Join Date: May 2006
Kiai Carita, I admire your absolute certainty.
Most especially do I admire it in the absence of any certainty that the object to which the word that has been romanised as "kres" was in fact an object that we would recognise as a keris. It may have been, then again it may not have been. Interestingly, the word "kres" is not to be found in Zoetmulder.
If we can assume that the greneng has been a part of keris design since some time during the Majapahit era, then it seems reasonable to assume that we should be able to find the word "greneng", or a word which could have become "greneng", within the Old Javanese lexicon. I cannot find either in Zoetmulder. This is, of course, not proof that the word, or words did not exist, but before we can defend the assumption that the greneng has always been known as the greneng, we do need a somewhat more positive argument.
In any case, this debate over words is once again straying from the core issue. It really doesn't matter whether the early keris was known as keris, kris, kres, or puklak.Nor does it matter by what name the greneng was known. What we are considering here is the reason for the greneng, not its given name.That is immaterial to this discussion.
I disagree totally with your opinion that the presence of the ganja on a blade made of it a non-weapon.
The early monumental representations of the keris quite clearly show these weapons with ganjas, and used in the way they were, that ganja had a definite function in the use of the early keris as a weapon. For that matter, the ganja has a weapon related function in modern keris design too.
Later philosophical interpretations have attached a symbolism to the ganja that cannot be assumed to have applied in a society and culture which could no more have understood this philosophy than it could have understood the Space Shuttle.
Kiai Carita, I acknowledge your right to hold the opinions you have put forward, however, if you would like these opinions to be accepted by others, may I suggest that you offer some logical argument, or substantial evidence to support them?
Regarding your assertion that the Balinese alphabet does in fact contain the consonant "dha".
I know almost nothing about the Balinese language, but I do seem to recall that in the Balinese alphabet there is no "dha", but there is "da". However, Kawi was used in Bali, just as it was used in Jawa, and in Kawi we can find "dha", which would be used in Bali for the writing of script in Kawi.I will stand correction on this Balinese language question, as I really am very ignorant of this language. Perhaps somebody with intimate knowledge of the language may be able guide us?