[A. G. Maisey]

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

In post #18 I qualified my remarks in para.1, so anything I say in this discussion must be understood as being only applicable within the identified context.

In post #18, para.2 I identified these "other elements" as being associated with development in an environment that was no longer Buddhist-Hindu, or if preferred, Hindu-Buddhist or Javanese Hindu, being a synthesis of Hindu, Buddhist and indigenous religious and spiritual beliefs.

Thus, when I read the sorsoran as "aum, Ganesha, Siwa, aum" I am of course reading that within the Javanese -Hindu context.

You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.

(yes, I have spelt "om" as "aum", "aum" seems to be the preferred Roman textualisation of "om" within the Indonesian Hindu community)

In any religion, or any system that embraces religious beliefs, there can be many variations in what is held to be the correct way in which to do anything, including the observation of prayer.

When we present a hypothesis about anything at all, it is perhaps best only to base that hypothesis upon ideas that can be supported by evidence in one form or another, it is probably never a good idea to attach our own unsupported "good ideas" to anything.

This we can say with relative certainty:- many of the Vedas commence with om, and probably most Brahmins commence most mantras and prayers with om. However, in Javanese-Hindu belief we are dealing not with mainline Vedic beliefs, but with Shivaism and Tantrism, thus the question arises:- was it correct in 14th century Jawa to commence all mantras, all prayers with "om"?

I do not know, however, if we recognise that the iconography of the keris is in one interpretation Shivatic in nature, then everything that adorns the keris is an addition to that overarching symbol of Siwa. The keris itself when understood in the context of Shivaism is an icon of Siwa. But as we know, Javanese symbolism is multi symbolism, so the keris can also be understood as the Gunungan, and other things will flow from that interpretation.

To return to the iconography of Siwa, from "Interpretation ---":-

"--- The worship of Ganesha is regarded as a part of the worship of other deities; most Hindus commence their prayers with a prayer to Ganesha. Ganesha is one of the five major deities, and the worship of Ganesha has formed a part of the worship of Siwa since at least the 5th century.---"

Thus, the Shivatic iconography can only be read from left to right, in the same way that Javanese text can only be read from left to right.


The keris with no ron dha, no kembang kacang, no added characteristics at all is still a symbol of Siwa, and as such can initiate a prayer addressed to Siwa, just as a cross can initiate a prayer to Christ. However, with the addition of other symbols to the foundation symbol of the keris, the religious intent is intensified.

For example, the sogokan is also a symbol of Siwa, so when the sogokan is added to a keris, this extends a reading of the keris itself to be understood as Gunungan symbolism, but with Siwa included as the sogokan. Of course, a prayer to Siwa is opened by a prayer to Ganesha, and om completes, and sometimes opens that prayer.

But even when the keris is read as a Gunungan, this does not remove Siwa from the understanding, because the Gunungan is itself to be understood not only in reference to indigenous ancestor worship, but as symbolic also of the Gods and especially as Siwa.

I did try to get most of that which I have written above into "Interpretation ---", please accept my apologies if I have failed to do so.