Gavin, there are a couple of red herrings swimming around here.
Firstly, we are stretching things a little to name this keris as dhapur pasupati, it might have been intended as this, but the ricikan do not not align with the specified ricikan.
Then we have the execution of the KK puguk. It is abominable.Stiff, no form at all, as I noted in that other post, the garap of this keris is really journeyman stuff. A normally made KK puguk does not look like this. If your perception of an image of a wayang representation of Arjuno has been influenced by this poorly executed KK then you do need to note what a puguk KK really should look like. According to what I was taught the KK puguk should conjure an image of the nose of buto (ogre, giant), certainly not the image of the nose of a nobleman.
When we think of Arjuno in a wayang context, this is only one of the ways in which he can be pictured. These wayang puppets that we see now were deliberately made un-lifelike in order to get around Islamic prohibitions, the wayang Arjuno form is representative of a class of wayang characters.
Then we have the pasupati ceremony that is performed for all sacred objects at the time of their completion, this ceremony instills the sacred forces into those sacred objects.
At this remove we cannot possibly conjecture the reason for naming a particular keris form "Pasupati", however, the Pasupati form is in Javanese belief a very old form of keris, supposedly first made by Empu Ramadi in 152Saka.
In old Javanese belief, & in current Balinese belief, any sacred object must at its completion pass through the Pasupati Ceremony, this ceremony brings the sacred forces into that sacred object.
If a keris has been made with full inclusion of ceremony & procedure to make it a sacred keris, with sacred power, then it will go through the Pasupati Ceremony when all the physical procedures have been completed.
We cannot just look at something and then interpret what we believe we can see in a single object from a class of objects as the reason for the name of that class of objects. Most especially we cannot do this when we are dealing with objects from societies & cultures that are different from our own, and the name concerned has a multitude of implications attached to it.
An after thought.
Gavin, go to this thread & read post 117 --- in fact the whole thread is worth a read --- you might gain a slightly different perspective.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ak+budo&page=4