I stepped out to the plum tree (Poem)

The satirical poem beginning with “I climbed onto the plum branch,” attributed to Yûnus Emre, is one of the most extensively commented texts in the classical exegesis tradition due to its structure built on Sufi symbols. Yûnus, who expressed the Islamic worldview and concepts of love and human perception in Turkish poetry during the thirteenth century, has given this poem a unique place within the exegesis tradition.

This poem in the satirical genre is constructed with seemingly illogical images that contradict everyday experience, yet it is accepted in Sufi literature as a text laden with allegories and symbols. For this reason, the poem has been repeatedly interpreted over the centuries and re-read within various Sufi circles.

The Exegesis Tradition of the Poem

When examining the history of its exegesis, it is evident that the majority of commentators from the early period were Sufis. It has been determined that nearly all commentaries written on Turkish poems up to the twentieth century were composed on Sufi texts, with the purpose of disseminating Sufi training as an educational tool. Within this framework, commentators on Yûnus’s poem include Şeyhzâde Muslihüddîn Mehmed Efendi, Niyâzî-i Mısrî, İsmail Hakkı Bursevî, İbrahim Has, Ali Nakşbendî el-Nevrekânî, Bekir Sıdkî Visâlî, Şevket Turgut Çulpan, Ahmet Kabaklı and İsmail Yakıt.

In recent times, two additional important texts have been added to these known commentaries:

• A commentary attributed to a Sufi whose name is unknown, identified by the self-description “the old disciple of Şâh-ı Haydar and Abdâl Mûsâ sultan efendiler,” is recorded in the Süleymaniye Library under the collection of Manuscript Donations, No. 3568/2. This text, written within the Bektashi tradition, comments on nine lines of Yûnus’s poem and incorporates elements of ilm-i nücûm and ilm-i cifr.

Manuscript Donations / 03568-002 (YEK)

• At the end of the Buyruk manuscript numbered Ms. or. quart. 2134-1, titled “Menâkıb-ı Şeyh Safî,” held at the Berlin State Library, a commentary on the satirical verse beginning “çıkdım erik dalına anda yedim üzümi” was copied by Seyyid Hasan Tahsîn, and is attributed to Niyâzî-i Mısrî.

Berlin Library Ms. or. quart. 2134-1 (Staatsbibliothek)

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s commentary has attracted particular attention when considered alongside Buyruk texts within Alevi-Bektashi written culture, because the Berlin manuscript shares a common content with the Buyruk tradition and also contains a commentary on a ghazal by Yûnus.

İsmail Yakıt, meanwhile, brought together the four classical commentaries (by Şeyhzâde, Niyâzî-i Mısrî, İsmail Hakkı Bursevî, and Ali Nevrekânî), compared them line by line, added his own philosophical interpretation, and thus systematically analyzed the symbols in the poem.

Additionally, Peyami Safa Gülay evaluated Yûnus’s poem through the lens of post-Derrida textual theories, attempting to demonstrate how Niyâzî-i Mısrî, Bursevî, and Şeyhzâde’s commentaries opened the same text to different interpretive domains. Thus, the satirical verse “Çıktım erik dalına…” has been incorporated not only into the classical Sufi exegesis literature but also into contemporary debates on meaning and text.

This framework demonstrates that the poem has been continuously reinterpreted within Sunni Sufi orders, the Bektashi tradition, and modern academic discourse.

The Poem Text

Based on Mustafa Tatçı’s critical edition, the poem consists of the following lines:

Çıkdum erik dalına anda yidüm üzümi

Bostân ıssı kakıyup dir ne yirsün kozumı

Kerpîç koydum kazgana poyrazıla kaynatdum

Nedür diyü sorana bandum virdüm özini

İplik virdüm çulhaya sarup yumak etmemiş

Becid becid ısmarlar gelsün alsun bezini

Bir serçenün kanadın kırk kanluya yükletdüm

Çifti dahı çekmedi kaldı şöyle yazılı

Bir sinek bir kartalı kaldurup urdı yire

Yalan değül gerçekdür ben de gördüm tozını

Balık kavağa çıkmış zift turşısın yimege

Leylek koduk toğurmış bak a şunun sözini

Bir küt ile güreşdüm elsüz ayağum aldı

Güreşüp basamadum göyündürdi özümi

Kâf Tagı’ndan bir taşı şöyle atdılar bana

Öylelik yire düşdi bozayazdı yüzümi

Gözsüze fısıldadum sağır sözüm işitmiş

Dilsüz çağırup söyler dilümdeki sözümi

Bir öküz bogazladum kakıldum sere kodum

Öküz ıssı geldi eydür boğazladun kazumı

Uğrulık yapdum ana bühtân eyledi bana

Bir çerçi geldi eydür kanı aldun gözgümi

Tosbagaya uğradum gözsüzsepek yoldaşı

Sordum sefer kancaru Kayserî’ye ‘azîmi

Yûnus bir söz söylemiş hiçbir söze benzemez

Münâfıklar elinden örter mana yüzini

Commentaries on the Poem

1. Line

“Çıkdum erik dalına anda yidüm üzümi

Bostân ıssı kakıyup dir ne yirsün kozumı”

Illustration of Line 1 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Logic and Initial Symbolic Sequence Established in the Line

The first line of the poem establishes the foundational tableau upon which the entire symbolic structure is built. At first glance, it constructs an illogical sequence of actions: “climbing onto the plum branch,” “eating grapes there,” and “the garden owner’s reaction.” This impossible scenario marks the beginning of the satirical genre’s characteristic seemingly inappropriate discourse. In Tatçı’s edition, this line has been standardized by comparing variations across manuscripts. The words “plum,” “grape,” and “hull” have become key terms of the poem.

The Position of the Line in Tatçı’s Critical Text

Tatçı noted differences in the spelling of fruit names and verbs in various manuscripts. In the text he adopted, the words were standardized as “erik,” “üzüm,” and “koz,” preserving their interpretability within the Sufi exegesis tradition. Tatçı particularly emphasized that the first line initiates the entire symbolic sequence of the poem, and that subsequent images are connected to this foundational line.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

In Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s commentary, the three primary fruits—plum, grape, and hull—are interpreted as corresponding to three Sufi levels.

• Plum, as a fruit whose outer skin is eaten but whose seed is discarded, represents the shari’a’s outward dimension.
• Grape, as a fruit whose skin and flesh are consumed but whose seed remains, symbolizes the states and inner experiences along the tariqa path.
• Hull (walnut), composed of multiple layers—shell, membrane, and kernel—represents a higher level corresponding to ma’rifa and haqiqa.

According to Niyâzî, eating grapes on a plum branch signifies seeking truth from an incorrect source. This mistaken pursuit is symbolically warned against by the garden owner’s intervention. The phrase “ne yirsün kozumı” serves as a caution that the essence of truth cannot be reached through improper means.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî directly associated the fruits in this line with the four levels of Sufism:

• Plum = Shari’a,
• Grape = Tariqa,
• Hull = Ma’rifa and Haqiqa.

According to Bursevî, it is impossible to eat grapes from a plum branch; this image symbolizes demanding the fruit of truth from those who are not qualified. The garden owner, in Bursevî’s interpretation, represents the mürşid-i kâmil, the guide who embodies guidance. He does not accept attributing the essence of truth—the “hull”—to an unworthy seeker.

Bursevî particularly emphasized in this line the critique of those who claim to be Sufis but lack the necessary qualifications.

Şeyhzâde’s Interpretation

In Şeyhzâde’s commentary, the plum branch is interpreted on a different symbolic plane:

• Plum branch is likened to the tree of the soul.
• Grape is interpreted as an inner wine that brings the joy of unity.
• Hull is associated with the human head and the secrets within.

Şeyhzâde portrays the garden owner as a guardian of truth. This line conveys that those who seek truth in the wrong place are being warned.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation (Süleymaniye Manuscript)

The Bektashi commentator interprets the fruits as follows:

• Plum = shari’a;
• Grape = tariqa;
• Hull = haqiqa level.

The commentator describes the plum from its outer skin to its seed, using the analogy of cracking the seed to extract the almond to explain the inner spiritual process of the human being. The balance between the outer and inner aspects of the walnut fruit is presented as a model for the human spiritual structure.

In the Bektashi commentary, the garden owner serves as a warning against proceeding on the tariqa without guidance. Seeking the fruit of haqiqa on an inappropriate branch is considered contrary to the proper etiquette of the path.

2. Line

“Kerpîç koydum kazgana poyrazıla kaynatdum

Nedür diyü sorana bandum virdüm özini”

Illustration of Line 2 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Illogical Scenario Established in the Line

The second line continues the illogical pattern with a new image: “clay is placed in a cauldron and boiled with the poyraz wind.” This is physically impossible and consistent with the nature of the satirical genre, thus continuing the chain of absurdities in the poem.

The Position of the Line in Tatçı’s Text

Tatçı evaluated differing spellings of the words “kerpîç,” “kazgan,” and “poyraz” across manuscripts and standardized them. “Poyraz” is particularly significant for its symbolism of wind. In Tatçı’s interpretation, this line serves as a threshold indicating where the material for Sufi exegesis begins.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

According to Niyâzî:

• Kerpiç is the unripe ego. Its mixture of earth and water represents a raw state of being.
• Kazgan is seen as the arena of the tariqa and the place where collective spiritual training occurs.
• Poyraz symbolizes winds that test the ego—asceticism, patience, hardship, and sleeplessness.

Boiling kerpiç with poyraz describes the maturation of the ego through severe trials. Niyâzî particularly focused on the process of ego refinement, explaining its difficulties through the metaphor of “poyraz.”

The line “Nedür diyü sorana bandum virdüm özini” describes the imparting of the acquired essence of truth to those who are qualified.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî interpreted kerpiç as the raw nature of the human being. The kazgan is the arena for refining the ego, and poyraz represents intense ascetic practices.

Bursevî emphasized in this line that it is impossible to attain knowledge and truth without purifying the ego. Just as boiling kerpiç is illogical, so too are the claims of those who have not purified their ego.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation

In the Bektashi commentary, kerpiç is used to distinguish between outward mud and inward mud.

The commentator states that kerpiç is not edible, indicating the futility of ritualistic asceticism. Poyraz, as a harsh wind that disturbs the ego, draws attention to the harms of unguided ascetic practice.

The expression “virdüm özini” signifies that the truth attained through inner transformation becomes shareable.

3. Line

“İplik virdüm çulhaya sarup yumak etmemiş

Becid becid ısmarlar gelsün alsun bezini”

Illustration of Line 3 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Core Symbolic Sequence in the Line

This line introduces the motifs of “thread,” “weaver,” and “fabric.” These motifs are associated in Sufi literature with knowledge, state, and ma’rifa.

Thread = Inner knowledge

Weaver = Disciple or guide

Spool = Organization of knowledge and states

Fabric = Fabric of ma’rifa

In this line, thread is given but not wound into a spool; the fabric does not emerge.

The Line from Tatçı’s Textual Perspective

Tatçı compared the spellings of terms in this line within Old Anatolian Turkish. He noted variations such as “becid becid ismarlar” or “biced biced” in some manuscripts. Standardizing the text made the line interpretable.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

According to Niyâzî, the thread is the raw form of Sufi secrets. When this knowledge is given to the weaver—the disciple or qualified person—but not wound into a spool, it means the knowledge has not been processed.

The phrase “becid becid ısmarlar” symbolizes the gradual weaving of knowledge, thread by thread.

The fabric represents realized ma’rifa; it is intended to be received by the qualified. Niyâzî emphasized in this line that Sufi knowledge cannot be properly processed without guidance.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî drew attention to the stages of knowledge processing in the thread-fabric relationship. According to him:

• Thread = Raw knowledge
• Spool = Systematized knowledge
• Fabric = Ilm-i ledün

Failure to wind the thread into a spool means knowledge remains unsystematized and the fabric of haqiqa does not emerge. Bursevî linked the phrase “gelsün alsun” to the idea that ma’rifa is a substance accessible only to the qualified.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation

In the Bektashi commentary, the thread is the spiritual gift and secret bestowed on the seeker along the Sufi path. The weaver’s failure to wind the thread signifies the seeker’s inability to process this gift. “Ismarlamak,” meaning to spin thread, represents the sequential steps of the tariqa.

The fabric is symbolized as the garment to be worn at the end of the path. In Bektashi culture, this is associated with the stage of “wearing the hırka.”

4. Line

“Bir serçenün kanadın kırk kanluya yükletdüm

Çifti dahı çekmedi kaldı şöyle yazılı”

Illustration of Line 4 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Symbolic System Established in the Line

In this line, the images of “sparrow,” “wing,” “forty carriers,” and “yoke” create another scene bordering on the impossible. The sparrow’s wing is loaded onto forty people, yet even a yoke cannot pull it. This continues the chain of illogical actions from previous lines.

Tatçı’s Approach to the Text

In Tatçı’s critical edition, the spellings of “kırk kanlu,” “çift,” and “çekmedi” across manuscripts were compared and standardized. Tatçı noted that the number forty was not chosen arbitrarily but is linked in Sufi literature to the concept of ricâlü’l-gayb, and that commentators have interpreted it accordingly.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

In Niyâzî’s commentary:

• Sparrow is interpreted as a faint feeling, a refined emotion, or a small fragment of the ego within the heart.
• Wing is interpreted as the heart’s capacity for direction.
• Forty carriers is a symbolic number referring to the group of ricâlü’l-gayb. Despite their assistance, the sparrow’s wing cannot be carried, indicating that certain fragments of the ego can only be overcome through personal effort.
• Even the yoke could not pull it signifies that worldly attachments have not been severed and the reins of the ego remain tightly held.

Niyâzî noted in this line that even a seemingly minor fragment of the ego can be so heavy that it cannot be carried by forty enlightened beings.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî interpreted “sparrow” as the smallest desire of the heart and “wing” as the ego’s inclination.

• Forty carriers represent the forty saints.
• Even these saints cannot carry the sparrow’s wing, demonstrating that even subtle desires of the ego carry a heavy burden.

The phrase “çifti dahı çekmedi” symbolizes the dual bonds of illusion and fantasy. Bursevî noted that this scene serves as a warning about the subtle yet powerful bonds of the ego.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation (Süleymaniye Manuscript)

In the Bektashi commentary:

• Forty carriers are explained as the group of forty ricâlü’l-gayb. The commentator noted that these groups have roles in both the outward and inward realms within the Sufi tradition.
• The sparrow’s wing is interpreted as the smallest remaining attachment within the seeker’s ego.

The fact that even this smallest attachment cannot be pulled by the forty indicates that the guidance of the murshid and saints can only extend up to a certain point; the remainder must be resolved solely through the seeker’s own effort.

5. Line

“Bir sinek bir kartalı kaldurup urdı yire

Yalan değül gerçekdür ben de gördüm tozını”

Illustration of Line 5 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Central Symbol in the Line

In this line, a small creature (fly) is juxtaposed with a large, powerful bird (eagle), and it is claimed that the fly struck the eagle to the ground. This creates an illogical scenario consistent with the satirical genre.

Tatçı’s Observations on the Line in the Text

In Tatçı’s study, manuscript comparisons were conducted on the words “fly,” “eagle,” and “dust,” particularly noting variations in the verb “kaldurup urdı.” Tatçı emphasized that this line demonstrates the continuity of the symbolic sequence and has been frequently addressed in classical commentaries.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

In Niyâzî’s commentary:

• Fly is interpreted as a light but inward impulse or minor flaw of the ego.
• Eagle represents the proud, honor-seeking aspect of the ego.

The fly bringing down the eagle shows that even a seemingly minor desire of the ego can possess the power to disrupt a person’s entire spiritual balance.

“Ben de gördüm tozını” is a symbolic expression of a personal experience; in the exegesis tradition, this refers to the experience of the ego.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî interpreted:

• The fly as a minor suspicion or illusion,
• The eagle as a strong claim to selfhood.

The event in this line symbolizes how a minor illusion can affect a person’s entire inner structure. Thus, the eagle falling to the ground is interpreted as the collapse of the person’s claim to status.

The word “toz” here is not the dust raised by the eagle’s fall but a symbolic sign representing the impact of the event.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation

The Bektashi commentator interprets the fly-eagle conflict as follows:

• The fly is a small, uncleaned emotion within the ego.
• The eagle is the person’s inflated claims of high spiritual status.

The commentator interprets the fly bringing down the eagle as indicating that even a minor weakness of the seeker can disrupt all spiritual states along the path. The phrase “tozını gördüm” conveys that the impact of this collapse was felt.

6. Line

“Balık kavağa çıkmış zift turşısın yimege

Leylek koduk toğurmış bak a şunun sözini”

Illustration of Line 6 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Illogical Scenario in the Line

In the sixth line, two scenes contrary to nature are presented: a fish climbing a poplar tree and a stork laying a chicken egg. This is one of the most prominent examples of the poem’s persistent illogical sequence. Additionally, the use of “pitch pickle,” an impossible food, enhances the absurdity.

Tatçı’s Position in the Text

Tatçı showed differences in the spellings of “koduk,” “pitch pickle,” and “climbing the poplar” across manuscripts. The line is evaluated as a classic example of the satirical style, both in its phonetic structure and imagery. Tatçı also noted that this line has served as a source for extensive symbolic interpretations in later commentaries.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

Niyâzî interpreted the elements of this line as follows:

• Fish represents the heart as a seeker of knowledge or one belonging to water.
• Poplar is a tree that bears no fruit, tall and dry; a symbol of an inappropriate path.
• Pitch pickle is a heavy food that does not nourish the spirit; it represents meaningless knowledge or unnecessary rituals.
• Stork is a creature that flies high;
• Chicken is an impossible element because it contradicts the stork’s nature.

Niyâzî provided a symbolic depiction of those who pursue paths incompatible with truth and make claims contrary to their nature.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

According to Bursevî:

• The fish climbing the poplar symbolizes those who seek truth but choose the wrong direction. The fish belongs to water, while the poplar belongs to earth and air.
• The stork laying a chicken egg signifies claims and expectations that transcend nature.

Bursevî interpreted each example in this line as a metaphor for those who make claims about spiritual stations they are not qualified for on the Sufi path.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation

The Bektashi commentator focused on two impossibilities in this line:

1. The fish leaving water and climbing the poplar,
2. The stork giving birth to a creature outside its species.

According to the commentator, this line depicts those who have lost both their direction and purpose on the path. “Pitch pickle” represents a heavy and harsh knowledge or path choice instead of truth. The Bektashi commentary particularly emphasizes claims contrary to nature.

7. Line

“Bir küt ile güreşdüm elsüz ayağum aldı

Güreşüp basamadum göyündürdi özümi”

Illustration of Line 7 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Symbolic System and Action Sequence in the Line

In this line, the poet claims to have wrestled with a formless entity called “küt,” which, despite having no arms, took his feet. He then states that despite wrestling, he could not overpower it; instead, it lifted him to the sky (i.e., disrupted and scattered him). The scene in this line, like those in previous lines, borders on the impossible.

The Line from Tatçı’s Textual Perspective

Tatçı compared the variations in the spellings of “küt,” “göyündürmek,” and “elsüz” across manuscripts and standardized the text. In his critical edition, he emphasized that this line has served as a source for detailed interpretations in the Süleymaniye Bektashi commentary involving ilm-i nücûm and ilm-i cifr.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

In Niyâzî’s commentary:

• Küt is interpreted as an undefined, unstructured, yet powerful aspect within the ego.
• The wrestling with this formless entity represents the struggle with the ego.
• Elsüz ayağum aldı indicates unexpected difficulties arising from an unforeseen direction. The ego has no hands, yet “taking the feet” describes an inner state that destabilizes the person.
• Failing to overcome the struggle and being “göyündürmek” symbolizes the experience that victory in the struggle with the ego is not always attainable.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî:

• Interpreted “küt” as the dark, raw, and formless part of the ego.
• This part of the ego appears weak (without arms) but has unexpected power (“taking the feet”).
• “Cannot step on it” signifies a temporary defeat against the ego’s dominance;
• “Göyündürmek” signifies the disruption of the soul’s balance.

The wrestling described in this line is used by Bursevî to explain the fleeting impact of the ego’s shadowy aspect on the individual.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation (Süleymaniye Manuscript)

In the Bektashi commentary, this line is one of the most extensively interpreted. The commentator interprets the line in the following contexts:

1. Ilm-i Nücûm and Zodiac Calculations

• The commentator associated the expressions in the line with stars and zodiac signs.
• It is noted that the sun is in the Hamel zodiac sign, the sign is considered to have thirty degrees, and human lifespan is calculated as “one hundred twenty years.”
• The line is interpreted in terms of destiny and cosmic order.

2. Ilm-i Cifr Applications

• The numerical values of the words in the line were calculated using abjad numerology and linked to certain events in Ottoman history.
• The commentator interpreted these abjad values in connection with social and military transformations during the reigns of I. Mahmud, III. Mustafa, III. Selim, and II. Mahmud.

3. Symbolic Interpretations

• Küt is interpreted not only as the ego but also as a symbol of difficulties encountered in destiny.
• “Göyündürmek” is explained as a metaphor for both individual and social upheavals.

In the Bektashi commentary, this line is interpreted within a broad framework that intertwines individual-spiritual struggle with historical-social events.

8. Line

“Kâf Tagı’ndan bir taşı şöyle atdılar bana

Öylelik yire düşdi bozayazdı yüzümi”

Illustration of Line 8 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Symbolic Framework Established in the Line

In this line, a stone is thrown from Kâf Mountain and is said to have fallen to the ground with such force that it disfigured the poet’s face. Kâf Mountain is one of the most foundational symbols in Sufi literature.

Tatçı’s Approach to the Text

In Tatçı’s edition, variations in the spelling of “Kâf Tagı’ndan” are noted; in some manuscripts it is written as “Kaf,” in others as “Kâf.” Tatçı reported that this line attracted particular attention in the Bektashi commentary for its historical references.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

According to Niyâzî:

• Kâf Mountain represents a difficult spiritual station to attain.
• The stone thrown from it symbolizes a severe trial.
• The disfigurement of the face is interpreted as the external manifestation of this trial.

Niyâzî interpreted the scene described in this line as a dervish encountering an unexpected hardship.

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

Bursevî used Kâf Mountain to mean “encircling obstacle” and “elevation.”

• The stone from it is described as a state that shakes the person’s spiritual balance.
• The disfigurement of the face is the outward reflection of the heart’s impact.

Bursevî interpreted this line as a depiction of the difficult aspects of ego purification.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation

In the Bektashi commentary, this line is linked to a broad historical framework:

1. Abjad Calculation

• The abjad values of the words in the line were calculated and connected to certain periods in Ottoman history.

2. Interpretation Through Historical Events

• The Celali rebellions, Janissary uprisings, reform movements of III. Selim, and the era of II. Mahmud were linked to the weight of the stone in the line.
• In this context, “disfigurement of the face” is interpreted as a metaphor for periods of social unrest.

3. Symbolic Interpretations

• The distance of Kâf Mountain signifies the degree of difficulty,
• The falling stone signifies an unexpected calamity,
• The disfigurement of the face represents social and individual upheaval.

In this commentary, the line is transformed into both an individual and a historical symbolic tableau.

9. Line

“Gözsüze fısıldadum sağır sözüm işitmiş

Dilsüz çağırup söyler dilümdeki sözümi”

Illustration of Line 9 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Core Structure of the Line

In this line, three separate disabled communication situations are simultaneously employed:

• Whispering to a blind person,
• A deaf person hearing,
• A mute person speaking the words in my tongue.

This creates a new tableau consistent with the illogical chain of previous lines.

The Position of the Line in Tatçı’s Edition

Tatçı identified variations in the spellings of “gözsüz,” “sağır,” and “dilsüz” across manuscripts and noted that this line, together with the final line, prepares the theme of the hidden nature of meaning in the poem.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî’s Interpretation

In Niyâzî’s commentary:

• Blind refers to one deprived of outward perception.
• Deaf symbolizes one who refuses to listen or fails to understand the message.
• Mute represents a state that lacks expressive power but can convey inner meanings.

The situation described in this line is explained in Sufism as the “transition from heart to heart.”

İsmail Hakkı Bursevî’s Interpretation

According to Bursevî:

• The blind cannot hear; yet the contradiction here is a sign of inner communication.
• The deaf hearing indicates that meaning can be conveyed through channels other than outward ones.
• The mute speaking signifies divine inspiration.

Bursevî associated the impossibilities in this line with the stages of development in the dervish’s inner world.

Bektashi Commentator’s Interpretation

In the Bektashi commentary, this line is interpreted as a depiction of the inner communication among those on the path:

• The blind is one without consent,
• The deaf is one whose heart has not been opened,
• The mute is one who possesses the inner realm.

The simultaneous activation of these three elements conveys that meaning is transmitted not through outward channels but through inner connections.

10. Line

“Bir öküz bogazladum kakıldum sere kodum

Öküz ıssı geldi eydür boğazladun kazumı”

Illustration of Line 10 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Position of the Line in the Poem’s Internal Structure

This line continues the logic of impossibility and contradiction established in previous lines. In earlier lines, impossible scenes such as “eating grapes on a plum branch,” “boiling clay,” “a fly bringing down an eagle,” and “a fish climbing a poplar” are presented in a chain. In this tenth line, a similar contradiction is established: the poet claims to have slaughtered an ox, openly displayed it, and “set it on display”; yet the ox’s owner objects, saying, “You slaughtered my goose.” Thus, the inconsistency between action and consequence, cause and claim, is repeated.

This structure is based on the general contradiction in the poem, continuing the defining characteristic of the satirical genre: “distorting appearances” and “suspending ordinary reasoning.”

Tatçı’s Textual Edition

In Tatçı’s edition, the line is presented with variations across manuscripts, particularly noting differences in the forms “bogazladum/bogazladun,” and the spelling and vocalization of “sere kodum.” As in his critical method, the manuscript chosen as the basis is indicated, with variant readings noted in footnotes. Thus, the verb sequence and personal pronouns in this line have been standardized.

As in the entire poem, Tatçı focused on standardizing the text rather than on commentary, leaving the interpretive field primarily to classical commentaries and symbolic readings. The terms and verbs in this line are presented as part of a chain of impossibilities connected to previous lines.

Classical Commentators’ Symbolic Approach

In classical commentaries, the ox and the goose are interpreted on two distinct levels:

• The ox is seen as a symbol of the physical, worldly, or passionate nature.
• The goose represents a lighter, yet still worldly, benefit—the “share that comes to the table.”

Accordingly:

• The phrase “Bir öküz boğazladum” indicates a struggle against the coarse aspect of the ego and an attempt to eliminate a heavy burden.
• The phrase “Öküz ıssı geldi eydür boğazladun kazumı” describes the misrepresentation of the true nature of the action—that while the struggle was against a heavy egoic element, it was falsely presented as a minor dispute over a trivial benefit.

In the commentaries, this scene symbolizes the seeker’s encounter with external accusations while struggling with his own ego, and the devaluation of his ascetic efforts. A heavy egoic burden is removed, yet the external gaze reduces it to a petty quarrel over a goose. Thus, the difference between the true nature of the action and its external portrayal is revealed.

Bektashi Commentary and Emphasis on the Rights of the Disciple

In the Bektashi tradition, this line is also interpreted in the context of the rights of the disciple. The explicit slaughter of the ox and its “display” indicate that the action was not hidden but performed openly. Yet the ox’s owner’s claim about the goose is interpreted as a false accusation that inverts the truth. The commentator interprets this tableau as:

• The misunderstanding of actions taken by the murshid toward the mürid,
• Judging the inner purpose based on outward actions.

Thus, in this tenth line, the intense struggle for ego purification is criticized for being reduced by outsiders to a petty conflict over benefit.

11. Line

“Uğrulık yapdum ana bühtân eyledi bana

Bir çerçi geldi eydür kanı aldun gözgümi”

Illustration of Line 11 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Narrative Structure of the Line and Its Relation to the Previous Line

In the tenth line, an action was wrongly attributed to an object (ox–goose). In this eleventh line, the accusation is escalated further: the poet admits to having committed “theft,” yet immediately claims, “he accused me falsely.” Then a “çerçi” enters the scene and demands his “mirror” (gözgü), introducing a new accusation.

Thus:

• The inconsistency between action and accusation,
• The difference between the true nature of the accusation and its external portrayal,
• The preparation of the theme of “seeing oneself” through the mirror are all interwoven in this single line.

Elements in the Line from Tatçı’s Edition

In Tatçı’s edition, the words “uğrulık,” “bühtân,” “çerçi,” and “gözgü” are analyzed within the lexicon of Old Anatolian Turkish, with appropriate dictionary equivalents provided. In the critical text, variations such as “gözgümi/gözgümü” were determined by comparing manuscripts, and the entry of the “çerçi” is linked to the previous line.

Tatçı emphasized standardizing the word forms, particularly clarifying variants such as “uğru/uğri/uğrı,” to make the line comprehensible to readers. Thus, the narrative in this line was stabilized to serve as a foundation for classical commentaries.

Commentators’ Approach to the Concepts of Theft and False Accusation

In classical commentaries:

• Theft is interpreted as a symbolic act related to the ego. The seeker is metaphorically “stealing” something from the ego—preventing it from being taken from the realm of truth. From this perspective, although the act of theft appears as a sin externally, internally it is interpreted as an intervention against the ego.
• False Accusation is interpreted as slander directed at the bearer of truth. According to commentators, such false accusations were often directed at those who carried meaning, while their true intentions and actions were misrepresented.

In the line “Bir çerçi geldi eydür kanı aldun gözgümi”:

• The “çerçi” is symbolized as a traveling merchant who carries a mirror to show others their own image.
• The mirror (gözgü) has become one of the fundamental symbols in Sufi tradition, representing the clarity of the heart and its capacity to reflect divine manifestations.

The commentators interpret this line as:

• The “çerçi” seeking his mirror symbolizes the loss of the heart’s clarity,
• The accusation of theft symbolizes the slander directed at the one who cleanses the heart’s mirror.

Thus, elements that were meant to cleanse the heart were perceived by the external gaze as “stealing the mirror.” Consequently, efforts toward heart purification became the subject of slander.

Bektashi Commentary and the Interpretation of Seyr ü Sülûk

In the Bektashi commentary, the triad of “çerçi–mirror–theft” is linked to the stages of seyr ü sülûk. The “çerçi” is envisioned as one on the path who, with his mirror, reflects both himself and others. The mirror is interpreted as a symbol reminding participants in cem ceremonies and spiritual gatherings of how hearts reflect one another.

The commentator draws attention in this line to the danger that those on the path may misunderstand or even accuse one another during their struggle with the ego. Thus, the eleventh line assumes the form of a warning both regarding ego accounting and intra-tariqa relationships.

12. Line

“Tosbagaya uğradum gözsüzsepek yoldaşı

Sordum sefer kancaru Kayserî’ye ‘azîmi”

Illustration of Line 12 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Construction of the Scene in the Line

In the twelfth line, the poet claims to have encountered a tortoise. The tortoise is accompanied by a “blind” and a “sepek yoldaşı.” Then the direction of the journey is asked, and “azim to Kayseri” is mentioned. Thus:

• A slow-moving animal (tortoise),
• Blindness, the deprivation of sight,
• Sepek (dog) and companionship,
• A concrete place name, Kayseri, and “azim” (setting out on a journey) are all brought together in this single line.

This structure continues the “illogical journey tableau” established from the beginning of the poem, yet now it is combined with a real city name (Kayseri). This creates both a symbolic and a geographical layer simultaneously.

Tatçı’s Edition and Manuscript Variations

In Tatçı’s edition, variations in spellings such as “tosbaga/tosbağa,” “sepek/sebek,” and “‘azîmi/azim ider” are shown, with particular attention paid to the spelling of the place name (Kayserî). In the critical text, the spelling of the city name in each manuscript is noted in footnotes where necessary, eliminating ambiguity regarding the geographical element.

Additionally, the possible interpretations of the phrase “gözsüz sepek yoldaşı”—whether it means “blind, dog companion” or “blind-dog, companion”—are discussed, and Tatçı offers a preferred reading.

Commentary on the Symbols of Tortoise, Blindness, and Dog

In classical commentaries:

• Tortoise, as a very slow-moving animal that retreats into its shell and lives close to the ground, symbolizes the ego bound to the world, heavy and sluggish in movement. Such an ego is imagined as a structure that remains motionless for long periods and takes slow steps on the path of spiritual training.
• Blind represents one who has lost the capacity to perceive truth and cannot distinguish between outward and inward.
• Sepek (dog) in Sufi literature sometimes symbolizes the barking aspect of the ego, and at other times the guardian of thresholds.

The fact that the tortoise, the blind, and the dog are mentioned together as “companions” is interpreted as a depiction of a group that cannot perceive truth, is attached to desires, and moves heavily on the path. Commentators describe this scene as the condition of those who do not progress on seyr ü sülûk, live within their shells, and have neither sight nor an open heart.

Interpretation of the Phrase “Azim to Kayseri”

The line “Kayserî’ye ‘azîmi” is interpreted in two dimensions by the commentators:

1. Outward dimension: As a real city name, Kayseri signifies a specific direction within Anatolian geography. This reading introduces a contrast by adding a concrete place name to the otherwise illogical elements of the satire.
2. Inner dimension: The name Kayseri is associated through “kayser/kayserî” with connotations of worldly sovereignty, power, and material strength. Thus, the caravan composed of the tortoise, the blind, and the dog is portrayed as a group oriented toward worldly goals rather than true spiritual journeying.

In the Bektashi commentary, the term “azim” is interpreted as a Sufi term indicating determination to set out on the path, yet it is emphasized that the direction of this determination being worldly symbolizes a misdirection of seyr ü sülûk. Thus, the twelfth line depicts a journey misdirected toward the wrong goal, carried out with slowness and blindness.

13. Line

“Yûnus bir söz söylemiş hiçbir söze benzemez

Münâfıklar elinden örter mana yüzini”

Illustration of Line 13 (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

The Poem Interpreting Itself

The final line directly refers to the entire poem and the exegesis tradition. Yûnus states that his utterance “resembles no other saying,” thereby explicitly pointing to the unusual logical structure of the previous lines. This statement announces the satirical character of the text from within.

In the second line, “Münâfıklar elinden örter mana yüzini” indicates that the poem’s meaning will not be equally accessible to all. This emphasis has been a crucial turning point both within the Sufi understanding of the period and in subsequent exegesis traditions.

Tatçı’s Edition and the Final Line

In Tatçı’s edition, the final line is considered within the integrity of the poem, particularly in relation to the differences between complete and incomplete manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain fewer lines, or the final line is missing or arranged differently; Tatçı completed the text with this line.

The phrases “hiçbir söze benzemez” and “mana yüzini örter” are interpreted by Tatçı as a self-definition of the poem’s genre and content. Yûnus’s line distinguishes his speech from ordinary didactic utterances.

Other Commentators’ Approach to the Final Line

When evaluating the commentaries of İsmail Yakıt, İsmail Hakkı Bursevî, Niyâzî-i Mısrî, and Şeyhzâde together, this final line is treated as a central sentence. According to them:

• Elements such as plum, grape, hull, clay, garden, fish, and climbing the poplar in the earlier lines have received different symbolic interpretations in various commentaries.
• These differences are seen as a consequence of the phrase “hiçbir söze benzemez”; that is, the poem possesses a multilayered symbolic structure that cannot be confined to a single mold.

Niyâzî-i Mısrî, while commenting on the poem, occasionally incorporated his own spiritual experiences, using a sometimes harsher and sometimes gentler style. In the Berlin Buyruk manuscript, it was noted that the copyist sometimes altered these expressions, yet the emphasis on “mana yüzini örtme” in the final line preserved the overall framework.

Şeyhzâde and Bursevî interpreted the word “münâfıklar” not only in theological terms but also as referring to insincere, formalistic, and outwardly attached individuals, asserting that the face of meaning remains hidden from such minds. Thus, the final line is interpreted as both a boundary and a protective veil for the poem’s meaning.

Peyami Safa Gülay, within the framework of modern textual theories, assigned a special place to this line, attempting to demonstrate how different commentaries opened the same text to multiple meanings. Thus, Yûnus’s final line is interpreted not only in classical Sufi exegesis but also in contemporary theoretical readings as an “veil of meaning.”