Shamans and Charlatans: Assessing Castaneda's Legacy
When it was published in 1968, Carlos Castaneda’s groundbreaking ethnographic diary, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, received enthusiastic reviews from both the academic community and mainstream critics. Castaneda enjoyed immediate success and went on to write a series of sequels chronicling his apprenticeship to Don Juan Matus, a Yaqui Indian and sorcerer from Sonora, Mexico. Combining anthropological observations with engrossing storytelling, The Teachings of Don Juan represented to many scholars an exciting new methodology in ethnographic literature, inspiring praise from such figures as Margaret Mead and Yaqui scholar Edward H. Spicer, who called the text a “remarkable achievement.”[1] The doctoral committee at UCLA echoed Spicer’s esteem for Castaneda, awarding him a Ph.D. in 1972 for his third book, Journey to Ixtlan.
With fame came scrutiny, however, and the celebrity anthropologist soon met with controversy that would span his entire career. Questions emerged over the existence of Don Juan, Castaneda's representation of Yaqui culture, and the basic authenticity of The Teachings as academics, scientists, and authors identified dubious elements in Castaneda’s ethnography. Today, almost four decades after the book appeared and ten years since its author’s death, the legacy of The Teachings of Don Juan is as much about the consequences of its debated legitimacy as it is about Carlos Castaneda himself.
Richard de Mille, son of Hollywood director Cecil B. de Mille, wrote two books on Castaneda’s published works and was one of his earliest and most outspoken detractors. De Mille argued that Don Juan and his teachings are wholly counterfeit. He presented a scathing indictment of academic malpractice, charging that the UCLA faculty and the University Press should be held accountable for a spurious work of scholarship.
A major point of contention among Castaneda’s critics is the conspicuous absence of evidence to support his claims that he actually did know and study under a Yaqui sorcerer named Don Juan. When a university publishes an account of anthropological fieldwork, it is standard practice to require tangible proofs that the fieldwork actually took place. With The Teachings of Don Juan, argues De Mille, this verification was never made. He claims that basic support materials “did not exist either, except in Castaneda’s highly developed imagination.”[2] De Mille suggests that the book was ultimately printed as a rebellious statement from marginalized sectors of the UCLA intelligentsia against more punctilious rivals. In addition, the university press likely saw in Castaneda’s narrative a viable new youth market: wild-eyed denizens of the mushrooming counterculture, hungry for psychedelic yarns of Mexican Indians and peyote trips.
Regardless of the actual details of publication, the book did exceptionally well in both popular and scholarly markets, achieving unlikely success for a work shelved as anthropology. In addition to its scientific classification, The Teachings of Don Juan bears the authoritative sub-heading, "A Yaqui Way of Knowledge." Many critics find fault with this title, noting that the character of Don Juan bears no resemblance to a Yaqui Indian. Spicer, the anthropologist whose positive review lent early and enduring credibility to the text, admits in the same article that it is “wholly gratuitous to emphasize, as the subtitle does, any connection between the subject matter of the book and the cultural traditions of the Yaquis.”[3]
Although Don Juan is explicitly named as a Yaqui, Castaneda offers no details throughout the narrative to support this claim, and in fact depicts him engaging in activities associated with markedly dissimilar Indian cultures. Don Juan’s use of peyote, datura, and psychotropic mushrooms, for example, is completely divergent from Yaqui tradition and more closely resembles Huichol and Navajo ritual practices. Spicer theorizes that Don Juan, while perhaps of Yaqui descent, is more likely a cultural composite of various Indian and mestizo influences; the subtitle, he assumes, was probably the work of a “publisher [that] went beyond Castaneda’s intention.”[4]
Spicer is not the only Castaneda critic with relevant scientific experience. Revered ethno-mycologist and early psychedelics proponent Gordon Wasson read The Teachings soon after its publication and wasted little time composing a letter to Castaneda. Wasson’s questions, while politely worded, were directed to clear up what he felt to be anomalies in the mushroom rituals depicted in the book. The notoriously candid Castaneda responded with uncharacteristic eagerness, no doubt excited to correspond with the man whose seminal writings on hallucinogenic fungi were a formative influence for him. Yet his replies, as paraphrased in De Mille’s The Don Juan Papers, are curiously vague and evasive. Most interesting is his answer to Wasson’s inquiries about Don Juan’s ethnic origin; in response, Castaneda revises the rough biography offered in The Teachings, explaining that the sorcerer is “not a pure Yaqui” and therefore cannot be situated culturally, “except in a guessing manner.”[5]
As for the subtitle, Castaneda maintains that it was added per suggestion of the University Press who, prior to reading his manuscript, insisted on its inclusion to help categorize the book. To imply that Don Juan is representative of all Yaquis, he says, was never his intention. This admission stands in stark contrast to a comment made by the associate editor of the University Press who, in a letter to De Mille, states, “The title of Castaneda’s book and the entire text are the work of the author.”[6] It seems then that Castaneda himself erroneously labeled his work as an exposition of a “Yaqui way of knowledge,” and purposely so – but for what reason? De Mille suggests that, in aligning the book with a relatively obscure Indian tribe, Castaneda not only ascribed a scientific legitimacy to his account, but also sought to fashion a “kind of red man no one had ever met,” and in so doing, corner the market on a new pop-cultural archetype.[7]
With the overt nature of the subtitle in effect, whatever Don Juan teaches throughout the text becomes a “Yaqui way of knowledge” by default. It is then unnecessary for Castaneda to prove Don Juan’s “Yaqui-ness” to his readers (unless of course, those readers happen to be Yaqui scholars, in which case he relies on clever obfuscation). In the “Introduction” to The Teachings, for example, Don Juan’s provenance is described quite briefly, and in rather broad terms:
“All he said was that he had been born in the Southwest in 1891; that he had spent nearly all his life in Mexico; that in 1900 his family was exiled by the Mexican government to Central Mexico along with thousands of other Sonoran Indians.”
The “Yaqui Diaspora” is well documented in the historical record, and little is offered in the way of authentication with this short synopsis. Careful to avoid pigeonholing Don Juan into any recognizable ethnicity, Castaneda further muddies the image of his Indian with a caveat acknowledging the sorcerer’s murky heritage: “I was not sure,” he maintains, “whether to place the context of his knowledge totally in the culture of the Sonoran Indians. But it is not my intention here to determine his precise cultural milieu.”
Prefacing the book with this disclaimer, Castaneda effectively shields his ethnography from charges of misrepresentation and fashions his depiction of the “Yaqui” sorcerer in such a manner as to render the Indian cultureless – or as Spicer phrases it, suspended in “cultural limbo.” Don Juan’s origin is thus couched in ambiguity and skillfully blurred, rendering him both inoffensive to discerning critics and appealingly enigmatic to the lay reader.
However innocuous his presentation might appear, Don Juan nevertheless aroused the suspicions of more skeptical readers who exposed further aberrations in Castaneda’s work. As the series progressed, many critics observed glaring discrepancies in the details and chronologies of events, as well as a general drift in tone from scholarly observation towards more whimsical storytelling. Yet even with his first book, Castaneda's literary techniques invited some serious scrutiny. The Teachings of Don Juan is allegedly a translation of the anthropologist’s field notes from Spanish to English, with occasional bracketed asides imparting the polyglot Indian’s original dialogue. Why is it then, wondered some critics, that Don Juan tutors Carlos solely in their lingua franca – especially when certain concepts would doubtless be more genuinely articulated in his native tongue?
The conspicuous absence of Yaqui terminology in the text raised the eyebrows of more than one scholar in Castaneda’s audience, and prominent critics such as Spicer, Wasson, and De Mille sounded the alarm to this anomaly. In his letter to Carlos, Wasson inquires whether he managed to gather any Yaqui translations of the recurring philosophical terms Don Juan uses in his teachings. Castaneda replies that he has, indeed, learned a few Yaqui words but is loath to expound further on the issue. De Mille is far less congenial in his disputation, pointing out that the young anthropologist apparently “learned not one word of Yaqui during his first five years with Don Juan,” and then in later writings, makes reference to only two, rather commonplace terms.[8]
Spanish expressions abound, on the other hand, as Castaneda repeatedly employs the words “brujo” and “diablero” to denote those experienced in the knowledge of Yaqui sorcery. Conveniently for Castaneda, “brujo” is sometimes used in Yaqui culture to refer to dabblers in black magic. The nature of sorcery as practiced by Don Juan, however, differs strikingly from that traditionally understood to exist in Yaqui society. Anthropologist Muriel Thayer Painter notes that, according to Yaqui belief, those persons that practice witchcraft (i.e., sorcery) are timorous and feeble – both traits utterly incongruous with Don Juan’s depiction as a man who has “vanquished fear” and is remarkably fit, “despite his advanced age.” Furthermore, the knowledge of witchcraft is thought by the Yaquis to be “an inborn quality,” a power that cannot be taught or inherited. This statement directly contradicts Castaneda’s accounts of the art of Yaqui sorcery as a cycle of apprenticeship handed down across generations from a “benefactor” to his “chosen man.”
In her book With Good Heart: Yaqui Beliefs and Ceremonies in Pascua Village, Painter presents a sampling of Yaqui vocabulary associated with spirituality: “morea,” an equivalent to the Spanish brujo; “saurino,” used to describe persons with the gift of divination; and “seataka,” or spiritual power, a word which is “fundamental to Yaqui thought and life.”[9] It is indeed hard to believe that Castaneda's benefactor, a self-professed Yaqui, would fail to employ these native expressions throughout the apprenticeship. In omitting such intrinsically relevant terms from his ethnography, Castaneda critically undermines his portrait of Don Juan as a bona fide Yaqui sorcerer.
Linguistic concerns aside, the Indian depicted in The Teachings of Don Juan departs from traditional Yaqui behavior in other significant ways, most notably in his usage of entheogenic plants such as peyote and psilocybe mushrooms. As Spicer and several others have argued, Don Juan’s psychedelic forays are “not consistent with our ethnographic knowledge of the Yaquis.” His exploits do, however, resemble those of Native American tribes like the Huichols who have a well-documented history of peyote consumption. Anthropologist and outspoken Castaneda critic Jay Courtney Fikes spent several years embedded in a community of Chapalagana Huichols during which time he became intimately acquainted with shamanism and the ritual practices of Mexican Indians. Once a fan of Castaneda’s work, Fikes soon grew disillusioned with what he viewed as outright caricatures of Huichol culture.
In his 1993 book Carlos Castaneda, Academic Opportunism, and the Psychedelic Sixties, Fikes explains how the character of Don Juan was likely modeled on Ramon Medina Silva, the Huichol shaman popularized by the ethnographic studies of Peter Furst and Barbara Myerhoff. These anthropologists were UCLA graduates and peers of Castaneda, and there is convincing evidence that Ramon and Carlos had actually met prior to the publication of The Teachings. A dramatic waterfall leap performed by Silva, allegedly with Castaneda as a witness, finds a curious parallel in his second book, A Separate Reality, wherein a companion of Don Juan performs similar “supernatural” feats at a waterfall. Further complicating the matter, Fikes also disputes the veracity of Furst and Myerhoff’s ethnography, noting that the Huichol shamanic practices they detail are at odds with his own findings. In developing his account of Don Juan, suggests Fikes, Castaneda likely plagiarized from his classmates a distorted portrayal of Huichol culture in the character of Silva, and unscrupulously applied it to his fictional Yaqui sorcerer, thus perpetuating the misrepresentation of Native Americans across cultural boundaries.
The effect of this caricaturing is two-fold: first, as De Mille and Fikes bemoan, erroneous ethnographic research is quite difficult to remove from the anthropological record once canonized. By accepting such questionable documents as authenticated knowledge, the truth about indigenous peoples becomes diluted with misinformation and (perhaps more lamentable) the halls of academia are tarnished with the elevation of charlatans to pedestals of high esteem. Indeed, as he remarks in his “Introduction,” Fikes heard “nothing but praise” for Castaneda’s first four books in his graduate studies at the University of Michigan in 1975, despite their disputed validity.[10]
Second, the misrepresentation of the Yaqui people as portrayed by Castaneda negatively impacts Native American culture as a whole. In order to assess this detrimental influence of Don Juan and his teachings, one must consider the social context into which he was born. The decade colorfully referred to as the “psychedelic sixties,” with its adherence to counterculture ideology and self-exploration through drug use, was an era ripe for an iconic figure such as Don Juan to materialize.
As The Teachings of Don Juan introduced thousands of psychedelically-inclined readers to its mysterious sage, the deserts of Mexico were subsequently inundated with droves of “Don Juan seekers” determined to find, and be enlightened by, the elusive sorcerer. Anthropologist Jane Holden Kelley reports the harassment of Pascuan Yaquis during the 1970s by “long-haired hippies” in search of Castaneda’s muse. Seizing an opporunity, the crafty villagers played along, divesting the deluded youths of money, booze, and cigarettes before they realized they had been duped.[11]
It was not the Yaquis, however, but the Huichols who bore the brunt of the hippie influx throughout the seventies. As Fikes explains, the Yaquis “offer relatively little to guru-seekers” since they do not use psychedelics and are somewhat “more acculturated” than the peyote-ingesting Huichols. He relates accounts of traditional Huichols “harassed, jailed, shot at, and almost murdered by guru-seekers” and offers an anecdote depicting the attempted stabbing of his Huichol “father” by a gringo peyote hunter. These incidents grew more infrequent with time, but the lasting impact of The Teachings on Native Americans, asserts Fikes, lies in the marketing of the Don Juan archetype.
New Age “shamans” modeled on Castaneda’s sorcerer exist in abundance in today’s society. Offering travel packages to psychedelic meccas, these pseudo-shamans profit from the misappropriation of rituals and liturgical objects sacred to Native American religions. While some operations offer legitimate and conscientious experiences of traditional shamanism, others are little more than opportunistic scams. As Fikes contends, such shameless exploitation trivializes “Huichol, Yaqui, or any Native American culture by masking or ignoring its true genius.” Furthermore, these profiteers increase the Western fascination with psychedelic drugs such as peyote, bringing unwanted government attention to authentic Native American practices.
A New York Times article from July 23, 1970 describes the plight of Oaxacan Indians suffering from the flood of American “mushroom addicts” and the subsequent crackdown by Mexican authorities; once considered a “great medicine,” the fungi are now contraband in Oaxaca.[12] In the United States, similar legislative measures currently threaten Native Americans' religious freedom. The Smith vs. Oregon decision of the Supreme Court, for instance, banned the ritual use of peyote among members of the Native American Church from 1990 until its repeal in 1993. Within a “War on Drugs” political climate, the mystique engendered by Don Juan and his imitators represents a real and direct threat to the “special rights” Native American cultures have been granted in American society.
Most troublingly, the fallout from nearly four decades of Castaneda-inspired drug tourism in Mexico now threatens to wipe out some indigenous shamanic cultures entirely. According to a recent National Public Radio report, the rampant, unsustainable harvesting of peyote by foreigners and drug traffickers from the desert surrounding Real de Catorce has placed the slow-growing cactus in danger of vanishing from the region. The area is held sacred by the Huichol who regularly pass through the north Mexican desert on shamanic pilgrimages. Once thriving in abundance along their route, the peyote cactus has become increasingly scarce, prompting the Indians to lobby the government for protection of the holy site. If the peyote disappears, so does the unique knowledge system of one of Mexico's most vital remaining tribal cultures.[13]
* * *
Carlos Castaneda reemerged in the public eye in the early nineties espousing the virtues of a meditation technique he named Tensegrity, after a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller. Consisting of movements called “magical passes” (allegedly the lost knowledge of Mexican shamans in the lineage of Don Juan Matus), this discipline was taught by the author himself to devotees at exorbitantly priced seminar-workshops. Castaneda had, in effect, fulfilled the Don Juan archetype, adopting the role of pseudo-shaman as identified by Fikes. His death in 1998 was followed by the release of his final book, The Active Side of Infinity, rounding off the Castaneda oeuvre at an impressive thirteen titles. Along with a multi-million dollar estate, the anthropologist-guru left behind him the legacy of a successful career marred by charges of academic fraud and opportunism.
His seminal achievement, The Teachings of Don Juan, has been simultaneously embraced and vilified since its appearance, yet its influence cannot be overstated. Richard de Mille once speculated: “Is Carlos’ multistaged confessional narrative the next step in the history of ethnography, or … a further development in the novel, an ultimate fiction?” Although the answer remains to be seen, almost forty years later it is evident that Castaneda’s work of “ethnography and allegory” has had an indelible effect – for better or worse – on the way the Western world interprets entheogens and Native American culture.
Notes:
[1] Edward H. Spicer as quoted in Daniel Noel, Seeing Castaneda (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1976) 31-32.
[2] Richard De Mille, The Don Juan Papers (Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson Publishers, 1980) p 19.
[3] Spicer as quoted in Noel, Seeing Castaneda 32.
[4] Noel 32.
[5] De Mille, The Don Juan Papers 324.
[6] Ibid, 325.
[7] Richard de Mille, Castaneda’s Journey (Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 1976) 78.
[8] Ibid, 52.
[9] Muriel Thayer Painter, With Good Heart: Yaqui Beliefs and Ceremonies in Pascua Village (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986) 11, 43-44.
[10] Jay Courtney Fikes, Carlos Castaneda, Academic Opportunism, and the Psychedelic Sixties (Victoria: Millenia Press, 1993).
[11] Jane Holden Kelley as quoted in De Mille, The Don Juan Papers 33.
[12] Reuters, "Hippies Flocking to Mexico for Mushroom 'Trips'" The New York Times Thursday 23 July 1970: A3-A4.
[13] Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, "Mexico's Peyote Endangered by 'Drug Tourists'," (National Public Radio, 2007), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14064806 (accessed on January 10, 2008).
Image credit: "Homage to Don Juan" by True2Source, used under Creative Commons license
Tweet- 1-10-08
- ST Frequency's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Nice work.
The Don and Mr C
A fascinating piece, very well written.
If your interested I have written a piece on my relationship with Carlos & Don Juan in the Forum here at R.S.
The thing that I find suprising is that so many people seem to have missed the point about Don Juan that is made very clear in the books. He may be (or not) of Yaqui origin, but he does not claim that anything he does is from their traditions.
He cleary lives outside of any tribal society and all of his fellowship is made up of people from disparate origins. Some are Indians some are not, several are from former urban modern lives. At no point did I get the sense we were reading about the traditional practices of Yaqui or Huichols or any recognised indigenous Indian group. How anyone got that idea is beyond me (unless they never read past the subtitle).
It is mentiones that the old sorcerors of the tradition of Don Juan were dark sorcerers from Aztec and Mayan sounding roots, but yet again it is always clear these people exist outside of known groups.
Its a tradition of a certain magic path, not a legacy of an ethnic group!
"Become a detective of existence" - Prem Wat
For Those Who Check Not The RS Forum Area
This is the long winded post I wrote some time ago on Carlos and his work in relation to my own journey:
http://www.realitysandwich.com/much_loved_much_despised_legacy_zero_card_carlos_castenada"Become a detective of existence" - Prem Wat
p.s. Check out my new site 2012rising.com
Toltec tradition
Zeitgeist, revisited...
I do realize where you're coming from with this, Richard. I can actually see some interesting parallels to the controversy surrounding the movie Zeitgeist, that takes liberties with its facts in order to "wake up" its viewers to the abuses of dominator culture. While some might consider the veracity of Castaneda's work inconsequential against the positive social changes he inspired, as you can see, there are always undesirable consequences to misrepresenting "truth."
Whether the ends justify the means, of course, depends on who you ask... :)
-st
More Good and Bad
Thanks ST for another cogent article on the theme of fact versus fiction and how it applies to the broadening of consciousness we've been participating in for the last 50-odd years.
I feel acutely the downside from the nebulous and muddled way Castenada represented his writing. Part of this may be generational. If I grew up in the "plastic numbness of post-WWII America," as Richard Merrick describes it, I would probably have a greater appreciation for the wake-up call he sounded. But I didn't. I grew up in a society which, to my mind, had a hangover from the oft-reckless over-reaching of a counter-culture that made countless miscalculations and errors of judgement.
I have officially grown tired with the argument that the very ambiguity of the narrative is part of the message (Yes, ST, echos of Zeitgeist here). I don't contest that there is value in that sentiment, but it is too often used as a rationalism to cloak other agendas, in Castenada's case (likely ) commercial opportunism, lack of rigor in inquiry, self-aggrandizement.
I have great appreciation for much of Castenada's message, but to get to that place I had to first wrestle with my own aversion. Most of my peers couldn't get past it. I remember conversations discussing Castenada with other young, intelligent, open-minded people (these conversations occurred mostly in the late-80s early 90s) who dismissed him or were repelled by what they saw as the lack of forthright intellectual honesty. We were people who might have taken a friction-less shine to Castenada's material if he had been clearer that his work was, borrowing Daniel Pinchbecks term, a thought-experiment or similar. This type of irresponsible, narcissistic free-wheeling of the intellect is what kept me away from anything resembling the whiff of counter-culture for a good long time, to my detriment. And so the hangover continued.
The thing that initially attracted me to Daniel's writing and keeps me interested in Reality Sandwich is the investigation of these myriad topics of consciousness, magic, esoterica, et. al. without the forfeiting of one's critical faculties. Castenada may have been a bold and intrepid pioneer but recognizing and digesting the mistakes he made is a vitally important element of the discussion we have about such thinkers.
Clarification
Richard, I do agree that one cannot lay blame on any single individual or even a generation for the sum total of the over-reaching that occurred during in the 60s. We are inescapably the product of our times and I am the last person in the world to lay judgment on anyone. I do not consider Castanada (correct spelling this time) to be an archetype of anything, as I think we are all individuals with our own foibles and peccadillos and should be treated as such, as you suggest. That he is typical of many of the people who over-reached is probably more to the point. I worried that you might take my comments to be critical of your post in particular, as I quoted you. In fact I agree with what you stated almost entirely and also with what you say here. My point is that examining and analysing these thinkers with our critical faculties deserves equal time within a community of people who also find great value in his ideas.
I sense in your words also this thought: that if we reduce the argument to generation-baiting, we're getting off topic and probably walking down a not-too-productive path and my post is probably guilty of that. Some of that is frustration that healthy criticism doesn't get as much play in many of these discussions as I would prefer. Some is my own baggage with particular individuals of the counter-cultural sixties (note: not the generation as a whole - I don't know everyone in that generation). However, I do think that there was a cost incurred by many of the fevered egos of that time that is concomitant with the good that they did. And so I think there is work to be done to sort it all out, and that means exercising perhaps a bit of fervent criticism with our enthusiasm.
Comparatively speaking
Let me give this analogy. A lot of people who frequent this website do so because they look up to Daniel Pinchbeck as a sort of inheritor or leader of the psychedelic "conscsiousness" movement of today.
He has made no claim to being a scientist or apprentice of anyone, but what if his descriptions of his Bwiti initiation or his experiences in the Mexican mountains with mushrooms, or his Ayuhuasca adventure in the Amazon caused everyone to suddenly go to these places and seek out Daniel's experiences for their own?
So far as I know this hasn't happened. But it could. How can anyone know what they write, rather posed as fiction or fact, will have a detrimental effect on anything.
Blame the weak minded idiots who went out searching for Don Juan and Peyote for the terrible things that happened to the indigenous peoples and their customs, not the writer.
Blaming a writer for what he writes is equivolent to censorship.
Neither Carlos nor Daniel told anyone to go out and seek their paths. The weak minded people who read these works should find their own way. And the critics should go after the weak minded people who follow to the letter the writings of people trying to convey in words experiences that mostly defy explanation.
I too have read all of Castaneda's works, except for "Magical Passes" and the post mordem one, and loved the stories. It doesn't matter if it is real or not. If it causes a person to think or have a life altering thought or experience, then it's real.
I've read both of Pinchbeck's works as well, and have also been touched by them. Whether they are completely true or not or symbolic or fictitious doesn't matter. Words are only symbols of objects and experiences and ideas. How we interperet and use the symbolic knowledge of these writings is all that matters.
BTW check out this website for more Carlos Castaneda information or disinformation.
Discreditation
Adam,
To expand on your analogy: Daniel Pinchbeck presented "Breaking Open the Head" to the public as a non-fiction book, to my mind a form of journalism. Imagine if then, under scrutiny, it became clear that he likely never attended a Bwiti initiation, conducted interviews with modern-day shamans or never attended Burning Man. So the book contains all of these interesting ideas still, but the attribution and original source of these ideas (creative as opposed to actual) is misrepresented.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that people are going to make misinformed impulsive decisions no matter what they read or consume. I don't think Castaneda (please let this be the correct spelling this time) is responsible for any single person's actions. That's part of living in a free society - we have great liberty of expression and we aren't ultimately responsible for how others react to our speech (notwithstanding that whole "the theater is on fire" magillah). I don't really care about what "corrupting influence" Castaneda may or may not have been. What I do care about is the bringing of clarity to a distortion of the truth, in the sense that writing presented as fact, if knowingly distorted, becomes a lie. Once this occurs, it mars the expressed idea by misdirecting us from its true, original source. Lies presented as fiction are beautiful things and are at the heart of all great storytelling. Lies as fact discredit the source. Yes, there's a lot of bleed-through there, but vigilance on that distinction is necessary for full understanding of any subject.
If Daniel Pinchbeck's words were revealed as lies it would be deeply painful to me but would by perforce cast a broad shadow of doubt on his ideas. Which would be all to the good, because in order to understand all of the fuzziness and liquidity of consciousness it is essential to continually take barometric readings of the truth.
In the interest of defusing
In the interest of defusing the specter of generational warfare that I helped conjure in an earlier post, I'm going to employ a technique I learned in a workshop on working collaboratively in the rehearsal process. The technique is, simply, to swap voices and to speak to that person from what one perceives to be their point of view. Usually this is done by physically exchanging positions. Here a virtual expression will have to suffice.
Castaneda wrote during a period of time in which academia and society-at-large was particularly close-minded to any idea that challenged the status quo and which turned a wholly blind and disinterested eye to knowledge systems of indigenous peoples, ancient traditions and any other modality of thinking that proffered alternatives to prevailing attitudes about spirituality on one hand and scientific materialism on the other. During this time, the individual was also under assault from our own institutions of government, either in the form of being carted away to war, suppression of free speech and other more insidious means of intimidation. In such an environment, subversion was an essential tool in the campaign to raise consciousness and challenge the mainstream of popular thought. In Castaneda's case, working within the confines of a rigid academic setting, one can imagine that subversion might have been seen as no less than a necessary vehicle. The tone he struck, a blend of poetics and research, inserted into the annals of anthropology, demanded attention because of its boldness in diverging from the usual discursive structure of research papers. It was wholly appropriate to use this ambiguous form given that the subject matter's aim was to challenge the modern western perspective of materialism and conformity. In this sense, Castaneda was implanting his thoughts into a fallow field and needed a seed that was provocative and daring in order to flourish. This dissemination of ideas that helped articulate a new exploration of spirit outweighed the controversy surrounding form - a form that in itself was a part of the message.
Interesting perspective Martin...
...but did Castaneda enact this literary situationism consciously? Or was he simply making things up for selfish/unconscious motives, and therefore perhaps manipulated by shadows? The elusive Don Juan perhaps? Datura?
Who benefits from the crime, if indeed one was committed?
Castaneda's motivations are
Castaneda's motivations are immaterial to me. I don't know why I do half of what I do, much less anybody else. It's all speculation, and even if we had Castaneda under a lie-detector I wouldn't trust the results. What matters is the work itself and reverberation it had in its readers.
I think it is nearly impossible to commit a crime with a piece of writing.
the ring of authenticity
Charles Eisenstein
The Ascent of Humanity
Thanks VajraGuru
"The only thing constant in life is change" -François de la Rochefoucauld
CC vis-a-vis Leary?
I think a lot of people are defensive of Castaneda against even cautious criticism because of a nostalgic or gracious connection they feel to the blossoming that they experienced through his work. It's a reaction that is perhaps rooted in a passionate lifelong campaign of defending one's expanded views of reality against the rebuke of mainstream culture.
Tim Leary is another figure whose legacy many psychedelic/countercultural enthusiasts exalt in terms of their own personal development, deferentially reserving more critical judgment of his larger social impact. Yet, I would argue that Leary has been censured to a greater degree by veterans of his era than has Castaneda, perhaps due to the more obviously deleterious fallout from his exploits.
Neither of these personages deserve to be condemned without regard to the good works that they accomplished. Yet neither should they be above reproach for their misdeeds and ulterior motives. With power comes responsibility, and these men possessed much of the former, yet were less than vigilant with the latter.
-st
Learning from the Past
Thanks for going deeper with this. I'd say that Castaneda's primary mistake was in presenting his work as a scholarly work of anthropology rather than as potent archetypal fiction, or perhaps even a syncretic blend of shamanic tradition and creative philosophy. This is based on my assumption that his research is at least partly fictitious, or as Fikes suggests, plagiarized. By representing himself as a scientist of human culture, he placed himself in the rigorous spotlight of academia, and controversy was sure to follow. How damaging his erroneous work was towards his field of study, or to Native cultures over time, is a matter of opinion.
Similarly, Leary was a tenured Harvard professor when he began preaching the gospel of LSD into press microphones with reckless abandon. His notoriety ended a golden era of psychedelics and psychotherapy, leaving a hangover of shame within the field that led to a cessation of interest in this vital avenue of research until very recently. This is academic irresponsibility, to be sure, and arguably an affront to the progress of humanity that would surely be further along in these realms if Leary had been more circumspect.
As technoshaman88 pointed out, Castaneda wrote glowingly of the highly toxic datura plant, without intimation of the dangers involved. Leary, in turn, proselytized LSD use to the youth of America with religious fervor. I consider this sort of behavior socially irresponsible. But hey, it was the 60's, right? Perhaps what is left for us, in the flowering of this new renaissance, with government-sanctioned research into pyschedelics rekindled and Reality Sandwichers on the rise, is to learn from the mistakes of the past. In my humble opinion, the last thing we need is another Leary or Castaneda, with more charisma than scruples, to take center stage this time around.
- st
"...it still wouldn't work
"...it still wouldn't work because the centrally controlled media won't let anyone get a word in edgewise. When someone does manage to get hold of a microphone, they just tase 'em."
This sadly seems to be quite true. However, I hold out hopes that the centrally controlled media will find itself increasingly irrelevant in the future, despite the best efforts of the FCC and Kevin Martin.
Truth
First of all, I appreciate the thoughtful comments here. ST, Richard, Technoshaman et al. It is clear that presenting these works as academic anthropology was disingenuous... perhaps even deleterious to the potent power of the subject matter.
Whether or not these doses of power would have entered the collective consciousness of our society had this been presented in another way, though, is debatable. Robert Anton Wilson's obviously fictional Illuminatus trilogy seeded some truths, but suffered from its whimsy as well. It didn't inspire you to practice its tenets in the way that Carlos' oeuvre still does.
We have to ask ourselves... what is truth anyway? For me, the actual physical existence of Don Juan Matus, Don Genaro and their crew is totally irrelevant. Even if they were real people, it would only be fair to fictionalize them and change their names and locations enough that they wouldn't get scooped up by lab-coat wearing maniacs and studied under bright fluorescent lights. These would be shadow people living on the fringes of society anyhow. The point is... they exist in our imaginations... and are far more powerful there than any half dozen flesh & blood gurus you could name. The teachings we now refer to as "Toltec," are valid and practical. Assemblage points and attentions are not things that you must simply accept or philosophize about, but rather provable, tangible experiences. Dreaming, stalking, the gait of power... these things work.
I too find it unfortunate that people were inspired to take datura, over-run Wadley and the Real de Catorce, and otherwise mess up low-key scenes from Xipolite to Lago de Atitlán in their quest to find their own brujos. Of course, the Manson family was doing Belladonna before Carlos mentioned the bellflowers... and some people can, in fact, use various datura preparations effectively. Many Shivites use this plant as well. I find it interesting that despite the dangers of datura and the nightshade hallucinogens/ deleriants... these are the only class of plant psychedelics that have never been made illegal or even threatened anywhere in the world. They still grow in gardens, are used in a decorative fashion along hedges, grow wild along the freeways, and are even found planted at schools and hotels. I even noticed Angel's Trumpets growing at the White House !
Smoking mushrooms may not yield any psilocybin, but relatively fresh bits in a Kinnikinnik do have a certain effect... especially if smoked with a harmaline containing plant like fresh passiflora. Perhaps it is the beocistine or another compound, which would explain why the freshness is an issue. And, of course psychedelic tourism is still alive and well today with ayahuasca tours, Santo Daime, and curanderos of every sort. The real issue here is... would this have happened anyway? I have to say that the cat was already out of the bag. Gordon Wasson's books alone were enough to inspire seekers to go down to Mexico. Huxley, Leary, Kesey, Castaneda and the rest certainly amped things up, but I have to think that... if they didn't do it, someone else would have.
The fact is, these compounds and the altered states they evoke were on a collision course with western culture anyway. The vacuum in terms of tangible sacramental experience in the socio-religious framework of the milieu was begging for the direct mystical wisdoms to come and fill the void. Sterilized, abstract, psuedo-objective classification forms had dominated the culture and left people desperate for first hand experiences of transpersonal nature... the divisions of object and subject needed to be reunified. This was happening on all levels. Yoga, mysticism, ethno-botany, pharmacology, communal living, bio-dynamic organic farming... these things were all part of the same process.
I find that the knee-jerk reaction to the psychedelicizing of the mass consciousness has been far worse than any of the excesses or missteps that may have happened along the way. There are literally hundreds of psychedelic compounds that people would have discovered and used regardless of what the Pranksters, Castaneda, or Leary had to say. Hyperspace was beckoning, and nothing could have gotten in the way. Did McKenna's lyricism and razor sharp monologues go deeper and cleaner than the fuzzy works of the 60's & 70's? Yes. But would there have been a Terrence McKenna without his forebearers? Terrence himself (along with Dennis) was one of those people who went down to Latin America as a psychedelic tourist inspired by Castaneda. I too, have trod the deserts and mountains around Real de Catorce, and picked San Ysidros in Palenque... I've sweatlodged with shaman, and I was certainly influenced by Castaneda. But my journeys were worthwhile... necessary even.
Looking back, I have to say that, unlike most, I found that Castaneda's books got better as they progressed. Teachings was fairly tame and not very revelatory for me when I read it. Seperate Reality was better... as Carlos became less of a clueless dipshit, and his storytelling abilities improved... the books became much more enthralling. Tales of Power & the Second Ring of Power were worlds better than Teachings in my mind. The books plateaued at that point, but hit their climax for me with Art of Dreaming. That book (even sans any mention of substances) shows you directly how to engage in the highest levels of mystical reality. Lucid dreaming is the truly universal transpersonal experience. Every sentient being can partake. When you master this, drugs become passé, and only the very cream of the crop retains any interest.
As a final note, I will say that most of the criticism of Carlos seems to come from people who had no success in experience the things he wrote about. They obsessed with academic veracity, and documentation... but they didn't actually get the point. They were obviously still stuck in the abstracted, observational scientific paradigm which didn't include themselves in their observations. The critics read a bit like people denouncing Buddhism who never managed to grok meditation. Perhaps, like a failed vegan who tried to live on McDonald's french fries and found that they weren't as healthy as when they ate fajitas... and then proceeds to denounce vegetarianism. If you have even tasted the nagual... you know that whatever these inexperienced types have to say is completely irrelevant.
"... have you ever been experienced? Well I have."
(james marshall hendrix)
A Critic's Voice
I want to emphasize that I don't believe the positive effect Castaneda had on individuals is diminished in any way through criticism of his work. How can anyone take to task personal experience derived from someone's writing?
I find great value in the posts of those who express the positive the influence of Castaneda. It helps me understand the living, breathing vitality of disembodied ideas and the effect they can have on those absorbing them.
I also feel that a critical voice is absolutely essential when looking back and assessing those figures from the past who had such an impact on the culture.
There is room for both of these voices. Neither cancel each other out. Daniel Pinchbeck has written in posts and other places about how it is possible, even essential, to embrace paradox in the times ahead. Perhaps this is another example of a both/and and not an either/or.
I've gleaned that raising that critical voice can easily be construed as an expression of generational conflict, as those of younger generations consider what we want to inherit and what we want to discard. Perhaps that conflict is unavoidable, because invariably that criticism will lead to finding fault with those who made those first cultural inroads, and with that made the first mistakes. However, determining what those mistakes were and learning from them is as important as re-vitalizing their legacy. Perhaps the way to ameliorate that conflict is for both sides to remain conscious not only of the ideas around such issues, but of the personal stakes and how they inform and commingle with those thoughts.
I think part of the frustration evident in my posts here comes from a general hostility to criticism that I feel often comes up on RealitySandwich. Believe me, it isn't just along generational lines. The discussions around ST and Charles Shaw's Zeitgeist articles, which didn't have any generational context, was similar. I'm starting to get a sense that this thing I'm calling the "critical voice" is pretty underrepresented on RealitySandwich and giving short shrift. I hope I'm wrong about that because a community without a healthy incorporation of that voice will be continually frustrating to me. I agree with cjmoore that so many online discussion forums descend into a flame war of one-up-manship. That's not a good thing. But as someone interested in seeing a new form of counter-culture emerge, I think it is important to include all our voices, which includes the doubtful, the skeptical, the critical. And just to define terms: "criticism" can of course be your garden-variety carping and nit-picking. As an actor and director, I'm all too familar with this particular subspecies of parasitic lamprey and I have little regard for them. However "criticism" can also mean reasoned judgement, analysis, observation. This brand of criticism actually serves the generative endeavor it gives attention to by looking at the subject in context with other works, in relation to its time, the society that it reflects, etc., so as to obtain a broader understanding by making connections and comparisons. Peter Brook writes in "The Empty Space" that the divide between theater-makers and theater-critics is a mostly false one based on misinformation, embarrassment and suspicion and that the two have a lot to share if they could get past these hurdles. Somehow this quote speaks to me on this score:
"The critic who no longer enjoys the theatre is a deadly critic, the critic who loves the theatre but is unclear what this means, is also a deadly critic: the vital critic is the critic who has clearly formulated for himself what the theatre could be - and who is bold enough to throw this formula into jeopardy each time he participates in a theatrical event."
Reality Sandwiches
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uVCaGAAACAAJ&dq=reality+sandwiches+ginsberg
There seems to be a bit of a separation between the US and the UK. The beats are not really regarded as a literary force to be reckoned with here (UK), and Castenada seems not much read. Perhaps Brits are more conservative, still psychologically under the monarchical thumb. Although Snyder is appreciated by the burgeoning Green Criticicism movement.
(edited for clarity at 21:10 GMT)
No, you're not the only one
is it just me that finds the way the software displays posts in reverse chronology (latest first) really annoying? Following discussions is a pain in the butt.
I heartily agree, no disrespect to the RS team.
Shades of gray
I wrote this piece years ago as a term paper for a course on Southwestern Culture. It was meant as an argument, not a judgment. I expected it would stir up some really interesting debate on here, which it has.
There are merits to all the different viewpoints that people have offered here, just as there are shades of gray in a person's character.
-st
Reluctantly agree
This was a great post.
Reluctantly many years ago, I came to similar conclusions without knowing even a fraction of what your article reveals. The entire style of Castenada's writing suggested fiction and not scholarship.
Castenada presented us with a peculiarly American shaman. Unlike real shamans mired in parochial cultures and small villages, Don Juan was an individualist and cosmopolitan. He roamed throughout Mexico and the Southwest. He appeared all over the place- Oaxaca, Sonora, Arizona towns, and even Mexico City. True, he had his coterie of disciples and fellow shamans, but they were equally cosmopolitan and always incidental to the ongoing battle against mysterious forces we readers never quite understood. Never once did he heal anyone of an illness - the main activity of most real shamans.
Nevertheless, I still read the Castenada works. They are a fun read. And we can all hope that they point some of us to something real in spite of their lack of veracity.
Shamanism
Careless Carlos Castenada
So much confusion and secrecy surrounding Castaneda's work that the whole thing stinks of brujeria.
"Legitimate shamanistic practice ... is about connecting more deeply with the larger community and serving the community -- not about severing ties with the larger community and treating the larger community as the enemy."
"Cult leaders use very ancient brujeria techniques which are recognizably techniques that Don Juan is using on Casteneda: making them feel like they are specially privy to "secrets" and that they will become "special" and superior to "ordinary" people if they learn these "secrets"; making them feel like the world of "ordinary people" is their enemy; and a lot more.
Classic brujeria/cult techniques involve cutting followers off from family and friends who are not part of the cult.
Advanced techniques in this type of brujeria include making people believe that the world is full of hostile immaterial forces (like "flyers," for example) and that the only protection from them lies in obeying the brujo. "
Above quotes from Gayle Highpine.
It is possible that a young, impressionable and careless Carlos met someone, in a kind of early, singular "hippie influx", modelled after people like Wasson, and during this period while ingesting Datura encountered very wild visions and experiences.
But it is important to note that Datura is very dangerous (unlike peyote or mushrooms) and can cause long term amnesia, extreme delusion, panic and many oter nasty things.
In some cases Datura and other tropanes are given to unsuspecting victims in order to make them so suggestible that they will do anything the person who gave it to them asks. This can involve going to the bank and giving them all their money without knowing why or, in some documented cases, (in Bogota I think) people were given Datura only to wake up and realize one of their kidneys was taken out in the night.
So, perhaps this kind of brujeria, delusion, amnesia and a "confiscation of credibilty" occured in the early stages of Carlos' engagement with some Don Juan via Datura.
Unfortunately it has rippled through time and record and passed on to others.
But wait, there's more!
Wow, Morgan, where've you been this whole time?! ;)
(Regarding amnesiac drug-trance criminality, I think scopolamine is heavily employed by industrious crooks in Latin America. Interestingly, it's also an active ingredient in motion sickness meds...)
-st
Not quite, CJ.
Not quite, CJ. Just commenting that Morgan came along belatedly with his opinions to an already heated debate.
I'm not out for glory or "vindication" - just interesting discussion!
;)
st
Arguelles?
"With all his wily ways, Castaneda never held an ace up his sleeve. He said what he believed and people could buy it or not. If it was all a sham, it was at least one with integrity."
Without having read much by him, I'll go out on a limb and say Jose Arguelles seems to possess that same fearless conviction guiding his philosophy. And to call him the progenitor of the 2012 meme in our current counterculture also seems fair. How does that strike you, Richard?
what a tangled web he weaved...
ST- yes tropanes, scopolamines, etc have this reputation. In South America Datura is known as Toé and some curanderos will use it respectfully and in very small amounts, sometimes added to ayahuasca brews.
However on the flip side, it is often used recklessly and in large amounts in Amazonian brujeria for deception or coercion. Reckless use of the daturas/jimson weed can result in "temporary derangement and even permanent insanity." ((hint, hint))
The great ethnobotanist Richard Evans Schultes who brought many hallucinogenic/shamanic plants into contemporary view and tried just about everything under the sun would not go near the Solanaceae group of plants, which includes Datura and Jimson Weed, mostly because their alkaloid content doesn't change from season to season - but hour by hour!
So it's dangerous to begin with and has that extra wildcard.
cjmoore: Chuckle all ya want! : )
I don't think Castenada had any really bad intentions and I don't mean to slight anyone who made their way to investigate such things in the 50's or 60's. I think your point, cjmoore, about "pod-people 50's and maybe they were looking for something intelligent" is valid.
But someone like Carlos, coming out of his pod and looking for intelligence may have had an overdose of romanticism. Like people these days who hope to find an "authentic" shaman who hunts with a spear and wears a penis sheath.
Anyway, while one may hunt for something more "intelligent" they may find something more dangerous or tricky in their quest. While I often remark about the caution and danger surrounding Datura, especially in Carlos' case - that is, however, not to say that the plant is without intelligence.
In any event, I've never been a big fan of the books, it just seemed like "oh come on, get to the point".
I do think there is some valuable stuff in there, but a whole lot of it is highly toxic. Picture, if you will, "Castenada Fundamentalists".
It's this toxicity that I refer to when comparing to elements of brujeria. It seems to me the real work (and perhaps value) is in trying to seperate the valuable parts of the books/stories from the parts that seem to be Casatenada's ego in full swing. And there's a big paradox here with Carlos and ego. On one hand- ultra reclusive, on the other hand- Mr Grandfather of The New Age.
I also keep reading that while the first four books were written by the original Carlos, the rest were written by someone else who made it up as they went along. Presumably while the OG Carlos was basking in a crystal encrusted champagne hot tub somewhere. (my own chuckle there...)
But on a practical level, and again, not to belittle anyone or any time or place, but it seems plausible that a well intentioned Carlos Castenada went out in search of something, and what he found was someone, call him Don Juan, and something, call it Datura.
Under the (prolonged?) effects of Datura perhaps Carlos became highly suggestible or persuaded into believing or understanding or interpreting his experiences or visions as some kind of ultimate shamanic reality. These experiences may have been moved along by a Don Juan, someone perhaps posing as a shaman or sorceror or brujo and adept at spinning a good yarn.
A yarn that helped weave The New Age, which itself has a consistent crisis of credibility.
-
And trust me cjmoore, I've got nothin' against hippies, seein as I was born outta one and seein' as I live in a Rocky Mountain Log Cabin (that's where I've been) ((Growing datura ...or have I? hmmm))
Ho, ho, bubba.
; )
Rick Mace
I can't believe I forgot to bring this up, but a fellow named Rick Mace has compiled a book that takes Don Juan's teachings from out of the 13 Castaneda books and presents them unadorned with Carlos' naiveté or any of the narrative drama.
Carlos Castaneda's don Juan's Teachings (Rick Mace)
In this form, one can clearly see that there is an extremely cohesive system of wisdom presented in the books. People can rail all they want about the veracity of the stories, the value of datura inoxia, or even the wisdom of promoting the use of powerful hallucinogens at all... but what is starkly apparent is that these things people focus on are the least important parts of Castaneda's legacy vis à vis the Teachings et al.
I ran across this stuff years ago, and used to point people to it when they would start up with the inevitable topic of Castaneda... pro, con, a professional con, whatever. It is free, and while being of the archaic Web 1.0 variety (perhaps even 0.81963) it is very interesting to be able to go through and just read what Don Juan actually said to Carlos... like those Bibles that highlight the words of JC in red (all 9 pages or whatever). Rick took some liberties in rephrasing it all to sound as if Don Juan is talking directly to you, but that seems to make it all more effective, actually.
Forget what Carlos thought about it. Forget his paranoia and confusion. Just l'entrecôte and none of the GMO soy fillers. Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed the stories and their spooky brujo vibes... but seen in this way you can clearly see that there was a system of shamanism underlying all this. It certainly wasn't Yaqui or even Huichol... it doesn't even seem to be ethnically based at all. Perhaps it is similar to the "Zero Chiefs" teachings in this. But it is there. And furthermore, it works by and large.
BTW why such focus on the yerba del diablo here? From what I can remember, that was the substance least used and was certainly not recommended. In fact, Don Juan tells Carlos that he only needed the psychedelics because he was extraordinarily stupid, closed, left-brained, and hard-headed. The actual work of the "men of power" does not require the use of any psychoactive alkaloids whatsoever.
In addition, Rick has gone on to add mp3s of (himself?) reading the material audio-book style... although for this material I don't find that it adds anything.
Castenada Fundamentalism
In fact, Don Juan tells Carlos that he only needed the psychedelics because he was extraordinarily stupid, closed, left-brained, and hard-headed. The actual work of the "men of power" does not require the use of any psychoactive alkaloids whatsoever.
Funny you mention the Bible and by extention, The Church, because that is just what The Church would say.
I find this assertion by Don Juan to be one of the most misleading suggestions in the whole thing.
Sure, one can get places without psychoactive substances, but where and what is that place?
Also, psychoactives and psychedelics are not simply psychoactives and psychedelics - ya get me? - They are plants.
So, a rejection of these things is a rejection of nature. Followed by a swelling of the ego, followed by a desire for domination and power over others, followed by self-destruction.
Carlos Fantasyda
Or put it this way:
It's Harry Potter of a different era and flavor.
For People Who Never Check the RS Forum Area!!!
This is the link to my C.C. post from months ago. I hope it is of interest to some of you!!
http://www.realitysandwich.com/much_loved_much_despised_legacy_zero_card...
Bruce Fenton: WebMaster @ 2012rising.com & UK Board Admin @ planetxforecast.com
Fiction and Lies are Not The Same Thing
Whether or not these doses of power would have entered the collective consciousness of our society had this been presented in another way, though, is debatable. Robert Anton Wilson's obviously fictional Illuminatus trilogy seeded some truths, but suffered from its whimsy as well. It didn't inspire you to practice its tenets in the way that Carlos' oeuvre still does.
Hello, DISCORDIANISM still exists, yes? Very much so, last time I checked. Whimsy is part of the tradition. Honest fiction is quite capable of transmitting truths. JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien, just to use two obvious examples, transmitted a lot of truths that resonate with a lot of people - and to far more positive effect - through fiction.
More importantly, it is my opinion that you cannot bring people to enlightenment by lying to them. There is a reason why all the mythologies of the world honor truth.
Hail Eris!
All hail Discordia...
Don't get me wrong. I loved the Principia Discordia more than most. I still play Illuminati... ran out and bought the new expansion deck as soon as it came out. (Bavarian Fire Drill)
[FNORD]
But I still say that while the whimsy of the Illuminatus! Trilogy is brilliant, and Lewis Carroll and James Joyce do still meld with Dali, Escher, and Bosch in my psychedelic imagery... Carlos presented an actual system of wisdom. Take it or leave it, it is presented in a way that you can go out and try it for yourself.
Discordianism (while being a lot of fun & encouraging participation) doesn't take it self seriously enough to present anything tangible enough to call a method. This is a good thing. Seriousness is a vile contagion that, once removed, will dissipate all maners of dis-ease. Seriously.
[FNORD]
Tough thing about words is that no matter what you say, they tend to imply that you're not also saying and understanding the opposite, the tangential, and the un-connected.
*********
You are all now hereby & officially popes of the grand Erisian Mystery School, muftis in the Discordian League, and supernal poobahs of the Erisian Liberation Front....
CC & dream warriorship
Hmmm...
The luminous egg is the 7th level of the human energy field - check out Ledbeater or other books on the human aura. The astral plane is related to the fourth level of the energy field, and is sometimes called the fourth dimension. Carlos and his buddies appear to have spent a lot of time there. Gautama Buddha warned that every flower plucked in that place (the astral plane) has a snake coiled around its stem. I’ve taken that advice to heart and stayed away- lots of nasty stuff. The astral plane is where all the battles of shamans and witches take place. I can see that it could be a good teaching tool, but too many folks see it as an end in itself.
As an undergrad at UCLA in the early 1970s, I took a course in shamanism. It was taught by Johannes Wilbert, who spent a couple decades in the jungles of the Orinoco delta. He told us about his experiences with the people there, and described how he was initiated as a shaman in two tribes, and underwent most of the initiation in a third tribe. He brought in Carlos Castaneda as a guest speaker for our class of less than twenty students. Perhaps Professor Wilbert later regretted his association with Castaneda, and perhaps not. But I don’t think Wilbert was in the radical fringe of the the department; he is a respected author and went on to become department chair.
Of course I don’t know, but I think Juan Matus was real. He knew that the world was undergoing great changes and that his lineage was reaching the end of the line. We live in a time (the beginning of the new age, the end of the occult age) when the secret teachings of all cultures have become available to anyone, and his was no exception. So, Carlos became the vehicle for bringing this particular branch of the path of knowledge into the harsh light of 20th century western culture. There are commonalities in the esoteric and mystic literature of all cultures and religions. Perhaps Carlos drew from these and made it all up. If so, he is a far better writer than he has been given credit for.
I resonate most with Jah Sun’s posts - the books do contain truth and knowledge. There is an incredible amount of this kind of information available today. Unlike past ages, when it was not available to any but initiates, today’s surfeit of info means that the difficulty is in discrimination, in ferreting out the truth. For me, that is more an act of feeling it out than one of reasoning it out. Thanks for the conversation.
wow!
That must have been quite a memorable lecture! Thanks for sharing your story.
-st
D sieved
Was Castaneda lying?
There isn't any solid proof one way or the other... and there never will be. All of the evidence against him is circumstantial. If he did name his book "A Yaqui Way Of Knowledge" he was definitely being misleading, but we don't know whether or not the publishers added that tag, and as we have said... Carlos was fairly clueless in that first book. Later, he made it clear that this stuff wasn't anything remotely Yaqui.
The fact is that on this path of knowledge, what is real and what is not become rather tangled webs. There is no way to prove that your entire life and all that you hold dear are not ephemeral dreams... If you go around looking for Truth from people you meet and books you read, you are bound to be disappointed time and again. You must take a more active role in the creative filtering of your data streams. The rivers of sensation and information wash over you, and you must pan for the nuggets of gold... the truths (this time with a small 't') that resonate with you in this time and this place. The Truth is obvious enough if you have the guts to see it... and it is staring at you from every angle of every facet of every possible thing, object, construct or concept.
The Buddha said that all suffering is a result of attachment to illusions. This world is not "real." Getting hung up on whether you can verify everything that you encounter is a form of attachment... it is no wonder you would get upset (a form of suffering) ;-)
No offense, but if the paths elucidated in Carlos' books don't resonate with you, and the distilled wisdom as presented by Rick (see above post) doesn't ring true to you at all... forget them. You don't get personally offended when you read a tabloid headline at the newstand or supermarket checkout do you? You can only be offended or insulted by things you take seriously or actually care about in some form.
He opened the doors of my own perceptions
Like many who have posted here, I was a child of the 60's, who found the stories Casteneda wove to be both fascinating and mind-opening.
Later, when I began to read of the controversy surrounding the veracity of his writings, I felt hoodwinked and somewhat foolish. As a result of many similar disillusioning events of this time, I went forward with a "sadder but wiser" attitude. I developed into a strict scientific rationalist; believing in nothing that couldn't be experimentally proven and repeatable.
Then, a couple of years ago, I read Daniel Pinchbeck's "Breaking Open the Head", and that opened my awareness to an entire subculture of scientists, philosophers, researchers and psychonauts like Daniel who kept any cycnicism about the non-material world at bay.
I think the most valid thing said about Casteneda is that he did fire the imaginations of many millions as to the other worlds accessible from portals in our brains--chemical and otherwise.
Academic anthropology may have taken a bad rap from the alleged shenanigans of Carlos Casteneda, but there have certainly been many others since then who have confirmed that the wondrous altered states described so richly by Casteneda were just the tip of the "Mysterium tremendum et fascinans" open to those willing to escape the egoistic confines of our material reality.
And now for the esoteric analysis.
Okay, here's my take on it as a self-titled "rogue" anthropologist. Carlos read "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" as an undergrad. Its what (good) athro profs give their student to see their culture for the first time. Its also a really neat gimmick; check it out if you haven't read it.
Anyway, so Don Juan does not exist. He's Carlos' HGA, or Higher Self, Avatar, astral form, some shit like that. Whatever.
A Yaqui sorcerer is a Yankee sorcerer.
Carlos chose the name esoterically. Anthropology students who learned about the insane culture of the native Naciremans will understand why he chose deception to make his point.
And now for the esoteric analysis.
<a href="http://www.Sohbetmuhabbet.org" title="Sohbet">Sohbet Odaları</a> -
<a href="http://www.Sohbetmuhabbet.org" title="Sohbet, Chat">Chat</a> -
thanks
Osmanlı Hükümeti Tarafından İlk Kurulan Matbaa Ve Bunun Neşriyatı
B. A. MYSTAKIDIS
Sadeleştirilmiş Metin: Mâlik Yılmaz
Adı geçen makale 1911 yılında İstanbul’da (Constantinople) Ahmet İhsan ve Şerikası Matbaacılık Osmanlı Şirketi tarafından Târih-i Osmâni Encümeni Mecmuasının ayrı basımı olarak yayımlanmıştır. Makalenin Fransızca adı ‘La Premiére Imprimerie Turque et ses Publications’tur.
Makalede, Osmanlı Hükümetinin desteği ve himayesiyle 1726 yılında İbrahim Müteferrika tarafından kurulmuş olan ilk Türk matbaası ve bu matbaada basılan eserler hakkında bilgiler verilmiştir. Makale, çoğunlukla yabancı kaynaklara dayanılarak hazırlanmıştır. Mystakidis makalesinde, başlangıçta Osmanlı Devleti’nde matbaa kurmanın zorluğundan bahsederek, İbrahim Mütferrika’nın mevcut çeşitli zorluklara ve engellemelere rağmen matbaasını nasıl kurduğunu, özellikle matbaasını kurarken gerekli olan aletleri ve harfleri nasıl elde ettiğini ve ne şekilde faaliyete geçirdiğini anlatmıştır. Bununla birlikte Müteferrika matbaasında basılan eserlere ilişkin bilgiler vermiştir.
Sultan III. Ahmed’in saltanatının son yıllarına doğru matbaa sanatını Türkiye’ye getiren “İbrahim Müteferrika” hakkında, Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası’nın üçüncü bölümünün 178 –185. sayfalarında nefis bir makale okudum. Topçu Urban’ı inceledikten sonra, Doktor Karaçun Efendi’nin ilme hizmet ettiğini gösteren bu makalede, Osmanlı Devleti’nde matbaacılık, ilk kurulan matbaa ve bu matbaanın kurulması için gerekli olan alet ve harflerin sağlanması, bununla birlikte basılan kitapların adedi, ayrıca Doktor Karaçun Efendi’nin makalesinde konu olan Türkçe ve Fransızca sarf (dilbilgisi-) kitabı için bibliyografik bilgilerle kitabın yazarı hakkında bazı özet bilgileri arz ediyorum.Bu makalenin yazarının asıl amacı, İbrahim Müteferrika’nın durumunu açıklamaktan ibarettir.
Bunun yanı sıra yazar, İbrahim Efendi gibi Macar olan Urban hakkında da iki üç satırdan çok olmamak üzere açıklayıcı bir iki söz söylemiştir. Örneğin, Urban’ın Türklere topu kalıba dökmeği mi veya topun imâl olunmasını mı yoksa top atmağı mı ya da topla nişan almasını mı gösterdiğini açıklamak gerekmektedir. Ayrıca, Bizans ve Türk tarihçilerinin eserlerinde konu ettikleri ve bundan kırk beş yıl önce müzemizin eski müdürü Mösyö Dötye’nin topçuluk tarihiyle ilgili olarak kaleme aldığı birkaç sayfalık makalede, o sırada en büyük top olan Rudman topunu imal etme başarısından dolayı kendileriyle gurur duyan Amerikalılara karşı, Hazreti Fatih’in, Rudman topuyla karşılaştırılmış olan o büyük ve meşhur âlem topunun da adını anmak gerekliydi.
Bundan başka, aynı dönemde yaşayan tarihçilerden bazısı Urban’ı Daçya (eski Romanya) halkından kabul etmektedirler. Urban, Macar olarak kabul olunduğu takdirde, çağdaşı olan bir üçüncü Macar daha vardır ki bu kişi de, geçmişteki hizmetleriyle birlikte anılmakta, ancak ismi verilmemektedir. Bu kişi, anlaşma gereği Hunyad tarafından Hazreti Fatih’in ordugâhına gönderilmiştir. Kaleyi yıkmak için kullanılan yöntemin eksikliklerini görerek topun ne şekilde kullanılacağını öğretmiş ve bu sayede kalenin bir an önce yıkılmasıyla İstanbul’un fethi gerçekleşmiştir.
Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in yazım işlerinde çalışan İmrozlu Kristodolos’un meslektaşım Karolidi Efendi tarafından çevirisi yapılarak mecmua ile yayımlanan tarihinde, Urban’ın ismi anılmıyorsa da, bu eserde topun imal edilişinden ayrıntılı olarak söz edildiğinden burası mecmuanın dördüncü bölümünde çevirisi yapılarak açıklanmıştır.Firmin Dido’nun matbaa hakkındaki görüşleri On beşinci yüzyılda İstanbul’da Museviler tarafından basılmış birkaç kitap yayımlanmıştı.
Fakat Sultan II. Bayezid tarafından çıkarılan ve oğlu Sultan I. Selim’in 1515’de yeniledikleri bir emir üzerine matbaa ilmi ile uğraşmak idam cezası ile yasaklanmıştır. Jojef bin Goriyo’nun “İbrani Tarihi” üzerine yazılmış eseri, İstanbul, 1490 tarihlidir. Diğer eserler ise 1492’den 1598 tarihine kadar olan zaman zarfında yayınlanmıştır. Bunların en önemlisi 1546’da çeşitli dillerde basımı yapılan Tevrat’ın Esfar-ı Hamse kısmıdır. On altıncı yüzyılda Patrik Kirilos Lokaris’in yardımı ile Kefalonyalı Rahip Nikodimus Mütakassas adlı kişi İstanbul’da yeniden bir matbaanın kurulmasına çalışmış ise de bu girişimi Cizvitler tarafından engellenmiştir. 1698’de Ermeniler tarafından Osmanlı Devleti’ne getirilen baskı malzemeleri Sultanın emri ile yeniçeriler tarafından tahrip edilmiştir.
İstanbul’da matbaanın kurulması ancak on sekizinci yüzyılda Osmanlı Hükümeti’nin desteği ve himayesi ile gerçekleşmiştir. Sultan III. Ahmed döneminde, İbrahim Efendi büyük ve sürekli çabalarla hemşehrilerinin ve özellikle de ulemanın o zamana kadar devam eden engellemelerine ve muhalefetlerine karşın 1139 (1726) yılında Layd’tan kalıp getirtmek ve burada harfleri döktürmek için adı geçen Padişahtan izin almıştır. Bu meşhur tarihçi aşağıdaki sözlerden fazla bir bilgi vermiyor. İbrahim Müteferrika tarafından Kurulan bu matbaada ilk basılan kitap Türkçe’den Arapça’ya bir sözlüktür. Bu sözlük, 1726’dan 1728 yılına kadar olan sürede yayınlanmıştır. 1729’da bir de Fransızca’dan Türkçe’ye bir dilbilgisi kitabı basılmıştır. 1744 yılında İbrahim Efendi’nin vefatından sonra bu matbaada bir süre basım işleri gerçekleşmemiştir ancak daha sonra matbaa tekrar faaliyete başlamıştır. 1816 yılında Üsküdar’da bulunan Matbaa-i Amire’ye gerçekleştirdiğim ziyaretim sırasında matbaada muntazam dört makine bulunuyordu. § 1746’da vefat eden ve Paris Kraliyet Kütüphanesi’nde kütüphaneci ve Kollej dö Frans öğretmenlerinden olan Rahip Mihail Furmon‘un Mösyö Mörpü’ye hitaben Sakız’dan göndermiş olduğu 26 Mart 1729 tarihli mektubunda, matbaayı ziyaretinden ve matbaanın pek ağır ve zorluklarla faaliyetine devam ettiğinden, buna sebep olarak da kurucularının bu husustaki cehaleti ve Said Efendi’nin ilgisizliği olduğundan bahsetmektedir.
Ayrıca ziyareti sırasında matbaanın baş mürettip ve hakkakinin ancak Türkçe’yi konuşabilen zavallı bir Bolonyalı Musevi olduğunu ve matbaanın sorumlusunun da Macar ruhbanından iken müslüman olan İbrahim Efendi olduğunu, Said Efendi’nin desteği ve aracılığıyla Enderun-i Hümayun Kütüphaneleri’ni ziyaret etme ümidinde iken, Said Efendi’nin alakadar olmadığını görmesi üzerine fikrinin değiştiğini söylemektedir. § Karaçun Efendi tarafından gerek matbaa ve gerekse de İbrahim Müteferrika hakkında ayrıntılı bilgi verilmiştir.
Ayrıca, hakkâklar, hurufat dökmecileri ve matbaacıların Viyana’dan getirtildiği yazılmış ise de bu konuda Lorek, “Said Efendi gerekli yazıları hazırlamış olup hurufatı İstanbul’da bizzat kestirip döktürmüştür” demektedir. Toderini de, araştırmacıların Türkçe yazılmış tarihlerde bu konuda bir şeye rastlayamayacakları gibi, dikkatli bir şekilde incelemiş olduğum Yirmisekiz Çelebi Mehmed Efendi’nin sefaretnamesinde de rastlayamadım diyor. Gerçekten, Tarih-i Raşid’in eki olan Küçükçelebizade Asım Efendi’nin Tarihinde de, matbaa malzemelerinin gelişi hakkında bilgi yoktur. Saint Simon’un “Hatırat” adlı eserinde, Yirmisekiz Çelebi Mehmed Efendi’nin elçi olarak Paris’te bulunduğu zamanki durumuna dair şu ifadelere rastlanılmaktadır: Osmanlı Devleti’nin Paris Elçisi Mehmed Efendi matbaanın bütün aletlerini, makinelerini, kazınmış yazılarını ve matbaa binasının kabartma planlarını görmüştür.
Paris’te bulunduğu sırada Kraliyet Kütüphanesi’ni de ziyaret etmiştir. Bu ziyareti esnasında kütüphanenin tarih ve nefis kitaplar hakkında geniş bilgisi olduğunu göstermiştir. Mehmet Efendi Sadrazam’ın arkadaşı olduğu için İstanbul’a dönüşünde bir matbaa ile bir de kütüphane kurmaya karar vermiş ve gördüğü muhalefete rağmen başarılı da olmuştur. Meninski “matbaa malzemelerinin Paris’ten getirtildiğini, Firmin Dido ise Layd’tan getirtilmiş olduğunu” söylemektedir.
Karaçun Efendi’nin yazmış oldukları makalede söz konusu olan “Türkçe Fransızca Sarf” (Dilbilgisi) kitabının basımı için gerekli olan Fransızca harflerin elde edilmesine gelince, Saint Simon’un 1829 yılında basılmış olan “Hatırat” adlı eserinin on sekizinci cildinin 382-383. sayfalarında şu ifadelere rastlanılmaktadır: “Holderman’ın ‘Sarf-ı Türkisi’ni bastırmak için gerekli olan Fransızca harflerin Paris’ten gönderildiği, Saray Kral Nâzırı Mösyö Mörpü tarafından, o zaman Fransa’nın İstanbul Elçiliği görevinde bulunan Mösyö Vilnov’a yazılmış olan 28 Haziran 1730 tarihli mektubun içeriğinden anlaşılmaktadır. Adı geçen mektupta, İbrahim Efendi’nin Sarf-ı Türki ve Lügat kitabını bastırmak için talep ettiği Fransızca harflerin verilmesini Kraldan rica edeceğim, kitapların basımında kullanılacak Türkçe harflerden bana numune gönderiniz deniliyor”.
Numune talebinin amacı ise, gönderilecek Fransızca harfler ile burada bulunan Türkçe harflerin bir ayarda olmasını sağlamak, düzene koymak ve basım işini kolaylaştırmaktır. Matbaanın kurulmasından sonra basılan kitapların adedi konusuna gelince : 1867 yılındaki orada Paris Osmanlı Devleti’nin Elçisi olan Cemil Paşa’nın başkanlığında toplanan Osmanlı Fen Komisyonunun düzenlemiş olduğu raporlardan biri olan Sanayi-i Nefise ve Şubeleri hakkındaki dördüncü raporun, Paris’te basılan nüshasının altmış ikinci sayfasında, gerek matbaanın nasıl kurulduğuna ve gerekse de harflerin nereden ve nasıl sağlandığına dair herhangi bir şey söylenilmemiştir. Bununla birlikte, raporda ilk matbaanın kurulmasıyla basımı gerçekleşmiş olan kitapların adedi yirmi beş olarak gösterilmiş ise de, D’ohsson Tarihinin 1788’de basılan sekiz ciltlik eserinin, ikinci cildinin beş yüz birinci sayfasında basımı yapılan kitapların adedi on beş olarak gösterilmiştir.
Zonkiyer’in (Jonquiere)“Tarih-i Devlet-i Aliyye” adlı eserinin 1881’de Paris’te basılan nüshasının 356. sayfasında, matbaada basılan eserlerin sayısı on beş olarak kayıtlıdır. Bu kayıt, tarihçinin, söz konusu kayda ilişkin bilgiyi yalnızca D’ohsson Tarihine başvurarak edindiği düşüncesini doğurmaktadır. Hammer Tarihinin on dördüncü cildinin 179. sayfasında matbaada basılan eserler yedi adet olarak gösterildiği halde, adı geçen cildin sonunda bulunan açıklama kısmında ise, toplam on yedi olarak kayıt edilmiştir.
Söz konusu kayıt bu cildin 496. sayfasındadır. Matbaa hakkında İstanbul’dan, 3 Teşrin-i sâni (Kasım) 1740 tarihinde yazılan ve 14 Kânun-i sâni (Ocak) 1741 tarihli “Gazet dö Frans “ nüshasında yer alan bir mektupta, Fünun-i Askeriyye’ye (Askerlik Bilgileri) ait birçok eser Türkçe’ye çevrilerek matbaada basılmıştır. Bir yıl boyunca basılan kitapların adlarını içeren bir cetvelin yayımlanmasının yöntem haline getirilmesi nedeniyle o yılın sonunda yayımlanan bu cetvele göre matbaanın kuruluşundan şimdiye kadar 280 cilt kitabın basımı gerçekleşmiştir” denilmektedir. Türkçe ve Fransızca olarak basımı yapılan sarf (dilbilgisi) kitabı hakkında: Meninski, büyük lügatının 1780’de Viyana’da basılan nüshasının birinci cildinin önsözünde, İbrahim Müteferrika ve matbaadan söz ederken bu “sarf” hakkında aşağıdaki kısacık sözleri söylüyor. “Rahip Holderman’ın telif etmiş olduğu Türkçe ve Fransızca sarf kitabı, bu matbaanın 1730 tarihinde basmış olduğu eserlerdendir”. Toderini Tarihinde bu konuda geniş bilgi vermektedir. Ayrıca bu eserin, o zaman İstanbul’da bulunan Fransızların zorlaması ve baskısıyla matbaada basıldığını belirterek, Fransızların dil gereksinmelerini kolaylaştırmak için kitabın sonuna bir de mükaleme kısmı ilave edilmiş olduğunu ifade etmiştir. Bununla birlikte eserin nüshalarının çok az bulunmasından dolayı büyük zorluklarla bir nüshasını elde ettiğini söylemektedir. 1747’de Paris Kraliyet Kütüphanesi Türkçe ve Farsça mütercimlerden olan Arman (Armain) adlı kişi İstanbul’a gelerek o zaman Fransa’nın İstanbul Elçisi olarak bulunan Kont Dozayir (comte des Alleurs) ile birlikte matbaayı ziyaretten sonra, Paris’e göndermiş olduğu 20 Eylül 1747 tarihli raporunda yer alan ve kitapların fiyatını kapsayan cetvelde, matbaada basılan kitapların adedi on altı olarak gösterilmiş ve bu sarf kitabından söz edilmemiştir. İbrahim Müteferrika hakkında ise, bu raporun yazıldığı tarihten altı ay önce vefat etmiştir demektedir.
Bundan dolayı D’ohsson, Tarihinin ikinci cildinin 480-510. sayfasına kadar matbaa hakkında açıklama yapmış ve ilk basılan kitapların cetvelini dahi kayıt etmiş olduğu halde bu sarf için tek bir söz bile söylememiştir. Bu yüzden Zonkiyer’in (Jonquiere), Tarihine almış olduğu cetvelde de bu kitabın adına rastlanılmamaktadır. Yalnız Hammer, Tarihinin on dördüncü cildinin sonuna –bu cildin içindekiler hakkında gerekli olan kapsamlı açıklama- ilave etmiş olduğu bölümde yer alan, matbaada basılan eserlerin adlarını içeren cetvelde sekizinci olarak bu sarfı göstermektedir. Dido, yukarıda adı geçen eserinin yedi yüz altıncı sayfasında bu eserden söz etmiş ise de basım tarihi olan 1730 yılını 1729 olarak göstermiştir.
Paris’te basımı gerçekleşen Kütüphaneler Mecmuası’nın 1895 yılına ait olan beşinci cildinin 185-200 ve 228-236. sayfalarında aşağıdaki açıklamalara rastlanılmaktadır; Jojoyet Rahiplerinden Strazburg’lu Holderman tarafından 1730 yılında İstanbul’da Said Ağa’nın matbaasında çocuklara mahsus Türkçe-Fransızca bir sarf basılmıştır. Yukarıda adı geçen rahip bir de Ermenice sarfın basımını yapmak arzusunda bulunmuş ise de 13 Teşrin-i evvel (Ekim) 1730 yılında vefat etmesinden ötürü buna muvaffak olamamıştır.
Basılan Fransızca sarfın birçok nüshası Fransa’ya gönderilmiş ve Kraliyet Kütüphanesi Müdürü Rahip Binyon’a (Bignon) verilerek 1731-1732 yıllarında Mösyö Mörpa’nın emriyle Paris’te bulunan Jojoyet Mektebi öğrencilerine dağıtılmıştır. Kitabın Avrupa Kütüphanelerindeki varlığına gelince: Gerek eğitim görmüş olduğum Tubingen Darülfünun Kütüphanesi ile daha sonra devam ettiğim Stutgard’ın büyük kütüphanesinde, bundan yirmi sene önce bu esere rastladım. Bugün bu kitabın adı geçen kütüphanelerde mevcut bulunduğuna bakılarak kitabın Avrupada ki varlığını Lozan (Lausane) Akademisi Kütüphanesi ile sınırlandırmak doğru değildir. Ayrıca adı geçen kitabın, Müze-i Hümayun Kütüphanesi için 1908 senesi Teşrin-i evvelinde (Ekim) bir liraya satın alınan ve 4845 umumi numaralı nüshasının birinci sayfasında mevcut bulunan eski bir mühürden, bunun Peşte civarında bulunan “Giz Kartalı” karyesindeki kütüphanede bulunan ikinci nüsha olduğu anlaşılmaktadır.Matbaanın yabancı dillerden ilk basmış olduğu bu sarf kitabı 218 sayfadan ibaret olup, ilk on altı ve son sekiz sayfası numarasızdır. İlk sayfasında kitabın adı ve Macar Kütüphanesi’nin mührü ve geri kalan ilk on beş sayfasında da yazar tarafından Kardinal Flori’ye ithafen yazılan imzasız bir mektup yer almaktadır. Bunun devamında kitabın telifi ve baskısı sırasında hata edilmemesi için çaba harcanmışsa da buna muvaffak olunamadığından kitapta gerekli düzeltmeleri içeren bir önsöz ve Türkçe’ye dair bir giriş vardır. Bundan sonra başlayan numaralı sayfalarda sarf (dilbilgisi) kurallarından söz edilmiştir. Kitapta 127. sayfadan 144. sayfaya kadar, gerekli olan Türkçe cümlelere, 144. sayfadan kitabın sonuna kadar yirmi bölüme ayrılmış olan mükâlemeler eklenmiştir. Gerek cümleler gerekse mükâlemeler üç sütun üzerine dizilmiş olup birincide Türkçe cümleler Fransızca harfler ile ikincide, Türkçe harfler ile yazılmış, üçüncüde ise Fransızca karşılığı gösterilmiştir. Kitabın ilk sayfasının içeriği bir ve iki numaralı fotoğraflarla gösterilmiştir.
NOTLAR
(1) Bu isim Orbin, Orban, Urban olmak üzere yazarlar arasında ihtilaf konusu olup Kamusul-Alâm’da bu kişi hakkında hiçbir bilgi yoktur.
(2) Hoca efendi (Sadeddin Efendi) “Tâcü’t-Tevârîh”.
(3) “Courrier des Etats-Unis” du 29 Octobre 1861 “le plus gros canon du monde”. (“Birleşmiş Milletler kuryesi” 29 Ekim 1861’de “dünyanın en büyük topu olarak ifade etmiştir”).
(4) Matériaux pour l’histoire de l’artillerie én général et de l’ottomane en particulier (topçu sınıfı tarihinde özellikle Osmanlıda) 1865 tarihinde İstanbul’da basılmıştır. On altı sayfadan ibarettir.
(5) Chalcocondylis, édit. Bonn. p. 385-386, Ducas, p.271-272, Frantzis, p. 237-239.
(6) Hammer-Hellert, II, p. 398-399. “Ainsi c’était un Hongrois qui avait fondu le canon, et ce fut un Hongrois qui apprit aux turcs a s’en servir utilement;”Ducas, qui, comme Kritoboulos, ne donne pas son nom, (Böylece topcu sınıfını kuran bir Macar’dı ve Türklere bunu, faydalı bir şekilde kullanmayı öğretti. Ducas, Kritoboulos gibi ismini vermedi) diyor ki: έπειδή ήβουλήθη έx δευτέ ου τώ αύτώ τόπω βάλλειν άλλον ένα λίθον τυχών άποx ιοιά ιος ιού Ιάγxου έοxωψε τήν βολήν, έδίδα ε... ή ουμβουλή ή εοε τώ τεχνίτ . Aynı mahale bir taş mermi daha atmak istediğinden bunu...orada hazır bulunan Hunyad’ın adamı ‘adem-i tasvîb ile... nasihat eyledi.. bu nasihat ustanın makbulüne geçti. Zürkeisen, Geschichte D. Osman : Reiches vol. II, p. 831. Jorga, Geschichte D. Osmanischen : Reiches, vol. II, p. 18-20.
(7) Ansiklopedi Modern’in yirmi altıncı cildinden alıntı. “Firmin Didot” Essai sur la Typographie, Paris, 1855 (Extr: du tome XXVI, de l’Encyclopédie moderne, “Turquie p.706.”).
(8) Tarihçinin bu ifadeleri hakkında yapılacak birçok açıklama var ise de yalnız bununla yetinilmiştir. İlk basılan lügat kitabı Arapça’dan Türkçe’yedir ki Sıhah-ı Cevheri çevirisi olan “Vankulu”dur. Toderini’nin “Edebiyât-ı Türkiye” adlı eserinin ikinci cildinin 176. sayfası ile devam eden sayfalarına ve Lorek’in “Târih-i Tıbâ’at” adlı eserinin birinci cildinin 280 ve 281. sayfalarına bakınız.
(9) “Omont”, Missions Archéologiques françaises en Orient, p. 543. Paris 1902, in 4º.
(10) Lorek, sayfa 281. “Lorek” Handb: d: Geschichte d. Buchdrukerkunst Theil I, Leipsig, 1882.
(11) Cilt 2, sayfa 172. “Toderini” Litteratur d: Türken, Koenigsberg, 1790.
(12) Küçük Çelebi-zâde Tarihinin Matba’a-i ‘Âmîre’de basılan nüshası sayfa 470-471.
(13) Hâtırât, cilt 18, sayfa 382-83. Mémoires de Saint-Simon, edit : de 1829.
(14) Viyana, 1780 baskısının önsözünün 87. sayfası. Meninski, Lexicon Arabico-Persico—Turcicum Viennae 1780. fol : p: 87.
(15) Fenn-i Tıbâ’at hakkında bilgiler sayfa 77.
(16) Fransız bilim adamlarından “Mösyö Omon”un “Kütüphaneler Mecmuası’nın 1895 yılına ait olan nüshası sayfa 228-236.
(17) Vol: I, p. :LXXXVII “ex cadem typographia prodiit anno Cristi 1730 Gallicoturcica grammatica Aldermannii extinctae S. I. sacerdote”.
(18) Sarfın yazarı olup eserinde adı yazılı olmayan “Holderman” kitabını “Kardinal dö Filori” ye ithafen kitabın başına yazmış olduğu ithafname ve önsözde baskı esnasında birçok zorlukla karşılaştığını beyan ediyor.
(19) Aynı kitabın 224. sayfasında tarihçinin zamanında Galata’da bulunan Jojoyet Mektebi’nde satılmayan iki yüz nüsha mevcut olup sonra Avrupa’ya dağılmış olduğundan yine kendisi söz ediyor.
(20) Mösyö Omon’un 1902’de Paris’te dört cilt olarak basılan Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Orient adlı eserinin 751-753. sayfaları.
(21) Bu Said Ağa “Yirmisekiz Çelebi Mehmed Efendi” nin oğlu olan “Mehmed Said Efendi”dir ki 1154’de Rumeli pâyesiyle Paris Elçisi olmuştur. Sicill-i Osmani, cilt 3, sayfa 29-30. Fransız doğu bilimcilerinden Mösyö Şefer tarafından Paris’te 1894’de basılan, 1716-1724 yıllarında Fransa’nın Osmanlı Devleti Elçisi olarak bulunan Marki dö Bonnak (marquis de Bonnac)’ ın “Hatırât” adlı eserinin önsözünün 43-45. sayfalarında İbrahim Müteferrika’ya matbaanın kurulmasında yardımcı olan bu kişi hakkında birçok bilgi mevcut ise de maalesef bu eseri şimdiye kadar elde edemedim.
(22) Kitabın kütüphanede bulunduğu yer, bi, XIII, 8 in 4º. (23) Orientalische Philologie in 4º.
The article you have posted