Jalak Budo

A. G. Maisey · 23rd October 2007, 02:54 PM

Pak Usman,

I have already pointed out that in common Javanese useage "jaman buda" refers to the pre-Islamic period.

A keris supposed to date from the pre-Islamic period is thus a "keris buda".

As Pak Ganja has already advised, " jaman buda" encapsulates the idea of long ago.

This terminology does not presume to be historically accurate, it is mere colloquial useage, moreover, it is not a useage that is unique to only the keris.

As long as some people continue to confuse colloquial useage with historically accurate fact an understanding of the keris will remain beyond us.

Of course, there is more than a single understanding of the keris, just as there is more than a single nature of the keris.

Keris understanding can accomodate the beliefs of the Javanese cultural sub-conscious, just as it can accomodate investigative analysis.

For those who subscribe to the school of popular belief, then of course the keris buda originated within the Buddhist culture of the Javanese Early Classical Period. The fact that there is no evidence of this matters not one whit. Who needs evidence when we have faith? Is not the name alone sufficient evidence? Why would it be called a keris buda if the Buddhists had not originated it? Obvious, is it not? Now we can all sleep well at night, knowing exactly where the keris came from. Why, we can even find a depiction of a keris on the Borobudur---well its almost a keris:- if you just close one eye, tilt your head slightly to the left, and eliminate a part of it by looking at it between the palms of your hands , you can plainly see that it is a keris. Yep---no doubt about that! The Buddhists were there first! Those damn Syailendras! In the place five minutes and they come up with something that was eventually to become the primary icon of Javanese culture.

Regretably I am a man of little faith. I do not believe most things I am told, I take pleasure in swimming against the current, and I can even see a conspiracy in the myth of the Easter Bunny.Most of all, I have a great deal of faith in what I can see and touch, and what I have seen and touched in the Borobudur reliefs does not in any way resemble any keris that I have ever seen.

This character defect does not prevent me from understanding that some people may wish to accept logically insupportable beliefs. The demands of society, peer group pressure, the wish to conform , all these things and more can create an environment where it is much more pleasant to go with the flow, than it is to take a stance that is at variance with popular, or community,beliefs.

However, as much as I may understand this attitude, I regret that I am unable to subscribe to it.

The earliest depiction of a keris-like dagger is to be found in the relief carvings of Candi Prambanan; this dagger is held by Laksmana and is a part of the Ramayana reliefs. It should be noted that even in his 2004 edition of Ensiklopedi, Bambang Harsrinuksmo still had not correctly identified this relief, as he seemed to be labouring under the misconception that Laksmana was a "raksasa" (Relief di Candi Prambanan juga memperhatikan raksasa memegang senjata tikam pendek---").

Candi Prambanan is a Hindu building.The Ramayana is a Hindu epic.Laksmana is a Hindu character.

Following the appearance of a keris-like dagger in the Prambanan reliefs, all further development of the keris in pre-Islamic Jawa is inextricably tied to societal structures where the dominant faith was Javanese-Hindu.Within these societies the Buddhist faith also had its place, as did Islam in the later days of Majapahit, but the overwhelming influence was that of the Hindu system of belief.

In light of these facts it is illogical to attempt to associate the keris with the Buddhist culture of the Javanese Early Classical Period, most especially so as there is currently no evidence to support such an association.

David · 23rd October 2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Regretably I am a man of little faith. I do not believe most things I am told, I take pleasure in swimming against the current, and I can even see a conspiracy in the myth of the Easter Bunny.

I think we are much alike on this front Alan. I am a seeing is believing kinda guy myself.You will have to share this bunny conspiracy theory with me some day.

ganjawulung · 23rd October 2007, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The earliest depiction of a keris-like dagger is to be found in the relief carvings of Candi Prambanan; this dagger is held by Laksmana and is a part of the Ramayana reliefs. It should be noted that even in his 2004 edition of Ensiklopedi, Bambang Harsrinuksmo still had not correctly identified this relief, as he seemed to be labouring under the misconception that Laksmana was a "raksasa" (Relief di Candi Prambanan juga memperhatikan raksasa memegang senjata tikam pendek---").

Small correction,
The article and photos mentioned in the Bambang's Ensiklopedi, was written and contributed by Suwarsono Lumintu (a Yogyakartanese writher) as printed in the page 27. (Five pages).

A. G. Maisey · 24th October 2007, 12:43 AM

Thank you Pak Ganja for this advice.

Yes, I am aware that Suwarsono Lumintu is credited with authorship of this entry in the Ensiklopedi, however, Bambang Harsinuksmo is the author/composer of the book, not editor of the book, as such, Bambang Harsinuksmo must accept responsibility for all material published in that book, no matter who actually originated it.

This principle applies in any arena where any material is published under a single author's name. A published work may well be the product of a team of people, but once the work is published, and attributed to a single author, the benefits and defects of that published work accrue to the nominated author. In fact, Ensiklopedi contains the work of a number of contributors, not only Suwarsono Lumintu, however, Bambang Harsrinuksmo is nominated as the author, not the editor. This implies that Bambang Harsinuksmo used information supplied by the various contributors to complete the writing of his book.This being the case, he was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the published material, the people who supplied the material can be viewed as assistants over whom he had control.Regretably, his control procedures were inadequate, and any inaccuracies were his responsibility.

I will make this point:- I have been aware of the error in the 1988 edition for almost 20 years; I have been aware of the error in the 2004 edition since I first obtained a copy of this edition; I am aware of other errors --- and I do not mean differences of opinion--- in both these books, and in other publications on the keris. I take no pleasure in bruiting these errors abroad nor in denigrating the work of these authors. One does not advance one's own reputation by attempting to lessen the reputation of others. I would have made no mention of this fault in Bambang Harsinuksmo's work were it not for the fact that we seem to have entered into what I consider to be a rather fatuous discussion in respect of keris origin, and I considered it necessary to shine a little light on the scholarship of writings which have generated this time wasting discussion.

I sincerely hope that we can leave this nonsense of a Buddhist origin for the Javanese keris well and truly buried.

23rd October 2007, 02:54 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Pak Usman, I have already pointed out that in common Javanese useage "jaman buda" refers to the pre-Islamic period. A keris supposed to date from the pre-Islamic period is thus a "keris buda". As Pak Ganja has already advised, " jaman buda" encapsulates the idea of long ago. This terminology does not presume to be historically accurate, it is mere colloquial useage, moreover, it is not a useage that is unique to only the keris. As long as some people continue to confuse colloquial useage with historically accurate fact an understanding of the keris will remain beyond us. Of course, there is more than a single understanding of the keris, just as there is more than a single nature of the keris. Keris understanding can accomodate the beliefs of the Javanese cultural sub-conscious, just as it can accomodate investigative analysis. For those who subscribe to the school of popular belief, then of course the keris buda originated within the Buddhist culture of the Javanese Early Classical Period. The fact that there is no evidence of this matters not one whit. Who needs evidence when we have faith? Is not the name alone sufficient evidence? Why would it be called a keris buda if the Buddhists had not originated it? Obvious, is it not? Now we can all sleep well at night, knowing exactly where the keris came from. Why, we can even find a depiction of a keris on the Borobudur---well its almost a keris:- if you just close one eye, tilt your head slightly to the left, and eliminate a part of it by looking at it between the palms of your hands , you can plainly see that it is a keris. Yep---no doubt about that! The Buddhists were there first! Those damn Syailendras! In the place five minutes and they come up with something that was eventually to become the primary icon of Javanese culture. Regretably I am a man of little faith. I do not believe most things I am told, I take pleasure in swimming against the current, and I can even see a conspiracy in the myth of the Easter Bunny.Most of all, I have a great deal of faith in what I can see and touch, and what I have seen and touched in the Borobudur reliefs does not in any way resemble any keris that I have ever seen. This character defect does not prevent me from understanding that some people may wish to accept logically insupportable beliefs. The demands of society, peer group pressure, the wish to conform , all these things and more can create an environment where it is much more pleasant to go with the flow, than it is to take a stance that is at variance with popular, or community,beliefs. However, as much as I may understand this attitude, I regret that I am unable to subscribe to it. The earliest depiction of a keris-like dagger is to be found in the relief carvings of Candi Prambanan; this dagger is held by Laksmana and is a part of the Ramayana reliefs. It should be noted that even in his 2004 edition of Ensiklopedi, Bambang Harsrinuksmo still had not correctly identified this relief, as he seemed to be labouring under the misconception that Laksmana was a "raksasa" (Relief di Candi Prambanan juga memperhatikan raksasa memegang senjata tikam pendek---"). Candi Prambanan is a Hindu building.The Ramayana is a Hindu epic.Laksmana is a Hindu character. Following the appearance of a keris-like dagger in the Prambanan reliefs, all further development of the keris in pre-Islamic Jawa is inextricably tied to societal structures where the dominant faith was Javanese-Hindu.Within these societies the Buddhist faith also had its place, as did Islam in the later days of Majapahit, but the overwhelming influence was that of the Hindu system of belief. In light of these facts it is illogical to attempt to associate the keris with the Buddhist culture of the Javanese Early Classical Period, most especially so as there is currently no evidence to support such an association.

24th October 2007, 12:43 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Thank you Pak Ganja for this advice. Yes, I am aware that Suwarsono Lumintu is credited with authorship of this entry in the Ensiklopedi, however, Bambang Harsinuksmo is the author/composer of the book, not editor of the book, as such, Bambang Harsinuksmo must accept responsibility for all material published in that book, no matter who actually originated it. This principle applies in any arena where any material is published under a single author's name. A published work may well be the product of a team of people, but once the work is published, and attributed to a single author, the benefits and defects of that published work accrue to the nominated author. In fact, Ensiklopedi contains the work of a number of contributors, not only Suwarsono Lumintu, however, Bambang Harsrinuksmo is nominated as the author, not the editor. This implies that Bambang Harsinuksmo used information supplied by the various contributors to complete the writing of his book.This being the case, he was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the published material, the people who supplied the material can be viewed as assistants over whom he had control.Regretably, his control procedures were inadequate, and any inaccuracies were his responsibility. I will make this point:- I have been aware of the error in the 1988 edition for almost 20 years; I have been aware of the error in the 2004 edition since I first obtained a copy of this edition; I am aware of other errors --- and I do not mean differences of opinion--- in both these books, and in other publications on the keris. I take no pleasure in bruiting these errors abroad nor in denigrating the work of these authors. One does not advance one's own reputation by attempting to lessen the reputation of others. I would have made no mention of this fault in Bambang Harsinuksmo's work were it not for the fact that we seem to have entered into what I consider to be a rather fatuous discussion in respect of keris origin, and I considered it necessary to shine a little light on the scholarship of writings which have generated this time wasting discussion. I sincerely hope that we can leave this nonsense of a Buddhist origin for the Javanese keris well and truly buried.