Figural !

[David]

Originally Posted by VVV

David, I didn't write that Jensen state it is a yaksha (he usually calls it "a raksasa prince").
You really should try to get hold of the Kris disk. Besides being like a Stone or van Zonnenveld for the keris world regarding that it compiles most of what has been written about it outside Indonesia, it also is the largest and best picture source for complete "historic" keris (complete=the dress is also old and have not been changed according to the present fashion).

Thanks for your response Michael. Please forgive my inaccurate assumption, but since you stated it was most probably a yaksha followed immediately by a praise of the Kris Disk as a better reference for original symbolism it seemed to me you were implying that was the source of your information. Hopefully you can see why i would make such a connection. I have never heard or read this identification for this hilt form before and was hoping for some further supportive reference points. Perhaps you could share with us then whether you heard or read this suggested elsewhere or if it is a theory of your own making.
As for the Kris Disk, i have indeed been looking for a reasonably priced copy for some time.

[VVV]

Sorry David, I do understand now why you read it that way.
Somehow I remembered that we have had this discussion before and found this thread from 2008.
Since then I am leaning more and more towards that most of the hilts attributed as rakshasas are instead yakshas, based on their usually more benevolent character and to their function as guardians of places in the nature (genii loci). In my 2009 study of 138 Malaysian incantations collected during the colonial times, different kind of guardian spirits clearly dominates as receivers of the spells (58% followed by "Satanic" (pure evil) characters 17%). They were "dressed" in either Islamic, Hindu or even pre-Hindu clothes. Very much resembling how saints were/are used in Roman-Catholic countries.

Michael

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Michael, of course you are correct:- Machlup and Arbesman are only the tip of the iceberg, but those two happen to be a very prominent and well-known tip. It has been obvious from probably the beginning of mankind's learning curve that the cat can be skinned in more ways than one.

Again I agree with you that since this Forum is not academically based, and additionally because many of our contributors do not have English as a native language, it is perhaps best to keep responses and new information to a simple, straight-forward, basic level, and this is precisely what I have been trying to do for the entire time I have been involved in discussions here.

However, I do believe that there is a difference between simplicity and insufficient information to permit understanding of base concepts, but this mindset makes it reasonably difficult to determine a point at which to draw the line between "too much", and "not enough".

For example, it is easy for the modern day western collector to differentiate between the raksasa and yaksa --- I'll use Javanese spellings, since we are discussing Jawa.

The raksasa is big, ugly and hairy, and he's a baddy.

The yaksa is a nature spirit somewhat delicate, and essentially a goody.

Thus, if we are involved in a discussion that is centered around the beliefs and terminology of modern day western collectors it is probably more than enough to restrict ourselves to this level of terminology.

However, when a question is raised that seeks to find the specific identity of one of these artificially created groups, it becomes more than a little difficult to provide an explanation in the absence of sufficient information to understand that explanation.

If we stop with generic terms, as understood by collectors outside Javanese society, yaksa & raksasa are probably enough, but then when we get to trying to understand the differences between these two generic groups we can be faced with a problem:- should we apply our own construction to the understanding, should we apply the understanding of present day Jawa, or should we seek to apply the understanding of the people responsible for the production of the artifact that we are attempting to understand?

My present belief is that the nature of the question raised dictates the nature of the answer given. I am open to opposing argument to this position, as my own ideas do sometimes vacillate between trying to provide reasonably complete answers, and answers just sufficient to extinguish the question.

This matter of raksasa and yaksa is a good example of what I mean.

Many of the hilts that have these abstracted figural forms would have been produced by people who spoke Old Javanese.
( Modern Javanese seems to be accepted as having begun its development in the courts of Central Jawa following the establishment of the Second Kingdom of Mataram, roughly some time around 1600)

In Old Javanese the understanding of "yaksa" was that it referred to a group of creatures who were half-gods dedicated to the service of (principally) Wisnu, however, sometimes they were found in the company of dangerous creatures such as the pisaca, a group that included the setan, raksasa, iblis, jin, and other evil and dangerous creatures.

In Old Javanese thought the raksasa was an evil, dangerous demon.

So in Old Javanese thought, the yaksa was usually, but not necessarily, a goody, but in reality the yaksa could also be a bhuta.
A bhuta is generally taken to refer to an evil spirit that haunts lonely places, but it can also mean simply a giant, and in Old Javanese it can carry a wider range of meaning, dependent upon context.

In present day Jawa Krama the yaksa is thought of as a member of the same group of creatures as the daitya, raksasa and asura. In Old Javanese thought the Asuras were enemies of the Dewas, the Daityas were a sub-clan of giants belonging to the larger group of Asuras.

Now, what I have written above is in my view the absolute basic, simplistic level of info needed for a layman to understand the nature of a yaksa and the nature of a raksasa. When we have this most basic level of understanding it becomes clear that to try to differentiate between the yaksa and the raksasa becomes somewhat difficult. Most particularly so if we are trying to understand an abstracted figural carving made by a person who saw the world in Old Javanese terms.

For a long time the world of collectors outside Jawa referred to these figural hilts as "raksasa".
Not particularly accurate, not making any attempt to understand the form in terms of the creators, but sufficient so that all other collectors outside Jawa knew what was being talked about.

We have at least two choices:- we stay with the terminology of yesterday, or we attempt to expand our understanding to allow us to use a perhaps more accurate terminology.

One route is for the collector, the other route is for the student.

[VVV]

Thanks Alan for your interesting clarification of the difference between a raksasa and yaksa in "old Jawa". I buy that your spelling is more appropriate in this Javanese case and will adopt it from now.

To facilitate the reading of this thread I would also like to include the quote I referred to above and used in the 2008 thread about yaksa according to Indian mythology:

"A Yaksha, translated as a ghost [bhuta in Sanskrit] in Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend, are connected to the creative forces of a deity.

'It eventually became a collective noun for mysterious semi-divine beeings, who can assume any form at will, living in forests, trees, caves and jungles and play a prominent role in Indian mythology and folklore. They were said to inhabit the sacred tree in each village and to protect the prosperity and well-being of the community.'

It also says that some of the yakshas

'...were assimilated into main deites, such as Shiva, as exemplified by his epithet Virupaksha, which originally was the name of a yaksha.'"

To summarize, and to answer David's question, the three main arguments in favor of yaksas over raksasas as a probable interpretation of these hilts (based on my present understanding and presented in a simplistic but hopefully clear way) are:

- a yaksa is a genius loci (local ruler/guardian spirit of places in nature), which according to my studies are the most often used metaphysical beings for everyday and individual religious situations. Instead of going directly to (and perhaps disturbing) the main guy people prefer to use geographically closer and (enough) powerful intermediaries as a start. "Demons", like the raksasas, are much less used for these matters, especially if you are not a religious specialist.
- a yaksa is more often benevolent to human beings than a raksasa. Like most other metaphysical beings this does not mean that they are always benevolent or "good" from the human perspective.
- the floral and vegetative motifs on the hilt might be an indication that the depicted being is (or was once before Islamic times) some kind of nature spirit (like a yaksa).

For each individual hilt I also fully agree with Alan that it might, and most probably, have several layers of other (personal for both the maker and owner) meanings, too. This also seems to be a quite universal pattern found within both artwork and religious symbolism (like for Christians the religious statues resembling Greco-Roman gods or a local human ruler, saints depicted in local and contemporary fashion, the Black Madonna, the Virgin of Guadalupe etc.).

Michael

[VVV]

For those of you who don't have the Kris disk I also attach three pages (out of several) discussing the raksasa/yaksa symbolism of the quite early figural Banten-hilts found in old European collections.

Michael

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that quote Michael. It is always useful to go back to source and learn how things were understood before they were taken to Jawa and became part of the Javanese-Hindu understanding.

Of course, when we take that step and move outside the Javanese understandings, into the mainstream Hindu understandings, we really should take the additional step and look at the understandings in Hindu epic literature, and the historical foundations as well as the mythological understandings. When all these things are put together we obtain a more complete and clearer understanding of what happened not only in the mainstream, but more importantly for us, what happened in Jawa.

But as you have so correctly pointed out:- we are not in academia.

There is sometimes a degree of confusion between the word "bhuta" and the word "bhoot" (bhut).
Bhuta might refer to a ghost, but can also refer to an imp or a goblin or some other like creature, but a bhoot (bhut) is always a ghost of a type that cannot be exorcised.

These bhuts are real bad news.
If you happen to see a beautiful woman hitching a ride at night, be sure to check that her feet don't face backwards. If the feet are on back to front, drive on by just as fast as you can --- she's a bhut.
But if you're not quick enough, and she actually gets in your car, its best to have a bit burnt turmeric on hand:- throw that in her face and she'll bail out real quick.
You gotta be prepared with these creatures, just can't tell where or when they might strike.

My grandmother used to put a lot of faith in garlic --- but that's another story and another culture.