Kris question to the knowledgeables

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?

Rick · 15th January 2006, 03:35 PM

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 · 15th January 2006, 10:21 PM

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 · 15th January 2006, 10:27 PM

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?

MABAGANI · 16th January 2006, 06:17 AM

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm

Sang Keris · 16th January 2006, 01:21 PM

Pusaka ( D C ) , i really don't care about the discussion , but please DO NOT use my keris picture for model without permission ...!

nechesh · 17th January 2006, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm

Mabagani, thank you for this very interesting website. It is worth viewing just for the wonderful illustration at the bottom of the page. One thing i noticed as i look through each illustration that was driven home every time i came to a grouping of keris was just how unique the form of the keris is. It is unlike ANY of the displayed Indian weapon forms. It is interesting, however to see a feature that IS similar to the keris sogokan on these Indian spearheads, but the asymetric blade and seperate gonjo are features i have seen no where else.

Ian · 17th January 2006, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm

Thanks for the link. This collection of material has had several incarnations over the last six years or so. It has popped up with at least three or four different URLs to my knowledge, tending to disappear each time after a few months. So catch it while you can -- a lot of scans, many from Egerton, Stone, and other well known sources.

Ian.

nechesh · 15th January 2006, 03:51 PM

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 · 15th January 2006, 05:11 PM

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 · 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.

nechesh · 15th January 2006, 05:29 PM

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 · 15th January 2006, 06:48 PM

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)

Pusaka · 15th January 2006, 08:13 PM

If we examine the Indonesian symbol for Om we will find something very interesting. In fig 1 we have the symbol for Om, In fig 2 we have removed one of the characters and now we have the Indonesian symbol for Ong (one holy letter). What is interesting about Ong is that it is composed of the character for 3 but with an Ulu candra (crown) added to the top to signify it is holy i.e. the holy three. This is very similar to the Indonesian Mang (Holy letter). In fig 3 we have removed the Ulu candra and we are left with the character for 3. Three is holy in many religions for example the holy trinity in the Christian religion, in effect the 3 aspects of god. It is interesting that the character for 3 is the bases for the Om (symbol of god). Finally in fig 4 we have put the remaining characters side by side and we have a very interesting pattern when it is related to the markings on the Keris. We find that it fits all the illustrations that nechesh posted.

nechesh · 15th January 2006, 09:37 PM

Interesting. Firstly, the final figure (4) which you claim is all the remaining figures of the Indonesian OM laid side by side does NOT fit all the figures of Ron Dha that i posted, it only fits the Surakarta Ron Dha. Look carefully. Fig. 4 shows 2 waves that face away from each other (back to back) and one wave facing inward on the right with a small peak in the middle. This small peak only exists on the Surakarta example in this sequence.
It seems a bit of a stretch for me to disassemble a symbol and piece it back together in a way that is no longer that symbol and still maintain that it holds the same meaning. In the end, lines are merely that, just lines, and if we try hard enough i am sure we can come up with a number of different letters or symbols that we can reconstruct to resemble the Ron Dha. I am afraid i neeed a little bit more than that to be swayed in your direction. If i remove the foot off an "E" it becomes an "F", if i invert a "W" it becomes an "M", if i turn an "N" on it's side it becomes a "Z". But what symbolic relationship do these letters have with one another? They have completely different meanings and intentions when viewed from different perspectives.
BTW, i believe the language and alphabet you are using in this last post might be Balinese, not Indonesian.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/balinese.htm
The general Indonesian language is Bahasa and is usually written in the Latin alphabet. This is what "unites" all the islands in that nation with a common language. Balinese, of course, has the same Brahmi roots that all these other alphabets we have been discussing do, so we will see similarities in forms, but since it is generally accepted (though new theories could pop up

) that the keris as we are discussing it (w/Ron Dha) originated in Jawa and migrated to Bali it also seems likely that the origins of the Ron Dha also lie in Jawa, so comparisons of the Ron Dha to the Balinese alphabet makes no sense.

15th January 2006, 06:34 AM	#2
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.

15th January 2006, 03:35 PM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	Simmer Down 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 .

15th January 2006, 03:51 PM	#11
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	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. Attached Images

15th January 2006, 06:48 PM	#15
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	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) Attached Images

15th January 2006, 08:13 PM	#16
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	If we examine the Indonesian symbol for Om we will find something very interesting. In fig 1 we have the symbol for Om, In fig 2 we have removed one of the characters and now we have the Indonesian symbol for Ong (one holy letter). What is interesting about Ong is that it is composed of the character for 3 but with an Ulu candra (crown) added to the top to signify it is holy i.e. the holy three. This is very similar to the Indonesian Mang (Holy letter). In fig 3 we have removed the Ulu candra and we are left with the character for 3. Three is holy in many religions for example the holy trinity in the Christian religion, in effect the 3 aspects of god. It is interesting that the character for 3 is the bases for the Om (symbol of god). Finally in fig 4 we have put the remaining characters side by side and we have a very interesting pattern when it is related to the markings on the Keris. We find that it fits all the illustrations that nechesh posted. Attached Images

15th January 2006, 04:34 AM	#1
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	#3
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?

15th January 2006, 10:21 PM	#5
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	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.

15th January 2006, 10:27 PM	#6
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	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?

16th January 2006, 06:17 AM	#7
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm

16th January 2006, 01:21 PM	#8
Sang Keris Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Indonesia Posts: 46	Pusaka ( D C ) , i really don't care about the discussion , but please DO NOT use my keris picture for model without permission ...!

15th January 2006, 05:11 PM	#12
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	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.

15th January 2006, 05:29 PM	#14
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	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

15th January 2006, 09:37 PM	#17
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Interesting. Firstly, the final figure (4) which you claim is all the remaining figures of the Indonesian OM laid side by side does NOT fit all the figures of Ron Dha that i posted, it only fits the Surakarta Ron Dha. Look carefully. Fig. 4 shows 2 waves that face away from each other (back to back) and one wave facing inward on the right with a small peak in the middle. This small peak only exists on the Surakarta example in this sequence. It seems a bit of a stretch for me to disassemble a symbol and piece it back together in a way that is no longer that symbol and still maintain that it holds the same meaning. In the end, lines are merely that, just lines, and if we try hard enough i am sure we can come up with a number of different letters or symbols that we can reconstruct to resemble the Ron Dha. I am afraid i neeed a little bit more than that to be swayed in your direction. If i remove the foot off an "E" it becomes an "F", if i invert a "W" it becomes an "M", if i turn an "N" on it's side it becomes a "Z". But what symbolic relationship do these letters have with one another? They have completely different meanings and intentions when viewed from different perspectives. BTW, i believe the language and alphabet you are using in this last post might be Balinese, not Indonesian. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/balinese.htm The general Indonesian language is Bahasa and is usually written in the Latin alphabet. This is what "unites" all the islands in that nation with a common language. Balinese, of course, has the same Brahmi roots that all these other alphabets we have been discussing do, so we will see similarities in forms, but since it is generally accepted (though new theories could pop up ) that the keris as we are discussing it (w/Ron Dha) originated in Jawa and migrated to Bali it also seems likely that the origins of the Ron Dha also lie in Jawa, so comparisons of the Ron Dha to the Balinese alphabet makes no sense.