[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Gustav.

You may not have intended to, but you have given me pretty much what I expected to get from you, actually what I was looking for, and I thank you for this. I believe I now do have an understanding of your objectives, and in a sense you have cleared the way for a positive approach to this matter, an approach that I will address in the near future.

You have raised a couple of things that I'd like to get out of the way before I move on, so here goes:-

1) in respect of my current position regarding the ron dha:- I very strongly suspect that originally there was no greneng as we now understand the greneng to be, I suspect that originally there was only the ron dha, the other elements were added later as the symbolic nature of the keris in Javanese society developed.

The only element of the greneng that I currently understand is the ron dha. I am confident that the other elements will eventually be found to carry a demonstrable interpretation, but that pleasure of discovery could be a long way into the future.

I repeat:- I have not ever published any hypothesis in respect of the greneng.

2) in respect of my terminology "very confused".

I lifted this from the notes that I made at the time I handled the relevant keris, it was the impression I got with it in my hands. I write notes for myself in a kind of shorthand, the complete train of thought was "in comparison with the normative model of the greneng this greneng is very confused". I regarded it as confused because of the variant form.

3) you ask me: "do you mean what you write?"

This is a good question Gustav, I'll try to give as good a response as I can.

Yes I do. Always. But only when I write it.

I can very well change my mind, most especially in discussion. You see, it depends upon what I write and where I write it.

If I undertake to write something that I consider to be of importance, I want that writing to be a matter of public record, and I'll run it through multiple drafts, I'll have it reviewed by several people whom I believe are in the position where they can give knowledgeable, objective comment and criticism, I'll triple check everything. Where that writing might be used in legal action I'll have at least two lawyers review it to ensure that no legal problems might arise because of its contents.

It takes a long time to produce thoroughly defensible pieces of writing, and even then I can still find something like a spelling error, or poor grammar in something that might have been submitted 6 months ago.

However, when I write something in correspondence, or to a colleague, or in a place such as our Forum, I write off the top of my head. I write most of the time without checking things, I write from memory, I write according to how I think or feel at the time. Sometimes I change my mind before I get to the end of a sentence, usually because I remember something that I had not previously taken into account, so I go back and do a delete:replace.

Some people might consider that my attitude towards this relaxed, social type of writing is a bit irresponsible. Well, it might be, but its the best I'm ever going to do for what I regard as social interaction, I simply do not have time to check and research everything I put into correspondence, notes, and online discussion groups.

In fact this is what I'm doing right now:- I'm writing as if I were talking with you. This is lightweight, relaxed social intercourse. It is not a report to a board of management, it is not a report or opinion to be used in prosecution in a court of law, it is not an article that I would like to be taken seriously; no, not at all. For me, it is relaxation. Fun. Something to do while I drink my morning coffee.

To return to your question:- "do you mean what you write?"

Yes Gustav, of course, but only when I write it.

What happens after that can depend upon many factors.

4) you have been so kind as to remind me of "everything else you have said about this "variant greneng" "

Thank you Gustav, but I really do not need this reminder, we're engaged in a flowing discussion here I think. Yes, admittedly at times this discussion has veered towards under-graduate style debate that takes place when somebody is trying to get noticed, but I don't consider that to be of any real importance.

In a formal debate the words uttered are considered by the moderator and points awarded for the argument put; in a court of law the words uttered are considered, weighed, balanced, and quite often somebody suffers as a result; in a discussion the words uttered are passing things and positions can change during that discussion. The whole point of discussion is to open up the subject of the discussion to scrutiny, and as more input is given, so the subject of discussion is more clearly seen.

I regard our exchanges here as discussion, not as debate. I provide some input, others provide additional input, the end result is hopefully a better understanding of the subject, which in this case I take to be our variant greneng, or more precisely, one element of our variant greneng.

5) Gustav, it seems that you have had an inordinate degree of difficulty in understanding my use of this phrase:-

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

What I mean by this is that if we find a ron dha present on a keris, it is there because either the maker, or the person for whom the keris was made wanted to put it there, in other words, its placement on the keris is intentional.

However, I have qualified my statement by the requirement that the ron dha is to be understood as the mantra "om".

So, if we understand the symbolism as a prayer, or mantra, and it is understood as "Ganesha, Siwa" when the kembang kacang and the sogokan are present, and then we add one "Om", it becomes "Ganesha, Siwa, Om", but then we add another "Om", so we have "Om, Ganesha, Siwa, Om", but sometimes there can be multiple "Oms" in multiple places, so each time there is an "Om" it is intentional. It may change the content of the mantra or prayer, or it may not, perhaps the supplicant might use "Om" without the prompt, but if "Om" appears, it appears intentionally.

6) you have pointed out that I have failed to answer a couple of questions, I regret this, but I seem to answer so many questions that I do sometimes overlook one or two.

Bjorn:- Gustav tells me that I have failed to respond to one of your questions, I think he is possibly referring to this question:-

"Alan, when you refer to the other elements in the greneng, apart from the ron dha, do you mean the tingil and ri pandan?"

My apologies for the delayed response, Bjorn. I mean all elements that can be found in any greneng apart from the ron dha. The thingil and ri pandan are actually a part of the ron dha, but the other elements that we sometimes find are not.

I'm possibly being a bit undisciplined in ascribing all and everything to Islamic influence, admitted, this is my current perspective, and I have this perspective because I have not yet thoroughly researched nor considered the greneng, my focus of attention for a very long time has been the ron dha, and really, that is all I'm prepared to comment upon with confidence when discussion involves the greneng.

Gustav, your ri pandan question.

In the Modern Keris it is regarded as a part of the ron dha, I regard it as a part of the ron dha. Future research might show it be something that needs to considered as a separate element, but right now both the thingil and the ri pandan are a part of a correctly cut ron dha.

7) thank you for clarifying your understanding of "hypothesis" Gustav; yes, "assumption" is perhaps a more precise word in this case.

Well, I think I've given responses to everything that you have raised Gustav. There are a few things that you have included in your post #35 that I have chosen to ignore, and this is intentional. You gave me the response I wanted, and the things I've chosen to ignore do not add anything to our discussion.

However, in respect of that discussion, this chapter of it is closed for me.

I do appreciate the way you introduced that variant greneng. I had previously regarded this form as just another variation, and I have never bothered to look closely at it, nor to attempt to interpret it. Because of your focus and the multiple examples that you have come up with, you have in fact performed the function of a researcher for me, something that I greatly appreciate, you have given me data that I had previously disregarded because of my own narrow focus, and although I might have eventually got around to the position of recognising this variation as something that needed to be looked at more closely, you have saved me a lot of time by presenting the examples that you have.

It is now clear that we have an element of keris design that is very probably an as yet not understood symbol. It obviously has a very long history, it seems to no longer appear in Javanese keris, and in spite of the 19th century Balinese keris you used as an example, it perhaps had already disappeared from Balinese usage long ago. This is a valuable contribution to our still deficient understanding of the keris.

Once again Gustav, I thank you most sincerely for your participation in this discussion, it did take a little bit of prompting to get what I wanted from you, but in the end, you came through. Thank you.