The Beginning:- A Question

[A. G. Maisey]

I have a question for everybody who follows this Forum.

I've answered a lot of questions, so now I think I'm entitled to ask one, and it is a question that is probably mostly a matter of opinion, additionally it is not highly technical.

What I would like to know is this:-

on a keris blade, where is the beginning of the blade?

Is it the point, one side or another, or is it somewhere else?

The Beginning of the Blade, an opinion please.

Thank you.

[Rick]

I think it begins at the Ganja, Alan.
To my way of thinking such things end at the point.

Does a Phallus/Lingam begin at the tip?
Or does it begin at the base?

[A. G. Maisey]

Rick, my personal opinion is that all things begin at the beginning, and the beginning of everything is the foundation or the base, so I guess I'd have to say that a lingga begins at its base, which when you think about it seems a bit contradictory, but still, that's only my opinion.

Let's see what others might think, that's why I asked the question, to try to see if there is more or less a broad agreement on the beginning part of a keris blade

[rasjid]

My personal opinion is the Pesi, beginning of the blade. Means when its finish, or done as a Keris.

If during the making, maybe different? The mpu start making from the base area, gandik etc. Just above gonjo. Even when making the sogokan dan blumbangan, they started from the bottom area.


Rasjid

[A. G. Maisey]

OK, pesi?

Why not?

Its more or less in the same general area, the big end, so to speak, so that's two votes for the big end of the keris.

[Bob A]

Taking the blade as a whole, one way of approaching the question is to consider that the surface of the blade, in its entirety, is the beginning.

That's the part that interacts with the rest of the universe, if you will, and separates the keris from everything else; the interface between the object and its surroundings, the essence of its reality.

[David]

I'm not sure what i really think about this, but when i first read the question the first thing that popped into my head is that the blade begins where i come in contact with it since the keris is then an extension of the self. So i am inclined to say the pejetan/blumbangan area. :shrug:

[drdavid]

Keeping in mind the lingam then the beginning/base should be where the pesi joins the blade. This might not include the gonjo which could be seen as an external addition to the lingam. The pesi itself could be seen as an internal attachment feature rather than part of the lingam. Shavism might dispute this interpretation of the lingam symbolism

[A. G. Maisey]

OK David, another vote for the Big End.

Bob, I like your idea, in fact I like it quite a lot, it seems to me to be an interpretation of the concept that nothing exists unless it is seen, that is, that everything only comes into existence at the point where it can be seen to exist, thus if it does not exist it has no beginning, and if no beginning, it also has no end.

You're not a cupboard philosopher are you Bob? This sounds exactly like like the sort of conversations I have with some of my more academic mates.

Its a great answer, but I was thinking in very simple terms, as I said when I asked the question, I'm just looking for opinions, and I'm not being technical.What I would like to achieve, if possible is a group opinion that is weighted more one way than the other,whichever way that might be.

So Bob, if you were to take off your philosopher's hat, and just take a simple layman's position, where do you think this object that we know as a keris might begin?

There it is, its laying on the table, we walk past, we notice it, where does it start?

[drdavid]

You might also ask who does the keris truly belong to ie the giver (wielder/lingam holder) or the receiver (victim/yoni), if it is the giver the beginning (point of first contact) is the gonjo or blumbangan, if it is the receiver then the point of first contact is the tip
DrD

[A. G. Maisey]

In some cases Dr. David, that keris might belong to entire family, or even an entire community.

Your first idea was very nice. At school I was taught never to use words like "good", "bad", "nice" without pausing to think if there is a better word that could be used instead. I went to a pretty old fashioned school. So I did think before using "nice", and this is indeed a very correct word in this instance.

[Bob A]

No philosphers in my cupboard, Alan; I even looked for a Philosopher's Stone, but no luck. My dross will have to remain, ungilded.

OK looking at a keris. If it's sheathed, very little of the actual blade is visible, and I don't consider the dress as an integral part of the keris, though many would disagree. For me the blade is, if not everything, at least the essence.

Unsheathed, while I'd like to make a point of the point, it's still the shape or outline of the blade that catches the eye and forces a closer look at details. While you may think that this is not quite "the beginning," I'd reply that it was the goal of the maker, and existed in some form in his mind's eye, which he then brought into existence on this lower plane.

I'd take issue with the gonjo being the beginning; anatomically it seems incorrect, if one considers the whole of the object, which is among many other factors a symbolic representation of the virile member, so to speak. That said, the point of either is in many ways also the end of the object under discussion, yet it's what is first met with when used for its intended purpose.

So I'd have to say that the end is also the beginning, conceptually. So to speak.

Interesting question.

[Rick]

Possibly the real beginning of a keris is in the mind's eye of the Maker.

[A. G. Maisey]

Bob & Rick, I think you're both philosophers, and of course you are both absolutely right from a philosophical point of view.

But I'm a very simple man, and I tried my best to ask a very simple question, I was not looking for any type of technical approach, neither the technology of the forge, nor the technology of the mind.

May I suggest that we forget about the things that we might believe, or even truly know about the keris?

It is an object, its physical beginning is somewhere, maybe the little end, maybe the big end, maybe one side or another, maybe one face or another.

It is a thing, it has a certain length, a certain width and a certain height.

Where does that thing begin?

I'm trying to go somewhere with this, this is just chapter one, and what I would really like to see are some simple, uncomplicated opinions, just like my simple, uncomplicated question.

[Rick]

I am no philosopher Mate.
The opinion I expressed in my first response to your question must stand as stated.

Why?

Because as you reiterated in your response to Bob and I it is a simple answer to a simple question and an opinion.

[Bob A]

Why not the edge, then? In use, the edge delineates the first part of the blade to perform the actual function of the blade; since the function may be to cut or to puncture, the tip must be considered part of the edge.

What is the beginning of a circle?

For that matter, what is the sound of one hand clapping? Questions can appear simple; that doesn't necessarily imply that the answer will be equally simple.

We monkeys do love a puzzle, even if we must fabricate them ourselves, for our amusement nd edification.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rick, he who claims not to be a philosopher is probably the greatest philosopher of all, however, if your final opinion is the same as your first, then we can record that as a vote for the Big End.

And Bob, if you like the idea of the edge, or perhaps the entire circumference, then we can possibly clarify that by saying that your vote is for anywhere other than the simplicity of the Big End, or the Little End, and that you are prepared to accept all and every part of the whole as the beginning.

At this point we are not thinking in terms of any ideas of right or wrong, just in terms of personal opinions.

[Bob A]

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Not a simple task.

I find it simple to get wrapped in complexity. But the ideal, for me, is to achieve that quality that mathematicians call "elegance." Usually, I fail.

[Rick]

Rick, he who claims not to be a philosopher is probably the greatest philosopher of all, however, if your final opinion is the same as your first, then we can record that as a vote for the Big End.

You have requested that we put aside the philosophical and you have asked for the simple so I think we must Alan.
Ever since I petitioned Lee to create this subforum of Vikingsword all those years ago I must admit that the more I learn here the less I know.

Or possibly I am just not learning.

[A. G. Maisey]

You sound like me Rick.

I'm always telling people that the more I learn the less I know --- and this applies very much so with keris.

I find that my focus just becomes more and more narrow.

But anyway, my question is not a trick question, and it doesn't need deep reflection or contemplation of the metaphysical, its just a straight Saturday afternoon ask:- where does the thing begin, where does it start?

I am going somewhere with this, but I'd like to get a a weight of opinion one way or another before I move on. At the moment we've got most people leaning towards the big end of this thing as the start of it, but there are a few more regulars that I'd like to hear from, so I'll wait a while before I go any further.

[JustYS]

Hi Alan,

IMHO the begining of a Keris is at the Ganja.

In Indonesian language we always use word “ujung” to describe the pointy part of a weapon (ujung tombak = tip of spear).

Ujung itself means end.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,

Yohan

[Jean]

on a keris blade, where is the beginning of the blade?



I am not a philosopher and since the beginning of this thread, I am wondering: Why this question?. Alan will probably tell us more later.
I am scratching my head (is it the beginning or the end of my body?) but have no valid reply to submit ;)

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Yohan, so you're a Big End man

and Jean, you have no opinion?

OK, no opinion.

As to why I asked the question, it was because I wished to try to establish a consensus of opinion in respect of the beginning of a physical keris blade.

Does it start at the very tip, the ujung, the front and move back towards the hilt, or does it start at the base of the blade and move forward towards the point? Where does this long thin piece of metal begin? Everything begins somewhere. Does a building begin at its foundations and go up, or with its roof and go down?

When we look at a keris, how do we hold it? How do we examine it ? Do we point it towards the ground, or towards the sky, or towards the horizon, or towards somewhere else?

Why do I want to establish a consensus of opinion?

Because I want to prepare a foundation for further understanding. Its that simple.

All I'm asking for is an opinion, not a theory that needs to be defended.

[Jean]

Well for a change I would say that the beginning of the blade is the tip of the pesi (the bottom end of a blade). The pesi is part of the blade since it "penetrates" it from the base.
Regards :)

[Paul de Souza]

I think the keris begins at the ganja...the point we focus on when we first take it out from the sarong.

[Jean]

I think the keris begins at the ganja...the point we focus on when we first take it out from the sarong.

I considered this option too but the ganja is separate from the blade unless it is iras :)

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Jean, and thank you Paul.

[Anthony G.]

Pardon me for my little knowledge. I would said it is at the TOP. Why?

The keris tip is 'our head'. We must always submit and respect the Creator and it's creation.

The bilah and pesi symbolize the form lingga while the ganja symbolizes the yoni form.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Anthony.

[Bejo]

Hi, I think the beginning part is the pesi. Because from the video about making keris that I watched, the first part that was shaped is pesi.

Regards,

Joe

[Henk]

When we unsheath the sheathed keris, the point is to the sky. First vivisble is the gonjo. Then we look upwards at the blade ending at the point.

Counting luks ends also at the point of the blade. So for me the end is the point the beginning the gonjo.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Joe, and thank you Henk.

[Marcokeris]

I don't know where there is the beginning of the blade . I always look at the blade as a whole and, passively, I feel if there is a feeling

[Sajen]

Hello Alan,
The big end is for me the beginning of the blade!

Regards,
Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Marco and Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

I've found a few minutes to do a summary of the ideas we have to date.

What I find is that we have the beginning of the blade voted for as follows:-

Big End, I'm thinking of this as the whole of the sor-soran = 2 votes
Little End, the point = 2 votes
Pesi = 4 votes, or possibly 5 or 6 votes
Gonjo = 4 votes
No precise point or location at all = 3 votes

Jean, to clarify, when you say "the tip of the pesi", do you mean the end of the pesi, or do you mean where the pesi joins the blade?

I am hoping that we can get at least two more opinions before moving on.

EDIT

I've been turning this diversity of opinion over in my mind, and I have come to the conclusion that, just as with the keris itself, there is not really much hope of an overwhelming weight of opinion one way or another. Not even with another few votes thrown into the ring. I feel that we might need to move forward without too much more delay.

[Jean]

Jean, to clarify, when you say "the tip of the pesi", do you mean the end of the pesi, or do you mean where the pesi joins the blade?


Hello Alan,
I mean the end of the pesi. However I would not mind that my vote be also included as "no precise point at all"
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, noted.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

2 more votes? I can offer 4 to 5... ;)


I do like Bob’s suggestion a lot. However, playing advocatus diaboli, I’d rather opt for the core of the blade than the surface since the latter is bound to change from erosion, cleaning and any restoration attempts while the essence is bound to persist.

If not restricted to any material part of the keris, I go for the makers mind though.


I was thinking in very simple terms, as I said when I asked the question, I'm just looking for opinions, and I'm not being technical.What I would like to achieve, if possible is a group opinion that is weighted more one way than the other,whichever way that might be.

So Bob, if you were to take off your philosopher's hat, and just take a simple layman's position, where do you think this object that we know as a keris might begin?
Where does a Naga begin? Where does a knife begin? Where does a human begin? If pressed to decide for a part of the body of the latter, most highly educated folks nowadays would probably opt for the head while the “heart” will likely be the response of really wise individuals.

If pressed for any anatomical answer, this question pretty much is a non-sequitur: A beginning implies a temporal connotation (like an historical origin, a birth or creator’s act, a start for reading, etc.). I’m sure Alan is getting at something - however, if the question is merely trying to narrow down on a particular part of any keris, I’d posit that the question certainly wasn’t simple and, especially, not phrased well enough... ;)

Also perceived (main) function of the keris will influence which part may get selected. My idiosyncratic anatomical choice might be the base of the blade, especially both sogokan, if present. Or the jenggot and greneng for reading the blade - this opens another can of worms though!

Regards,
Kai

[David]

My idiosyncratic anatomical choice might be the base of the blade, especially both sorsoran, if present.
Can we assume you meant to say sogokan, since the sorsoran MUST be present (as it actually is the whole of the base of the blade) and there can only be one, while sogokan may be present and there could very well be two if it is (though sometimes only one). ;)

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Kai, your opinion was one of the ones I have been looking for, and I will respond to your post before going to the destination I intended when I asked my opening question, which was this:-

What I would like to know is this:-

on a keris blade, where is the beginning of the blade?

Is it the point, one side or another, or is it somewhere else?

It was phrased as a simple, direct question, and during the course of this discussion I have repeated that it was intended in a simple sense a couple of times, repetition that should not have been necessary, because as a part of the question I gave an example that clarifies perfectly what I had in mind. One does not provide physically related examples if one is looking for philosophically based answers.

In fact, there is a correct answer to this question, it is an answer that I have known for many years, I've never wheeled it out before, for the simple reason that it is only one piece of trivia amongst many and I doubt that there has ever been a reason to put the record straight. However, I made reference to it in one of my recent catalogue descriptions, and a friend who saw the catalogue text when I was still preparing it suggested that I should put it up into the Warung. So I am doing that now.

Scroll down and look at the picture I have posted.

This is a copy taken from Ensiklopedi. I think everybody here will recognise this pamor, it is Batu Lapak, sometimes the name will be given as Watu Lapak, but that is just a peculiarity of the Javanese language, "B" and "W" can be interchanged at the wish of the speaker or writer, usually to create a more pleasant spoken delivery.

I cannot remember ever seeing the name of this pamor given as anything other than Batu Lapak. Every keris literate person whom I know in Jawa gives the name as Batu Lapak. There can be no argument about what name we use for this pamor, it is Batu Lapak.

It is a name that is easily understood, "batu" or "watu" means stone or rock in Bahasa Indonesia, Malay, Javanese, Sundanese, it is a word that everybody who has spent five minutes with Bahasa Indonesia knows, probably one of the first words that is learnt when learning any of these languages. "Batu" does not seem to appear in either Old Javanese or in Modern Balinese, so it has probably come into BI, Modern Javanese, and Sundanese from Malay. The form of pamor batu lapak looks a bit like a little rock that has been set into the very base of a keris blade. Batu lapak pamor is only found in one place on a keris blade, directly below the pesi, in the sor-soran.

So that is the "batu" part of the name, but what about the "lapak" part?

Well, "lapak" is not Bahasa Indonesia, nor is it Malay, it does occur in Sundanese, where it is understood as "a mark, or a trace", it does not occur in Balinese.

But in Javanese we do find "lapak", and the meaning of lapak is "saddle", so clearly the meaning of "batu lapak" is "saddle stone".

Or is it?

This name has always troubled me. A saddle stone? What sort of stone is that? Or does it mean a stone saddle? Or a stone that is put into a saddle? I'm not the greatest horseman in the world, but I have spent one hell of a long time on bicycle saddles, and sorry, but I just cannot reconcile the idea of a stone being anything at all to do with a saddle.

So being the inquisitive sort of bloke that I am I started asking questions, and I started to get some different sort of answers to exactly what the word "lapak" means. Certainly it means "saddle", a saddle, the sort of saddle you put on a horse. But it has other meanings as well, the two that I got given back to me most often were that lapak means "after this", or "after that", in the sense that "after I finish this I'll start that", and "a beginning".

Not only am I inquisitive, but I have a tendency to doubt everything, so when I get given explanations and meanings of things, I usually like to check those explanations and meanings, just to make sure I understand what I've been told, and to check that the person who told me is in fact giving me something that is reasonably accurate. So I checked a number of dictionaries to see if I could find this idea of "beginning" or "starting" attached to the word "lapak".

What I found was really quite illuminating. I have access to a number Javanese dictionaries, in most of these dictionaries "lapak" is given the one simple meaning of "saddle", but in the most authoritative Javanese dictionary that I have access to it is given the additional meanings of "after that/this", and "the beginning" ( in Javanese of course, it is a dictionary for Javanese people, see photo).

So now if we consider the pamor name "Batu Lapak" we must consider whether "saddle stone" is the correct understanding or if "beginning stone" might perhaps be a more accurate understanding of this "Batu Lapak" name.

Personally, my vote goes to "Beginning Stone" I think "Saddle Stone" is about as wrong as it can be and has been wrong for a long time.

If "beginning stone" is correct, then of course that name identifies the place where the actual keris, the wilah, the symbol of Siwa and of masculinity begins, and it is right at the point where the pesi meets the wilah.

Now who voted for that?
It was Dr. David I believe, and I do not think that the good doctor knows one word of Javanese, he simply thought about it and applied logic, and presented a straight-forward, simple answer. Even if he does know a little bit of Javanese it is almost certain that he would not know this obscure use of the word "lapak".

I find this idea of batu lapak as an indication of the point where the wilah begins, to be very interesting in another way also. In modern times most keris blades either have the pesi forged in, or cut in, but in old blades the pesi was often attached to the wilah after the wilah had been forged, and this act of attaching the wilah created a batu lapak. So yes, the place where the pesi meets the wilah is indeed the beginning of the wilah.

But pause for a moment and envisage in your mind's eye what an upright wilah that has no pesi looks like. It is a mountain, it is the Gunungan, it is Mount Kailas, it is Mount Meru, it is the iconic Siwa.

And just exactly what is the Keris?

[kai]

Thanks a lot, Alan, for your elucidation!

When focusing on Mount Meru, it may still be a matter of perspective (eagle vs mountaineer), function (temple site for a Shiva devotee vs magma chamber for a volcano), etc. While the latter image seems to fit quite nicely, we can drop it from closer consideration, I guess. I agree that your interpretation makes a lot of sense.


I find this idea of batu lapak as an indication of the point where the wilah begins, to be very interesting in another way also. In modern times most keris blades either have the pesi forged in, or cut in, but in old blades the pesi was often attached to the wilah after the wilah had been forged, and this act of attaching the wilah created a batu lapak. So yes, the place where the pesi meets the wilah is indeed the beginning of the wilah.
Do you have any example of this old-style attachment that you could show, please? I know the repair (or original attachment) method which leaves a rectangular mark at the base if cut in neatly. Still a pretty far cry from a typical batu lapak - thus, a picture would be really kind!

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, would you please explain exactly what you mean by "your interpretation".

In what I have written I can see nothing that has originated with me, all I have done is to carry a message from people who have one understanding to people who have either no understanding, or a different understanding.

So please, exactly what is my interpretation?

As for Mount Meru or Mount Kailas, well, eagles, mountain climbers, magma chambers are simply not a part of the conversation.

Yes, I do have some examples of a batu lapak being formed by attachment of a pesi, but I'm not going to go looking for them, because as you know, I do not post pictures of my own keris on this Forum.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

I did choose the word interpretation as not to underestimate your contribution and kind efforts. If this notion doesn’t vibe with you, I apologize. Just fill in any word that you prefer...

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Kai.

Yeah, the idea of "interpretation" attached to the translation of "lapak" did not sit well with me, because my understanding of the word "interpret" was not as broad as I have now found it should be: my understanding was too narrow, your understanding was more correct.

It is actually quite fortunate that you used this word "interpretation", because the variation in the way in which we both understood the word, as well as the fact that you are not a native English speaker, I am a native English speaker, and my ability to write clear and precise English has in fact been a mainstay of my income stream during my entire life.

In other words, it doesn't matter how good one thinks he is, how correct he thinks he is, he can always be wrong. Just like the person who gave us "saddle stone" for "batu lapak", whoever that person may have been.

We have created an excellent example that supports the way in which "batu lapak" should be understood in this context.

When there is any doubt about the use of a particular word in English, my first check is almost invariably with the Oxford on Historical Principles; during my lifetime I've worn out one edition of two volumes of this, and I'm well on track to make the replacement copy unusable. Oxford gives "interpret" as "expound, translate, explain" --- as well as a full column more.

Your use of "interpretation" was correct, my understanding of your use of the word was inadequate. I apologise for taking issue with your use of the word.

[Bjorn]

I'm avoiding looking at any of the replies so that I won't be biased (by anything other than my current knowledge and views) in giving my answer.

For me the bilah starts at the ganja.
Seeing the bilah as a representation of a kayonan or gunungan, it seems logical that the gonjo is the root from where the rest of the blade grows or the base on which it rests.

[A. G. Maisey]

Bjorn, I asked the initial question as a simple question, and we got back a mix of simple, uncomplicated answers, and philosophical answers. I would say that you have given us a simple answer.

I think that going back a few years to before I found the true understanding of "Batu Lapak" my answer would have been the same as yours, I would have been thinking in terms of male/female, lingga/yoni, Dewi Ganga, and so on. In fact, even though on the face of things an opinion that the gonjo is the beginning of the keris blade, in reality, that opinion becomes a philosophical opinion if we ask why the gonjo is the base of the blade. The only way we can defend the opinion is by taking a philosophical position and arguing from that base.

On the other hand, the Batu Lapak is directly under the pesi, and in some early keris it was actually a product of attaching the pesi to the wilah, so if we think about this, we might feel inclined to ask exactly what is meant by the idea of a "beginning stone". Taking account of the position of the Batu Lapak, we could perhaps find several different and equally valid opinions of the "beginning" of a keris blade.

[JeffS]

To me, with no knowledge of the deep lore of keris symbology, the ganja can represent a saddle in that it is a transition point from vehicle (handle/hand) to rider (blade). So instead of a stone as an obstruction between butt and seat perhaps, in this analogy, the stone can be the rider itself at this transition (beginning) point where servant stops and master starts which is clearly a place of power. However as, presumably, the ganja is not called a saddle in other contexts this interpretation is quite a stretch but can point to how saddle and beginning can be synonymous.
As an aside I did a Google image search for Batu Lapak to see examples and found that it also refers to an unusual hard scale at the base of some chicken feet. If the Google translate captures the meaning correctly it is believed to provide a major advantage in a cock fight in what seems to be somewhat talismanic manner.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your contribution Dizos.

Certainly a rather interesting and divergent opinion, but I do have more than a little difficulty in seeing any relevance to the keris. Still, as you say, the keris is well outside your own area of speciality.

In respect of the cock fight association, I just ran that image search myself and if I read the text associated with the images I find most text seems to be Malay or Indonesian. In fact, the idea of "batu lapak" associated with a fighting cock's feet has no relationship at all to the idea of batu lapak associated with keris, either as "saddle stone", or as "beginning".

The palm of the hand, or the sole of the foot is the "telapak". The word "lapak" actually carries a connotation of the lower part of something, so sole of the foot, being at the bottom, has become "telapak". Horse's hoof = "telapak kuda".

This "batu lapak" associated with fighting cocks is a hard callous on the bottom of a fighting cock's foot, it has the appearance of an implanted stone in the bottom of the fowl's foot. Batu = stone.

In a fighting cock a "batu lapak" is a "sole of the foot stone", or just simply a "foot stone".

No relationship to keris at all.

But then, maybe there is a relationship, and to follow this idea, it is best to understand that in the Javanese mind, more is better:- a multitude of deities is better than a single deity, and a multitude of meanings is better than a single meaning.

Now, I've already pointed out that the word "lapak" carries the connotation of the lowest part of anything. The lower part of the wilah is the sor-soran, and sor-soran also has a connotation of "low", in fact in ordinary speech, not keris jargon, "sor-soran" means "subordinate".

Now included in the sor-soran is a characteristic that sometimes appears called the "tungkakan", "tungkak" means "heel", "tungkakan" means "heel (of something)". The "tungkakan" is the little bend in the wilah that sits under the buntut urang of the gonjo. So looking at the lowest part of the keris we have this heel, and stretching across the blade in front of it? Well, although it is not named in keris related terminology, that straight line would have to be the telapak, the sole of the foot of the keris. So, if we see a batu in the middle of this "sole" , what else can it be but a "batu lapak"?

Batu lapak most certainly can be understood as "beginning stone", but if we look at the tungkakan, and pause to think for just one moment, maybe "batu lapak" can also be understood as "foot stone". Obviously one understanding does not necessarily negate the other:- the more meanings that can be given to anything, the better the understanding.

Consider for a moment:- not only is the sole of the foot the beginning of a man, but of any being that walks, and the beginning of anything is the lowest part of any endeavour.

A little bit like "aum" and "Allah" and "ron dha". The understanding that is appropriate to the level of knowledge.