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.
|