Kris question to the knowledgeables

[nechesh]

Originally Posted by Pusaka

If the symbol is Javanese it is strange indeed that any Javanese person I asked what it meant they had no clue. There are many Javanese members in this forum and have they revealed what its meaning is? Its meaning is certainly not secret so I question why nobody seams to know the answer to what it actually means. If it is Javanese surely a Javanese person would understand it, but do they?
Using the Javanese alphabet you can account for only one letter, hardly a through explanation is it, what about the rest, can you explain that???

Let me make an analogy to another alphabet and culture for just a moment. In the Hebrew alphabet each letter has a specific meaning. Lets look at the letter Shin ("S" or "Sh"). The name for this letter actually means "tooth", but each letter in the Hebrew alphabet also has a numerical value, as with many other languages. The value for Shin is 300. The numerical value for the phrase Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) is also 300, so in Qabalistic thinking Shin is equivalent. Therefore the letter Shin is also a symbol of the Spirit of God. A great deal can be represented in only one letter. I doubt the average non-orthodox Jew would be aware of this. Reformed Jews don't necessarily even learn Hebrew. Still, they consider themselves Jews and a part of that culture. So why would it be so surprising that a modern Javanese man, whose main language is Indonesian, not Javanese, who possibly doesn't even know the older language very well, who has rejected or forgotten or was never really taught the ways of the old keris culture, who possible sees it as just old superstition, would not understand the more occult meanings of the Javanese letter Dha in relation to the keris and the Ron Dha?

[Pusaka]

I have added the letter dha into the picture for comparison. Personally I think the markings on the keris looks more like the Sanskrit then the Javanese. The letter dha is more symmetrical whilst the marking on the keris is clearly not. If it is the 7th letter of the Javanese alphabet then I guess that is significant, for all those that know what the number 7 represents

[Pusaka]

Looking at the mark in question next to the Sanskrit and the Javanese we can see that there is a closer resemblance to the Sanskrit. Actually very little resemblance to the Javanese dha(Sanskrit bottom, Javanese top)

[RomaRana]

Originally Posted by nechesh

So why would it be so surprising that a modern Javanese man, whose main language is Indonesian, not Javanese, who possibly doesn't even know the older language very well, who has rejected or forgotten or was never really taught the ways of the old keris culture, who possible sees it as just old superstition, would not understand the more occult meanings of the Javanese letter Dha in relation to the keris and the Ron Dha?

That reminds me of Bonji in japanese swords. Bonji are debased Sanskrit inscriptions which have lost their meaning and are reproduced as good luck symbols devoid of much or their previous meaning.

[nechesh]

So Pusaka, why do YOU think the Javanese refer to this feature as a Ron Dha and NOT a Ron AUM? Why, if it is indeed an AUM, do they hide the fact and pretend it is a Dha for all these years? Is there some kind of great Javanese conspiracy that we don't know about?
AGAIN, i must point out that you are comparing a relatively modern Sanskrit script that was not used in Jawa in the 14thC to features on a VERY modern keris blade when you are trying to establish a theory of ORIGIN for features that were developed for the keris 700 years ago. And these original Ron Dha did NOT look the same as the features you are showing us on this 21st century blade. So none of your illustrations really prove anything about the origins of the Ron Dha on the keris. Is none of this getting through to you?
Like i say, i like your creative thinking, but i think your basis is flawed and therefore your conclusion as well. You can't just keep saying i think it looks more like an AUM so it is, especially when you are looking at a new keris. I hope you continue asking these questions, but don't fool yourself into believing you have all the answers already or all your creative thinking will be for nought.

[John]

Nechesh, why don't you substantiate further with examples of some initial examples of 14th C Ron Dhas patterns and pin point how recent the OM symbols Pusaka has illustrated to enlighten us more. Quite frankly I personally know of one sanskrit OM symbol which I've no idea has been around for how long. And what would the OM character around the 14th C look like? When is/are the earliest recorded references to the "dha" on keris you could point us to?

I've noticed you've quite often drawn your arguments based on AM's info/research (tell me if otherwise) but personally I'll at this juncture treat Pusaka's (and others) arguments with equal respect and won't "rubbishing" them with your seemingly perennial "high pitch" tones until the riddle is conclusively resolved but like some say, we may never know for sure...

And Pusaka, I commend your composure and civility.

[Pusaka]

Nechesh, calm down, you’re a very angry person, it’s only a damn forum debate, relax. I notice that you go out of your way to make little of anything I say, but that’s fine.
As I said before is the symbol I used for Om really modern?

[Rick]

Pusaka don't make public judgements on another person's demeanor . I think that you need to answer Nechesh's questions and he needs to answer yours and John's; that will allow the debate to continue in a civilised manner .

If this thread devolves into unpleasantness I'll close it ; everyone take a deep breath count to ten and resume .

[Pusaka]

Personally I am satisfied that the markings relate to the Om symbol and have the same meaning, this is my own personal belief so I am not saying you must agree. Im sure there is very little difference between a Javanese Om symbol and a Balinese Om symbol. We can see relationships in them all.

[nechesh]

John, you are absolutely right. And to Pusaka, my apologies for suggesting you were being arrogant to assume that if you saw no meaning in something that it simply doesn't exist. That was a judgement on my part and may very well have been an incorrect one. Sometimes we hit the enter key before we completely think things through.
Still John, your post here seems like something best dealt with in PM as i think we are back on the academic track now and i think finger pointing will only tend to derail that. Also, Pusaka seems the kind of chap who is very capable of fighting his own battles. Yes, i was guilty as well, and for that i am sorry. I had already PMed Pusaka to say as much and offer him help in his studies. Let's move on, shall we?

[nechesh]

A few things first Pusaka:
1. I am not at all angry, though maybe a little frustrated that you continue to put forth your theory with very little evidence as if it is an absolute. If you could show me an illusration of an AUM used in 14thC Jawa and then compare that to the earliest of Ron Dha known on keris i would be willing to give more weight to your aurguement.
2. I am not going "out of my way" to make little of everything you say. I am merely presently my own logical arguement to your theories based on what little i personally know about the keris. I would also love to solve this mystery. I don't know all the answers either, but i would like us to come as close as possible to the right conclusion based on solid evidence and observations. It may, as John suggests, remain a mystery. As i have said before, and will again, i like the way you think.This was a sincere comment, really. I actually think you are on the right track. I hope you will continue your research. I just think you have taken a slight wrong turn and if you think you are there already you are liable to miss something. Please don't take my diagreements with you personally. I am only trying to help you and all of us solve this mystery together. This is an academic discussion, not a personal one.
John, i find your ability to determine the sound pitch of internet writing astonishing. Once again, i am merely presenting counter arguement. It wouldn't do us very well if everytime someone presented a theory that didn't quite ring true with us that we just threw up our hands and decided to go along with it. Repetition of an idea does not make it true. Remember WMDs? My biggest complaint about Pusaka's theory is that he is using a 20thC keris w/ a 19thC Ron Dha form compared to a relatively recent AUM symbol to establish the origin of a symbolic keris feature that first appeared in a different form 600 yrs. ago. This is just bad research. I am sorry that i do not have any examples of the style of AUM symbol used in 14thC Jawa, but ALL these things have changed and evolved over the centuries. It would be wonderful if someone could find an authenticated example. I have, however, attached a drawing first sketched by Empu Suparman of the differences between Ron Dha of different periods of keris. It appeared, i believe, in a 1990 Knife Magazine article by, yes, Alan Maisey. You are correct that i do base a great deal of my understanding of the keris on Alan's writings and guidance. Still, i do have a mind of my own and we have not always agreed on all points keris.

[Pusaka]

To be honest nechesh I personally can see very little difference between the images you posted, just the characters are more defined in some then others yet they are still the same characters in all.

Secondly I don’t know why you think the Om symbol is modern, its my understanding that the symbol relates to Brahmi text which makes it ancient indeed. I will see if I can contact someone who will clear this up.

Can you please post the original illustration so that I may look at them in detail.

[nechesh]

Originally Posted by John

Quite frankly I personally know of one sanskrit OM symbol which I've no idea has been around for how long.

BTW John, Pusaka has already shown us 3 different AUM symbols, of which only one seems to fit fully into his comparison with 19thC style Ron Dha.

[nechesh]

Sorry Pusaka, this is the only illustration i have of the various Ron Dhas. I am surprised that you can not see that only the Surakarta Ron Dha fits clearly into your theory for the AUM.
The Brahmi alphabet looks very different from the Sanskrit used in any of your AUM illustrations:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm

[Pusaka]

Om can be written in many ways, in its most simple form it looks like the number 3. The last image is how Om is written in modern Indonesia (far right)