Jaga, this is a big question, principally because it involves going back into the past and restating things that as far as I can see have largely been forgotten.
The element of "respect" is still there, Empu Suparman used to say it was respect for the maker, but there are other principles tied into the character of the keris that Jawa under Islam has forgotten in detail but remembers in principle in that respect must be given.
If we wish to adopt a way in which to differentiate between the keris made as an item of trade, or dress, or a weapon, and a keris that has been made with spiritual content, then the easy way is to simply look for an old keris that bears the hallmarks of manufacture by a master craftsman, an empu. Such a keris might have been made with spiritual content. But then again it might not have been. One thing is believed to be certain, and that is that an ordinary trade, dress or weapon keris made by an ordinary smith cannot have been made with spiritual content, simply because such a maker would not have known the mantras.
In my "Interpretation" article I did touch on this idea of the keris as shrine, but that was in the context of Old Jawa and of Bali.
Essentially we are considering elements of ancestor worship. Where a keris has been made as pusaka it has been made with the intent that when called upon the ancestors can visit the custodian of that keris and through him reach the present day kin group.
But then a similar idea can exist where a keris has been dedicated to a particular deity. The visitor, ancestor or deity is not present all the time, but the keris is held in readiness for such a visit. During those times when the keris is empty it must be guarded against becoming occupied by an unwanted, perhaps evil or malicious entity, and that is the purpose of the hilt figure.
|