Talk:Undated Letter written to Anandmayee 008

From The Sannyas Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is one of hundreds of letters Osho wrote to Ma Anandmayee, then known as Madan Kunwar Parakh. It is undated and probably is the second part of another letter. In fact, it begins without a salutation, and just "पुनश्च", punashch, or PS. Best guess at this point is that it is a PS connected with the Letter written on 28 Nov 1961 pm.

There are two angles to be explored here: What letter (and its date) is this letter a PS of/after and how can we know? And what about those marks and numbers? Are they 35 or 37? 61, 62 or 63? As it happens, getting clear about one of these things may help to lead to the other. So let's start by looking at the connection that was hinted at with Letter written on 28 Nov 1961 pm.

One obvious connection is that these two letters, or halves of letters, are written on the first and so far only two examples of a previously unseen letterhead. To call it a letterhead may even be a bit of an exaggeration. They could just be pieces of paper lying around that had a bit of empty space. The first Committee "letterhead" used in Letter written on 25 Nov 1960 was similarly crowded and busy, not the kind of letterhead used routinely. So, that these "two" letters, one just a PS without a greeting, both used the same odd letterhead is suggestive of being used on the same occasion.

It is speculated that that PS goes with this letter. That this letter is "missing" something more is contra-indicated by Osho's signature, but against that there is an "xxx" just before the sig, which he frequently uses as a divider between parts of a letter. Perhaps the content can tell us something about this.

The letterhead is a new one, full of information about the "Sant Taaran Taran Jayanti Samaroha Samiti", or Sant Taaran Taran Birthday Celebration Committee. This is the third piece of this Committee's stationery we have come across, with earlier varieties found at Letter written on 25 Nov 1960 and Letter written on 15 Apr 1961 am. The Committee's name is in the largest font, written sideways on the left edge. To the right of that, various "members", functionaries and "guests" of the Committee are listed, too many to detail here but including the "director" Acharya Rajneesh, his cousin Arvind, possibly his other cousin Kranti, whose name may have been mis-rendered here as Kanti, and other family members (many Samaiyas). On the right top the "Karyalay" (Office) address is given as good old 115, Napier Town.

There is not much room left in this massive detailed Letterhead for an actual letter, but for the PS which this is, no problem. As mentioned, there is no salutation, and there are only two marks of note and both are ambiguous. The number in the top right corner could be read as 35 or 37, and the pale mirror-image number in the bottom right corner could be 61, 62 or 63. There is no red tick mark.

And what might the numbers suggest? Well, first we might want to know what exactly the numbers are. So what do you see there in the upper right corner of this undated PS? 35 would suggest it should be paired with Letter written on 18 Nov 1961, whose numbers are clearly and unambiguously 35 and 61, while 37 would lead somewhere else. Looking closely at 008's numbers, we can now see that the style of its putative 61 is very similar to that of Nov 18's 61. And now, quite frankly, that 35/37 is looking more like 35.

So be it! So now we have to lean in the direction of this 008 PS being paired with Nov 18. And its place among the image file numbers also supports this view. 863, right after 862 and before 864, another image of the same Nov 18 letter. At first glance, the Nov 18 letter looks complete, with a signature, and no sign that it needs a PS, yet with lots of room to write one, not to mention a whole back side, but this observation cannot compete with the numbers.-- doofus-9 05:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs to add that "xxx" in Letter written on 28 Nov 1961 pm says about contination.

Above clues are enough on my opinion on marry PS with this letter. Agree?--DhyanAntar 10:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

My default position is not knowing, having seen knowing crumble to dust so much. Still, we can go with this if you like. When a transcription comes, the text might help to clarify matters too. -- doofus-9 19:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday i asked a Hindi friend about these two sheets and he told that sheet Letter written on 28 Nov 1961 pm is complete in itself and he did not notice indications about relations of two sheets, no date in PS. But he thinks that PS belongs to this letter because of letterhead.

We have enough clues (the same letterheads, which not repeated in other letters, incomplete first sheet of the letter ("xxx"), close file names), so i will put this letter as second part of 8 Nov's.--DhyanAntar 05:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I was confused when i let this go so easily. I am not advocating DOING anything, including rolling this decision back, but it should be noted that the "solution" above is only a best guess; it is not solid, it is provisional. Identical letterheads, used nowhere else, are definitely strong stuff, but the numbers are on the side of Nov 18, including the close file numbers:

862 <==> Nov 18
863 <==> 008
864 <==> Nov 18
865 <==> Nov 22
866 <==> Nov 28

File #864 has been deleted now as excessive. It was a duplicate of 862.So one could say that 008 was surrounded by Nov 18, this unusual duplication pointing to its own case for being bound with 008. And there are the other numbers, the 35 and 61, see above. A focused transcription and translation by our own guys might be helpful to resolve this. Till then, things can stay as they are, -- doofus-9 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

After transcribing of all letters Dilip can add some words:

"Now as per the apprehension brought to attention it (the PS) should go with the Letter written on 18 Nov 1961; it’s perfectly OK as I see no conflict (and no relation either) with the main text. Also the PS has no relation with the main text of Letter written on 28 Nov 1961 pm.

"So Wiki may do necessary correction. For further research however following points may be considered:

a. Image no. 860 is attributed to manuscript of 17 Nov 1961 which has circled no. (३४ - 34) and ‘60’ on reverse.
b. Image no. 862 (instead of 861, which is reverse side) is attributed to manuscript of 18 Nov 1961 which has circled no. (३५ – 35) and ‘61’ on reverse.
c. Image no. 863 is attributed to manuscript of Undated Letter written to Anandmayee 008 which has circled no. (३७ – 37 this is doubted to be ३५ – 35) and ’६३-63 (not ६१-61)’ on reverse. Even if we agree (or not) that circled no. (३५ – 35) and ‘61’ on reverse – the concluding note being upheld will not defy any facts!
d. Only important question that might arise is what necessitated including of undated second part of the Letter written on 28 Nov 1961 pm as Undated Letter written to Anandmayee 008 - when this is not the case for many letters in two parts – not having date in one of the two.
e. It’s understood that these manuscripts are made available as images to Wiki (not in original) after being handled by many who had their own logics of marking the originals by ticks, numbers in front and reverse.
f. Hence the task has perhaps no logical or algorithmic solution. So it’s best to go by our hearts.

I'm not sure i understand all of what Dilipji is saying, but at least there is no (con-)textual relationship between this punashch and either of its would-be predecessors, neither connection nor conflict, so we are free to choose whatever on that basis. The last bit of (con-)textual possibility is 28 Nov's xxx, which suggests more may be coming, supporting 28 Nov's claim, albeit in a small way.

Regarding the numbers, i believe (not 100% sure) that he quite prefers 37 and 63 for the numbers, and he considers 35 and 61 as fairly unlikely. Those numbers were among the strongest supports for 18 Nov. The file numbers remain as circumstantial evidence for 18 Nov but their logic is flimsy and ephemeral, along the lines of what he is saying in point "e". That point applies best to file numbers, which have been created by Anuragi as he took the pictures, in what may have been an arbitrary order. Logic points out that he is one more intermediary, and the numbers generated by his camera accordingly less significant. Dilip's point "e" applies less to the hand-written numbers which were made by the compilers who were trying to organize these letters for publication.

But whatever! The big kahuna in all this is the letterheads. 008 is one of only two times this strange letterhead was ever used, and 28 Nov was the other time. That alone, now apparently less contradicted by the numbers, should make the case for 28 Nov pretty decent, if i have understood Dilip correctly. Is that how you see it Antarji? -- doofus-9 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My feeling PS belongs to 28 Nov. Additionally it confirmes by the same letterheads, blue circle numbers 34 and 35 on two sheets, "xxx" mark saying about continuation for 1st sheet, very close image numbers and we do not have other incomplete sheets (sheet with missing 2nd part) except Undated Letter written to Anandmayee 007.

My heart is for 28 Nov!--DhyanAntar 03:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)