Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 18th November 2007, 06:52 AM

Pak Ganja, I really do have a great deal of difficulty in understanding why you would attempt to discourage anybody from reading your interesting and valuable contribution to discussion.I am certain that there are many people who will read this who do not know this part of the Aji Saka legend, and your contribution will add to their knowledge.

However, let us be fair:- the translation and interpretation you have given is not the only one possible from the hanacaraka.Moreover, even when we look at the these translations and interpretations, the true meanings are not simple and obvious. In fact we are considering a moral teaching that has strong links with 19th-20th century Kejawen. Even this moral teaching can be interpreted in varying ways, to carry varying lessons.

I'm not going to diverge into talking about this here, but for those of you who do have an interest, a few thoughtful minutes with Mr. Google will prove very instructive. You might like to start with the Joglosemar site:-

http://www.joglosemar.co.id/kejawen/perfectlife.html

There is much to be discovered about this if you are prepared to put in the time.

But the crux of the matter is this:- Aji Saka is a legendary figure, as is Medang Kamulan. I do not know the origins of this legend, nor when it first began to appear, but if we look at the variations, it does seem obvious that as with all legends it has developed through the telling and retelling, and the current version seems to owe much to the clash between local Javanese Islam and mainstream Islam which occurred at the end of the 19th century. This was probably due to the actions of people returning from The Haj, and resulted in a distinction being made for the first time between the abangan and the santri.

When we begin to consider legend as a source for historic possibility, we need to consider not just the source of the legend, but the way in which it has developed over time.

Then of course we need to consider the philosophy of the hanacaraka, coming to us from PB IX and Yasadipura.But the question must arise:- what has this got to do with the origin of the greneng? I submit:- nothing.

But still, its interesting---just doesn't have anything at all to do with what we are talking about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

G'day Bram. Can I call you Bram, or Pak Bram, or Pak Kiai? Which would you prefer?

Howabout if I just call you Bram, and you can call me Alan? Lets drop the formalities.

About the "kres" thing, I've also read what you are telling us many times, but I have not yet seen a complete translation done by a qualified scholar and subjected to peer review. All I have seen is the romanisation of the original script and interpretations placed upon it by people who may, or may not be qualified to give that interpretation.
In fact, I'm not even certain as to what inscription this is. I think I've read the source somewhere, but off the top of my head, I don't know it, I don't know who has done the translations, who has checked them---I know nothing except that there is an old inscription that contains the word "kres".

Yes, "kres" resembles "kris", and it might in fact be the same word and mean the same, but even if it does, at the time of the inscription, this word could have referred to an object other than that which we today would recognise as a keris. Then there is the fact that the most authoritative work to date on the Old Javanese lexicon---Zoetmulder--- does not list the word "kres".

Interestingly, the word "kres" is a Modern Javanese word having the sense of cutting or slashing.

I think you may have been reading something into my writing that was not there Bram. I have no certainty at all that the experts who examined the inscription that you mention were either correct or incorrect. How could I have?
I have not seen the complete inscription.
I do not know the process that was applied to romanise it.
I do not who worked on it and who checked it.
I know nothing at all about it, except a vague reference in a book prepared for the popular market.

I do thank you most sincerely for pointing out that this inscription was mentioned in Ensiklopedi. I know I've seen reference to it in other places as well, but Ensiklopedi was a good start. Here we are told that it is an inscription dating from 500AD, it is written in Pallava script, and the language used is Sanscrit. That's a lot of info.

Yes, it would have been written in Pallava script if it was written in 500AD. Last known Pallava script use in an inscription was in March 804.

But was it written in Sanscrit?
I'm not so sure that it was written in Sanscrit. It may have been. The Tarumanegara inscription was written in Sanscrit, and that was about the same time as the "kres" inscription.We don't see Old Kawi until the 8th century, so, yeah, OK, lets agree this "kres" inscription was written in Sanscrit.
But once we do that we have a problem, because Macdonell does not list the word "kres" as a part of the Sanscrit lexicon. In fact, I don't think that the syllabel "kre" occurs at the beginning of a word in Sanscrit; "kri" does occur fairly frequently. Interestingly the word and syllabel "kris" has the sense of thinness in Sanscrit.

So---where does this leave us in respect of our respected archaic inscription that contains (supposedly) the word "kres"?

Personally, I think we need to know a wee bit more about the inscription, its translators, and its checkers, before we draw any conclusions at all.

In any case, this inscription was from about 500AD.

It would be a magical feat of language development if the word "kres" really and truly referred to an object that we would recognise as a kris.
Language is living beast. Constantly moving, jumping and changing direction. Once it ceases to behave thus it dies.

Yes, I think many of us may have heard the "iris" relationship brought up in the past. In fact, I wrote a paper about this maybe 25-30 years ago---before I learnt that I knew nothing.But still, even though I knew nothing---and in truth, still do not--- it wasn't a bad guess, because "iris" does occur in Old Javanese, and might logically be considered as a root word for "kris", which also appears in Old Javanese. Maybe it might not be a direct root, but the idea is there, and the feeling of "slicing", "making thinner", the Sanscrit "kris", and the Old Javanese "kris", together with Old Javanese "iris".

Yeah---why not? Looks like a good basis for a thesis to me.

The mistake I made in my old paper was to link "iris" to Old Malay, rather than Old Javanese.

But anyway, all this interesting stuff has wandered away from our core question:- origin of the greneng.

I've already remarked upon the way I feel this question should be considered, so I won't repeat myself.

I love this divergent crap. It means we can talk all day if we feel so inclined. Good stuff, and interesting. Lets you play with ideas.

Keep this stuff coming Bram. Love it!!

Thanks for the alphabet link.
As I said previously, I was running on memory. What I had was a mental picture of the Balinese alphabet with the same order as the Javanese alphabet, but with different romanisations, which obviously can be put down to differing speech inflections. After looking at your link I threw "balinese alphabet" into google. Here's what I got:-

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/balinese.htm

Actually, the romanisation ain't worth a cupfull of cold water; what we need to look at are the original script representations.In my link you'll see these are a modern version. If you go to Raffles you'll find that he presents maybe as many as a dozen different script forms that have been used in the past for writing Javanese---and by extension, Kawi and Balinese.Yes, of course there's a DA, or a DHA in the Balinese alphabet, but most importantly, there is a script character that echoes the Javanese DHA.---whether the person who romanises it aspirates it or not.

As for your beliefs, Bram.
These are your own personal property, and it is not my intention to try to divest you of your own personal property.
Hold fast to your beliefs. Ignore those who would try to make you change them.
However, please do make room for a little logic.
We all have room for both.In one situation we can be creatures of belief, in a different situation, creatures of logic.
Retain the beliefs, but don't let them interfere with the logic.

Please note:-

I have made an error in the above post.

Pak Ganja was kind enough to indirectly point out to me that the word "kres" is mentioned in an inscription dating from 842AD, not 500AD.

This means that it was written in Old Javanese, not Sanscrit.

Which in turn means that what I have written above about "kres" is irrelevant to the discussion.

This "kres" word matter has been more fully addressed in the "Inscriptions" thread.

I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused.

18th November 2007, 06:52 AM	#40
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,698	Pak Ganja, I really do have a great deal of difficulty in understanding why you would attempt to discourage anybody from reading your interesting and valuable contribution to discussion.I am certain that there are many people who will read this who do not know this part of the Aji Saka legend, and your contribution will add to their knowledge. However, let us be fair:- the translation and interpretation you have given is not the only one possible from the hanacaraka.Moreover, even when we look at the these translations and interpretations, the true meanings are not simple and obvious. In fact we are considering a moral teaching that has strong links with 19th-20th century Kejawen. Even this moral teaching can be interpreted in varying ways, to carry varying lessons. I'm not going to diverge into talking about this here, but for those of you who do have an interest, a few thoughtful minutes with Mr. Google will prove very instructive. You might like to start with the Joglosemar site:- http://www.joglosemar.co.id/kejawen/perfectlife.html There is much to be discovered about this if you are prepared to put in the time. But the crux of the matter is this:- Aji Saka is a legendary figure, as is Medang Kamulan. I do not know the origins of this legend, nor when it first began to appear, but if we look at the variations, it does seem obvious that as with all legends it has developed through the telling and retelling, and the current version seems to owe much to the clash between local Javanese Islam and mainstream Islam which occurred at the end of the 19th century. This was probably due to the actions of people returning from The Haj, and resulted in a distinction being made for the first time between the abangan and the santri. When we begin to consider legend as a source for historic possibility, we need to consider not just the source of the legend, but the way in which it has developed over time. Then of course we need to consider the philosophy of the hanacaraka, coming to us from PB IX and Yasadipura.But the question must arise:- what has this got to do with the origin of the greneng? I submit:- nothing. But still, its interesting---just doesn't have anything at all to do with what we are talking about. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ G'day Bram. Can I call you Bram, or Pak Bram, or Pak Kiai? Which would you prefer? Howabout if I just call you Bram, and you can call me Alan? Lets drop the formalities. About the "kres" thing, I've also read what you are telling us many times, but I have not yet seen a complete translation done by a qualified scholar and subjected to peer review. All I have seen is the romanisation of the original script and interpretations placed upon it by people who may, or may not be qualified to give that interpretation. In fact, I'm not even certain as to what inscription this is. I think I've read the source somewhere, but off the top of my head, I don't know it, I don't know who has done the translations, who has checked them---I know nothing except that there is an old inscription that contains the word "kres". Yes, "kres" resembles "kris", and it might in fact be the same word and mean the same, but even if it does, at the time of the inscription, this word could have referred to an object other than that which we today would recognise as a keris. Then there is the fact that the most authoritative work to date on the Old Javanese lexicon---Zoetmulder--- does not list the word "kres". Interestingly, the word "kres" is a Modern Javanese word having the sense of cutting or slashing. I think you may have been reading something into my writing that was not there Bram. I have no certainty at all that the experts who examined the inscription that you mention were either correct or incorrect. How could I have? I have not seen the complete inscription. I do not know the process that was applied to romanise it. I do not who worked on it and who checked it. I know nothing at all about it, except a vague reference in a book prepared for the popular market. I do thank you most sincerely for pointing out that this inscription was mentioned in Ensiklopedi. I know I've seen reference to it in other places as well, but Ensiklopedi was a good start. Here we are told that it is an inscription dating from 500AD, it is written in Pallava script, and the language used is Sanscrit. That's a lot of info. Yes, it would have been written in Pallava script if it was written in 500AD. Last known Pallava script use in an inscription was in March 804. But was it written in Sanscrit? I'm not so sure that it was written in Sanscrit. It may have been. The Tarumanegara inscription was written in Sanscrit, and that was about the same time as the "kres" inscription.We don't see Old Kawi until the 8th century, so, yeah, OK, lets agree this "kres" inscription was written in Sanscrit. But once we do that we have a problem, because Macdonell does not list the word "kres" as a part of the Sanscrit lexicon. In fact, I don't think that the syllabel "kre" occurs at the beginning of a word in Sanscrit; "kri" does occur fairly frequently. Interestingly the word and syllabel "kris" has the sense of thinness in Sanscrit. So---where does this leave us in respect of our respected archaic inscription that contains (supposedly) the word "kres"? Personally, I think we need to know a wee bit more about the inscription, its translators, and its checkers, before we draw any conclusions at all. In any case, this inscription was from about 500AD. It would be a magical feat of language development if the word "kres" really and truly referred to an object that we would recognise as a kris. Language is living beast. Constantly moving, jumping and changing direction. Once it ceases to behave thus it dies. Yes, I think many of us may have heard the "iris" relationship brought up in the past. In fact, I wrote a paper about this maybe 25-30 years ago---before I learnt that I knew nothing.But still, even though I knew nothing---and in truth, still do not--- it wasn't a bad guess, because "iris" does occur in Old Javanese, and might logically be considered as a root word for "kris", which also appears in Old Javanese. Maybe it might not be a direct root, but the idea is there, and the feeling of "slicing", "making thinner", the Sanscrit "kris", and the Old Javanese "kris", together with Old Javanese "iris". Yeah---why not? Looks like a good basis for a thesis to me. The mistake I made in my old paper was to link "iris" to Old Malay, rather than Old Javanese. But anyway, all this interesting stuff has wandered away from our core question:- origin of the greneng. I've already remarked upon the way I feel this question should be considered, so I won't repeat myself. I love this divergent crap. It means we can talk all day if we feel so inclined. Good stuff, and interesting. Lets you play with ideas. Keep this stuff coming Bram. Love it!! Thanks for the alphabet link. As I said previously, I was running on memory. What I had was a mental picture of the Balinese alphabet with the same order as the Javanese alphabet, but with different romanisations, which obviously can be put down to differing speech inflections. After looking at your link I threw "balinese alphabet" into google. Here's what I got:- http://www.omniglot.com/writing/balinese.htm Actually, the romanisation ain't worth a cupfull of cold water; what we need to look at are the original script representations.In my link you'll see these are a modern version. If you go to Raffles you'll find that he presents maybe as many as a dozen different script forms that have been used in the past for writing Javanese---and by extension, Kawi and Balinese.Yes, of course there's a DA, or a DHA in the Balinese alphabet, but most importantly, there is a script character that echoes the Javanese DHA.---whether the person who romanises it aspirates it or not. As for your beliefs, Bram. These are your own personal property, and it is not my intention to try to divest you of your own personal property. Hold fast to your beliefs. Ignore those who would try to make you change them. However, please do make room for a little logic. We all have room for both.In one situation we can be creatures of belief, in a different situation, creatures of logic. Retain the beliefs, but don't let them interfere with the logic. Please note:- I have made an error in the above post. Pak Ganja was kind enough to indirectly point out to me that the word "kres" is mentioned in an inscription dating from 842AD, not 500AD. This means that it was written in Old Javanese, not Sanscrit. Which in turn means that what I have written above about "kres" is irrelevant to the discussion. This "kres" word matter has been more fully addressed in the "Inscriptions" thread. I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 19th November 2007 at 01:51 AM.