[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav , Garrett & Bronwen Solyom are good friends of mine. I respect their work, I have a very good idea of their understanding of the keris.

I knew their principle mentor, Goh Tik Swan (Panembahan Harjonegoro alm.) and I am familiar with the orientation of his understanding of Indonesian, especially Javanese, art.

I have owned a copy of "World of the Javanese Keris" since it was first published, and in my opinion it is the most valuable single book that has ever been written on the keris. It contains no material error, but that does not mean that I agree with everything that is written in that book. I know the way in which their book was written, I know the reasons for which it was written, I know the sources which were drawn upon to provide the information contained between its covers.

The book itself, and that which is contained in it, is essential reading for everybody who has any interest at all in the keris.

However, no matter how excellent any printed material may be, that excellence cannot guard against a misinterpretation of the writer's meaning. Garrett & Bronwen do indeed use the term "universal totality", but they do not refer to this totality as "cosmos".

Cosmos is a very fine word, and it is much favoured by elegant writers, however, as with the word "universal" it has several meanings, and in the absence of an understanding of the context in which it is used, its use can lead to a misunderstanding. The word "cosmos" can be used to mean either the universe, or the world in which we live.

In the case of the alas-alasan motif, we are looking at a symbolic representation of the world in which we live, we are not looking at a representation of the universe. However, when a symbol of the gunungan is included in any motif, that is a reference to the cosmos, so if gunungan symbolism is included in an alas-alasan motif, it is referring to the cosmos, where "cosmos" can be understood as the world in which we live. But the complete alas-alasan motif is not representative of the cosmos where "cosmos" is to be understood as "world".

It is possible that Rens Heringa intended his use of "cosmos" to mean "the world in which we live", if so then I have no quarrel with that, however, it is more likely that he was misled by a minor misunderstanding in one of the captions in "World ---".

Caption to photo 151, a photo of a sunggingan warangka, gives the interpretation of the title "Paku Buana" as "nail of the universe", in fact Sinuhun's title should be interpreted as "nail of the earth", and to be understood as "nail at the centre of the earth".

You see, in the understanding of the Javanese people who regard Sinuhun (Paku Buana) as their lord it is he who maintains the order that holds the physical world together. I have been told on more than one occasion that the order of this world is totally dependent upon the prayers and meditation of Sinuhun. The world as we know it would collapse without Sinuhun to hold it together. In Javanese understanding, Surakarta Hadiningrat is at the centre of this world, and Sinuhun is at the centre of Surakarta Hadiningrat.

But this world, even though it may be at the centre of the universe, is a part of the universe:- Sinuhun cannot be the entity which holds the Universe together, for such an arrogant stance would place him above The One God, whomever one believes that God to be. Arrogance causes adversity and failure. Sinuhun would never take an action which could endanger the world. I am repeating here Javanese belief as it has been taught to me.

Sinuhun's realm is of this world, his authority does not extend to the entire universe.

So the understanding of the alas-alasan motif depends upon the way in which two words are to be understood, these words are "cosmos", and "universal".

We have addressed the way in which "cosmos" is to be understood, but "universal" can also be understood in more than one way. In association with the interpretation of the alas-alasan motif "universal" must be understood as "including the whole of something specified or implied" (Oxford), it must not be understood as a reference to the "whole of created or existing things regarded collectively". The thing that is implied in an understanding of the alas-alasan motif is this world, it is not the whole of creation.

Once this distinction between the whole of the physical world, and the whole of all things created or existing is understood, then the understanding of the alas-alasan motif becomes clear, and that understanding is precisely the Hindu understanding, where the entire world is regarded as a forest.