actually been rendered as "Natubhai" in the transcription from handwriting to editable Devanagari text, and "Jatu Bhai" in the intros to the B and C sheets. This makes the first "Natubhai" look like a simple typo, especially given the info found in Talk:Jyoti Shikha (ज्योति शिखा) that "Jattu Bhai" Mehta was for a long time during this period the editor of Jyoti Shikha, so "Natubhai" has been corrected. -- doofus-9 17:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Year of the D Sheets

The difficulties of assigning a particular year to the D sheets are mentioned on the article page. They arise because of the strong correspondences aligning events in 20-22 Nov, 4 Dec and 26-28 Dec with events in the Timeline pages of 1967, 1966 and 1966 respectively. Each of these correspondences is strong enough on its own to be compelling, but they do not fit well together.

There are many possible explanations for these difficulties, with varying levels of likelihood. In fact, none are inherently likely, but some are at least less bizarre and require fewer assumptions or errors. We will go into two of them here.

The first requires an error in the Timeline info for Chit Chakmak Lage Nahin (चित चकमक लागै नहीं). There is only one source for that info, detailed in Chit Chakmak's talk page; a simple error there might well be the simplest way to make these three correspondences fit: There are no other sources for info on Chit Chakmak's Dates and Places, so there would be no conflict were its dates to change to 1966. And there is a suitable gap in the 1966 Timeline.

A second possibility is that the manuscript sheet, "D-1", containing the info about Jabalpur on 11 Nov and Malad the 200-22 Nov, is out of place, and doesn't belong with the rest of the D sheets. This too is a "reasonable" possibility requiring only one assumption / error. It can also be explored, though not deeply, and may have to rest without ultimate resolution.

Note that both these possibilities focus on the Nov 20-22 correspondence. Other possibilities would have to reckon with more than one error or assumption, in the other two events, another level of complexity. The Dec 4 Lions club event in Poona would be particularly problematic to change, as it is backed by the testimony of our correspondent regarding the general format of these Lions club events and their featured speakers. For it to have been on Dec 4 in another year would put it on some other day than a Sunday, which would run counter to their usual way. Both of these reasonable and likeliest possibilities lead us to 1966 as the year for these sheets, leaving the question of sheet D-1's info to be resolved later.

OTOH . . . At the end of the period of the D sheets, assuming they constitute a period at all, we have another problem, which may be smaller but its circumstances lend support to 1967 as the year for the D sheets. As Sheets D-6 to D-8 lead into Jan, we also have to consider the Jan events in Ahmedabad and Matunga. Both Jan 1966 and 1967 were considered plausible in terms of correspondences with Timeline data. Jan 1967 has the virtue of coming immediately after Dec 1966, but the drawback of a conflict in the Matunga event, not one that can easily be dismissed or explained. Jan 1968, the continuation of the D sheets' year as hypothetically 1967, has no conflicts nor correspondences.

A "reasonable" resolution to the 1967 conflict on Jan 18 (Matunga in sheet D-8 vs Amravati in the Timeline) might be that the Amravati event got cancelled, didn't happen. At this point, its only source is a letter written by Osho, admittedly only four days before the event. How "reliable" is our beloved Master on things like that? But this solution would require at least one more assumption, making 1967 hardly simple.

But . . . ahhh, another possibility, let's check that letter, and . . . Aha! The date in the letter has been smudged a bit but it looks more like 1968 than 1967. So let that be the resolution for now, will update letter and Timeline. -- doofus-9 19:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OTOH yet again . . . Moving the Amravati event to 1968 leads to another conflict, previously unnoticed, as it spans three days. Have reverted updates, will ponder. -- doofus-9 20:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Secunderabad Event

The Secunderabad event CAN be fit with the two others already on Apr 2 but it will need some fiddling and will not be a graceful fit. The fiddling involves the fact that another event is already entered in exactly its time slot, am, so it or the other will have to be changed, not a huge deal, but nothing is compelling, as that other event already on Apr 2 am could also just be it, disguised with the city fudged.

The other non-graceful aspect would be imagining a title for it if it were just added (with fiddling the time) as a third talk on Apr 2. The existing three series with component talks given in Hyderabad are full, they are not missing any talks, so where it fit would be a mystery. Again, not a compelling reason to reject it, but it is not attractive to add it either. So it can rest until it is needed somewhere. -- doofus-9 03:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Events

How can we include this manuscript (Manuscripts ~ Reports) and the similar to Timeline? As 5 events, each of them corresponding to A, B, C, D, E? And what time of writing of them are, which we will use as dates of events?--DhyanAntar 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


Even to define the writing of these Manuscripts ~ Reports and similar as Events is problematic, never mind when they occurred. They are not (necessarily) things occurring at one particular time or another. They could be notes jotted for ten seconds one day, a minute the next, left for a week and so on. These questions can be left for long in the future, for when we (think we) know a lot more and have a much deeper understanding of how all the things fit together, and have answered many more immediate questions.

These things are like diaries, of interest for the material they contain, not for when they were written. Perhaps we can have a category of meta-events if you like, and you can put a wide time-frame around them. That's about all i can think of to do with them for now, and that not very useful.

And "the material they contain" is not even the standard material we are interested in as disciples, the wisdom or presence or devices of the master. The material is just facts, potentially useful but really, it could just as easily have been written by Jatubhai or Arvind. -- doofus-9 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)