[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your informative response Gustav.

I understand your reasons for not wanting to expand upon what you have already written. I'm sure that some people will be disappointed by this, but I am equally sure that your decision has been taken after due consideration.

Regrettably I am presently unable to verify exactly what Liebert published in his list of Sanskrit terms, but if he mentioned only the lotus blossom as a substitution for the lingga/yoni, he was quite incorrect --- in spite of his eminence. In Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana Buddhism) the blossom of the lotus can in some instances be interpreted as a substitution for the yoni, it is the stem of the lotus that can be interpreted as the lingga, thus, in Tantric symbolism when it is intended that the lotus be understood in a similar way to that in which the lingga/yoni is understood, the blossom must be accompanied by the stem. I am uncertain if this reading was applicable to Tantrism as it was practiced in Hindu Jawa. It may have been, but the evidence that I can recall seems to point to the more usual interpretations of the lotus, even amongst practitioners of Tantrism.

Actually, there are quite a lot of interpretations in the Hindu-Buddhist realm for the lotus, and it is not at all difficult to err when we attempt to understand exactly how a lotus in a particular place and time was intended to be understood.

Moreover, it is important to remember that the foundation symbolism in the Javanese keris is twofold:- the link to ancestor worship, and the link to the worship of Siwa (Shiva). These two ideologies join together and are expressed through the Gunungan. Any reading of the symbolism to be found in the Javanese keris must be done from a base of Javanese understanding within the applicable time frame. We cannot take mainstream religious understandings and expect that these can be used to understand the way in which beliefs, symbols and practices were understood in Hindu-Jawa. So, although we may believe that it is valid to interpret some symbol according to an understanding held in a different place, and at a different time, we must question this belief if it does not fit comfortably with the beliefs and practices that were current in Jawa prior to Islamic domination.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not discussing this matter in terms of 16th century Jawa?

When did the Islamic domination of Jawa really start to get rolling?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves if any mention of Tantrism is at all relevant at that time in Javanese history.

When we consider the iconography of Old Javanese art, there is also the necessity to take into account the interpretations of individual craftsmen, particularly so when we realise that keris and other dagger hilts in early Jawa were sometimes, possibly often, carved by their owners, not by craftsmen dedicated to the work.