Kris question to the knowledgeables

nechesh · 15th January 2006, 04:34 AM

So Pusaka, why do YOU think the Javanese refer to this feature as a Ron Dha and NOT a Ron AUM? Why, if it is indeed an AUM, do they hide the fact and pretend it is a Dha for all these years? Is there some kind of great Javanese conspiracy that we don't know about?
AGAIN, i must point out that you are comparing a relatively modern Sanskrit script that was not used in Jawa in the 14thC to features on a VERY modern keris blade when you are trying to establish a theory of ORIGIN for features that were developed for the keris 700 years ago. And these original Ron Dha did NOT look the same as the features you are showing us on this 21st century blade. So none of your illustrations really prove anything about the origins of the Ron Dha on the keris. Is none of this getting through to you?
Like i say, i like your creative thinking, but i think your basis is flawed and therefore your conclusion as well. You can't just keep saying i think it looks more like an AUM so it is, especially when you are looking at a new keris. I hope you continue asking these questions, but don't fool yourself into believing you have all the answers already or all your creative thinking will be for nought.

15th January 2006, 04:34 AM	#20
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	So Pusaka, why do YOU think the Javanese refer to this feature as a Ron Dha and NOT a Ron AUM? Why, if it is indeed an AUM, do they hide the fact and pretend it is a Dha for all these years? Is there some kind of great Javanese conspiracy that we don't know about? AGAIN, i must point out that you are comparing a relatively modern Sanskrit script that was not used in Jawa in the 14thC to features on a VERY modern keris blade when you are trying to establish a theory of ORIGIN for features that were developed for the keris 700 years ago. And these original Ron Dha did NOT look the same as the features you are showing us on this 21st century blade. So none of your illustrations really prove anything about the origins of the Ron Dha on the keris. Is none of this getting through to you? Like i say, i like your creative thinking, but i think your basis is flawed and therefore your conclusion as well. You can't just keep saying i think it looks more like an AUM so it is, especially when you are looking at a new keris. I hope you continue asking these questions, but don't fool yourself into believing you have all the answers already or all your creative thinking will be for nought.