Dapur Carita?

[Greybeard]

[QUOTE=ganjawulung]Dear Heinz, Detlef,
One of the easiest way to differ 11 luks sabuk inten and carita is by examining the "lambe gajah". Carita must have two "lambe gajah", and Sabuk Inten must have only one "lambe gajah"... Of course, you may examining other details too.


Hello Ganjawulung,

Thank you for the valuable hint. One of my Keris dapur Sabuk Inten -- the oldest one, attributed to tangguh Old Madura -- also shows as an optional feature jenggot (and worn down ron dha nunut), something that is IMO not too often seen with this dapur.

Regards,

Heinz

[Sajen]

Hello Pak Ganjawulung,

terima kasih for the further informations, special about the dapur Senkelat/Parung Sari.

BTW, is the dapur Sabuk Inten a "special" or rare dapur or have it a special background?

Regards,

Detlef

[PenangsangII]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Pak Ganjawulung,

terima kasih for the further informations, special about the dapur Senkelat/Parung Sari.

BTW, is the dapur Sabuk Inten a "special" or rare dapur or have it a special background?

Regards,

Detlef

The smell of the keris being called "sangkelat" is different - be it 13 luks or even dapur leres.... sangkelat is tempered by dipping into betel leaves juice, so the smell of "sireh" will be prevalent.....

[A. G. Maisey]

I thank you for your detailed response Pak Ganja, but frankly, I am a little disappointed. I acknowledge that my post # 18 may have been a bit of a struggle to comprehend, and I apologise for that, however, I wrote my post # 20 in as simple and straight forward a manner as I can manage, and you still seem to have gaps in your understanding of the message I have been attempting to convey.

Since I get paid for writing the English language in a simple and easily understood form, your failure to understand what I have written is a very disappointing for me. It signals that I need to have a very hard look at the way in which I express myself.

Again I see that I owe you an apology for my failure to present my ideas in an easily understood form.

I will, however, make this small recommendation to you:- when you read what I shall now write, please read the words and accept them at face value; these words are saying exactly what I want them to say, no more, and no less. There are no inferences, nor hidden messages in my words.

It may be of assistance if I begin by identifying the matters that I feel need to be addressed.

Firstly there is the concept of "knowledge"

then we have the idea of "classification"

and lastly we have the matter of "opinion".


Knowledge

In the second half of 1955 I began my study of Javanese culture and society. During the time between 1955 and now I have had a number of teachers, all Indonesians, and most of these Indonesians have been Javanese, additionally I have carried out text-book studies and completed specific areas of study into various matters that have caught my interest.

I am sure that you will understand when I say, that in spite of the fact that I am innately stupid and very slow to learn, as well as being a bule ( although it is likely that my skin is actually darker than yours) I have managed to gain a small understanding of the Javanese world view and the way in which the Javanese value system functions.

In the period between 1982 and 1995 I was fortunate enough to have an excellent teacher of the keris and Javanese keris culture. This gentleman taught me very well in respect of the functioning of the system of knowledge that is accepted as the benchmark for knowledge of the Javanese keris. So it is Pak Ganja, that when you speak of tembang and wayang and dandang gula and so forth, I do understand precisely what you are talking about.

Indeed, I can go further. I have subjected the system that governs Javanese keris knowledge to a searching analysis, and I am in a position to be able to demonstrate that in fact, this system of knowledge conforms exactly to the requirements of a system of belief..

It is based in myth, legend, and tradition .

I have not the slightest problem with this. In any culture, when the mass of the people accept their myths, legends and traditions as fact, for those people those myths, legends and traditions are fact. They become the facts upon which the culture and society is based.

The Javanese knowledge of the Javanese keris is without doubt fact that is beyond challenge, provided it stays in Jawa.

Now, what this means for me is that if I am in Jawa , or if I am dealing with Javanese people, that Javanese fact that is based in tradition, is also my fact. I accept everything that is said, and I accept it without debate.

However, when I move from the Javanese environment into the logical world, I act in a rational and logical fashion, not in a Javanese fashion.

In this Forum, I consider that I am in the rational world, thus I state my views from a rational viewpoint.

Pak Ganja, I understand very well the way in which you and other Javanese people see the world, and apply that world view to the keris, however, although I do understand your point of view, it only becomes my point of view when I need to function in a Javanese environment.

I accept without question the right of a people to own their own culture, so if you or any other Javanese person tells me that something is so from your point of view, I accept that it is so, from your point of view. It is not my right nor my place to question your understanding of your own culture.

However, the knowledge that I seek goes beyond a mere understanding of the way in which you and other Javanese people of the 19th to 21st centuries see the world, and understand the keris. My investigations over the last 15 to 20 years have focused on the way in which people in pre-Islamic Jawa saw the world and understood the keris.

So you see Pak Ganja, there is no conflict between us in this matter of knowledge. Whatever you care to state as a true Javanese understanding of the keris, I will accept. It is your culture, it has its own rules, and it is of absolutely no interest to me to challenge the belief system that applies to the keris, within that culture.

When I talk about "keris knowledge", I am talking about a concept which varies considerably from your own concept of knowledge, but does embrace your concept as one of the subsidiary fields.

As a simple example of the variance in our approaches, let us consider the matter of our beloved dhapur karnotinanding, which you have transported from a previous thread to this one.

You make the very relevant point that the two kembang kacang that we find on in this keris form do not represent ears, rather they are representations of elephant trunks. Nobody will debate you on this point. You have stated something that is, I dare say, known to everybody who has had an active interest in the keris for longer than a few months.

However, although you can very accurately state that the kembang kacang in a keris represent the trunk of the elephant, can you tell why this elephant trunk was placed upon the keris ? Can you tell the meaning of this elephant trunk, not in terms of current Javanese keris belief nor Javanese philosophy, but in terms of the understanding that applied in pre-Islamic Jawa?

I am certain that you can provide a detailed explanation in current terms, but can you provide any explanation at all in terms of the mindset of your ancestors living in pre-Islamic Jawa?

This is the level of knowledge to which I devote my interest.

So you see, there is no conflict, we are just pursuing different concepts of knowledge.





Classification


It would appear that to a degree we are in agreement in respect of what I have said about the value of the dhapur system, so I will not pursue this subject.

As you have said :-

"--- We have different perception in some way. For us, we learn other way ---"

Yes, of course you do, you seek a different kind of knowledge, you seek it in a different way, and the knowledge you gain is different.

Again, we are not in conflict. You want knowledge of your myth and tradition , as this is your fact.

I want a different kind of fact, so I seek it in a different way, and the result that I obtain is different to your result.

However, a part of my own search for knowledge must necessarily embrace your traditions and myths, and in respect of the keris, above all, your systems of classification.

When you have turned to the subject of classification in your response, you seem to have gone off on a tangent that has precious little to do with the subject under discussion.

When we address the subject of classification, we are not considering "appreciation" of a keris, we are simply classifying a keris according to a certain set of standards.

Where we can identify the point of origin of a keris, it is fitting to use the set of standards that are generally accepted in that area.

Where we cannot identify the point of origin of the keris, we can still classify, but in any serious context we should quote the standards that we are drawing upon.

I've re-read what I have written on this previously, and I cannot see how it is possible for there to be any misunderstanding of what I have written. May I most respectfully suggest that you go back and read my statements again, and if you have any questions, address them to me by PM, rather than use any more space here.


Opinion

Pak Ganja, I regret to advise that you have absolutely, completely and utterly misunderstood what I have written under this head in my previous post.

I apologise once more for my inability to make my point in a manner that is able to be easily understood by all.

This is what I wrote:-


but everybody's opinion is not equal

there is the informed opinion, and there is the uniformed opinion

in any matter of weight only a fool will give an opinion and not wish for his opinion to receive respect

if we wish our opinion to be treated with respect we need to provide evidence or argument that our opinion is worthy of respect

when we are dealing with the keris, we can adopt at least two varying positions:- we can adopt the "social" position, where we make noises and give opinions simply to engage in conversation; opinions given whilst in this mode need not be taken too seriously and rejection need not cause offence

or, we can adopt the "serious" position, and when we do this we do need to provide evidence or argument to validate the opinion we give......

This is your response to my comments:-

All I know, there are only two positions in this forum. The moderator -- Rick and David -- and the others are ordinary members. I didn't know that there is a differentiation in "social position" and "serious position". How can we differentiate? Are the serious position members, have a special status?

Permit me to attempt to correct your misunderstandings.

but everybody's opinion is not equal

there is the informed opinion, and there is the uniformed opinion

This is a generality. It is a commonly used idea in English conversation and discussion. Here is a simple example of how it may be applied:-
I have a problem with my motor vehicle. I take it to my mechanic. He tells me I need to have my brake system bled. But my next door neighbour , who is an accountant, told me that his brother's ex-girl friend had a similar problem , and it was the computer on the way out, so in his opinion, I probably need a new black box.
The mechanic's opinion is an informed opinion.
My next door neighbour's opinion is an uninformed opinion.
Which opinion should I accept?
Well, as I've already admitted, I'm a little bit slow, so although I recognize that my mechanic has been working on cars for nearly 45 years, and I know that my next door neighbour pays to get his oil topped up, I've heard of those computers that cars have, and I know that they are mysterious and expensive things and that when one goes out, it can cause all sorts of problems, so I ask my mechanic for evidence that it is only my brake system that needs to bled.
My mechanic does better than just supply evidence, he tells me that if I give him ten or fifteen minutes he'll bleed the system, and if that doesn't fix my problems, he won't charge me for the job, and further, he'll fix whatever the problem may prove to be for free.
Needless to say, my mechanic proves to right and my next door neighbour proves to be wrong.
This is the difference between informed and uninformed opinion, and it applies in whatever field you may care to consider.

Now, my use of the word "position".
You have interpreted this in the sense of position within a hierarchy.
This is an incorrect understanding.
In the context in which I have used the word it carries the meaning of the stance, or attitude that may be adopted in a conversation or discussion.
"serious position" can be read as "serious attitude", and "social position" can be read as "social attitude".
Used in the context that I have used it, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the position of any person who is associated with this forum in any way.
May I respectfully suggest that with this new understanding, you re-read what I have written about "opinion"?

[Sajen]

Hello,

the blade has get a new stain and I want to share the result with you, all comments are welcome.

Regards,

Detlef