Kris question to the knowledgeables

nechesh · 14th January 2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pusaka

It is difficult to say if the markings on the keris are Sanskrit or Javanese. Remembering that the Javanese alphabet would have been influenced by Sanskrit. If you chose the Javanese then the symbols are meaningless but if you chose the Sanskrit then there is meaning in those markings.

Pusaka, you are certainly welcome to your personal beliefs, but the notion that this symbol is meaningless if it represents the Javanese Dha is somewhat arrogant on your behalf. Just because you are not aware of it's meaning does not imply that such meaning is nonexistent. Do you really think you have such a grasp of the Javanese culture to make such a statement?
Why do think it is difficult to say whether this "symbol" is Sanskrit or Javanese when the Javanese have been saying for centuries that it is indeed Javanese?

Pusaka · 14th January 2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

Pusaka, you are certainly welcome to your personal beliefs, but the notion that this symbol is meaningless if it represents the Javanese Dha is somewhat arrogant on your behalf. Just because you are not aware of it's meaning does not imply that such meaning is nonexistent. Do you really think you have such a grasp of the Javanese culture to make such a statement?
Why do think it is difficult to say whether this "symbol" is Sanskrit or Javanese when the Javanese have been saying for centuries that it is indeed Javanese?

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???

Kiai Carita · 14th January 2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

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???

Hi Pusaka,

Remember that what Nechesh said that the ricikan on the greneng and janggut plus the kembang kacang, are relatively new in keris history. These ricikan appeared no earlier than the 12th century but more likely were created in the 14th century.

There are Jawanese explainations to these ricikan, including in Harsrinuksmo's Ensiklopedi Keris. Not everything in Jawa is explained verbally, many things are meant to be understood through rasa -feeling and intuition. However if you accuse Jawanese of not understanding a venerated object of their culture, how do you explain your credibility to explain it?

I think that Mans' explanation is the best: that keris originated in Jawa in animistic times, and through time was influenced by Vedic culture, Chinese culture, Buddhist culture, Islamic culture and Western culture. Your explanation makes sense from one angle but from another angle (like the angle used by Neches) it is flawed. I once read an explanation from the point of view of the keris as a stabbing weapon which made perfect sense untill one remembered that the keris in Jawa was not primarily a physical weapon. Also there are many types of ricikan on the janggut, kembang kacang and the greneng.

Means that what ever our opinions on keris are, they are basically only our opinions. There is to much mystery in Jawa, let alone in the most mystical object from the culture to make definite assumptions.

Keep the good work on the keris study, just don't ignore what the jawanese have to say?

Warm salams to al,
KC

nechesh · 14th January 2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

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 · 14th January 2006, 08:59 PM

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 · 14th January 2006, 09:14 PM

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 · 14th January 2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 15th January 2006, 04:34 AM

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 · 15th January 2006, 06:34 AM

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 · 15th January 2006, 02:21 PM

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?

nechesh · 15th January 2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

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.

MABAGANI · 14th January 2006, 05:42 PM

If a keris or kris form developed during an Islamic era and region, wouldn't it be considered a Muslim creation? We can make the general statement that the keris originated in Southeast Asia with Hindu/Budhist influences, but depending on certain forms, era and place, etc. wouldn't these variables dictate the specific designation of the creation?

14th January 2006, 08:59 PM	#5
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	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 Attached Images

14th January 2006, 09:14 PM	#6
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	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) Attached Images Last edited by Pusaka; 15th January 2006 at 01:36 AM.

15th January 2006, 06:34 AM	#9
John Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Land below the wind Posts: 135	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. Last edited by John; 15th January 2006 at 07:22 AM.

14th January 2006, 05:42 PM	#12
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	origin vs. creation If a keris or kris form developed during an Islamic era and region, wouldn't it be considered a Muslim creation? We can make the general statement that the keris originated in Southeast Asia with Hindu/Budhist influences, but depending on certain forms, era and place, etc. wouldn't these variables dictate the specific designation of the creation?

15th January 2006, 04:34 AM	#8
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	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.

15th January 2006, 02:21 PM	#10
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	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?