Bali Hilt ID

Henk · 4th January 2009, 10:07 AM

David,

That's a very handsome find. About the hilt, I agree with Alan. He has certainly a point about the craftsman trying to make a living. Every artist who tries to make a living makes objects that probably will sell best by the audience but he will not forget his own interpretations of the subject.

Looks like a great keris. Would like to see the whole blade and the scabbard as well.

David · 4th January 2009, 02:14 PM

Obviously Ganesha can be depicted in many ways and the form seems to evolve at the whim of the carver somewhat.
The statue i posted might not be anicent, but it does have some age to it and seems to be in a public space where it serves some community purpose. All i am trying to do is understand to the best of my ability the intention of the carver of my hilt. The parallels between the statue and my hilt (body and trunk position, texture of trunk, shape of mouth and position of tusks, presence of human nose as well as trunk, etc.) lead me to believe that the hilt carver based his figure (at least in part) on certain previous aspects depicted in older figures (even if not ancient, i think we must accept this statue as being at least "historical" in some sense). Though i wasn't sure if this hilt was intended as a Ganesha before, based on this statue i would say it was...that is, if this statue was also intended to be Ganesha.

Here is another more modern mask of Ganesha that also shows the same mouth, tusk position and trunk attachment as my hilt.

Anandalal N. · 4th January 2009, 02:34 PM

Sorry I missed the thread since I had to go out of town. Now with the close up I agree that it is unlikely that it is a raksha solely since the appendage seems attached to the upper lip. As for raksha with bulging eyes etc., there are several aspects to this. Firstly are the physical characteristics of the figures - bulging belly, flaming hair, rounded appearance, the half crouched stance etc., which are distinguishign features as well as the instruments or accessories. Then there are the other factors which are added on to depict certain aspets or even manifestations such as 'raudra' loosely interpreted as ferocious - bulging eyes, open mouth displaying fangs, teeth etc. These are not primary characteristics for distinguishing the figure since they depict emotion etc.... This is however moot since I agree that it probably is not a raksha and since Maisey calrifies that matter further.

Good luck.

David · 4th January 2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anandalal N.

As for raksha with bulging eyes etc., there are several aspects to this. Firstly are the physical characteristics of the figures - bulging belly, flaming hair, rounded appearance, the half crouched stance etc., which are distinguishign features as well as the instruments or accessories. Then there are the other factors which are added on to depict certain aspets or even manifestations such as 'raudra' loosely interpreted as ferocious - bulging eyes, open mouth displaying fangs, teeth etc. These are not primary characteristics for distinguishing the figure since they depict emotion etc.

Anan, are you talking about rakasa in general, as depicted in all art forms or are you speaking specifically about the depiction of rakasa in keris hilts. Most of the keris hilts that i have seen described as rakasa are depicted with bulging eyes and fanged, but not with flaming hair or a necessarily rounded appearance. I am referring to rakasa only as he appears in keris hilts.

Rick · 4th January 2009, 08:15 PM

I'd like to suggest here that we are discussing interpretations of a universal (for lack of a better word) form with some 'strictly defined' attributes; ones that make the form unmistakable like tusks and a trunk ...

Could we posit that these attributes are all that's needed to identify and any variants are simply the Artist's interpretation of different aspects of the same deity ?

IOW, that is Ganesha, just a different aspect .

Found on web:

Forms of Ganesha
The idols and temples of Ganesha are found all over the world. We have archeological evidence to suggest that he was worshipped in some temples of northern India as early as first century AD. The Ganapatyam lists 32 iconic forms of Lord Ganesha of which 16 are considered to be the most popular. They are not different Ganeshas but personification of his various aspects and attributes. There are idols and images of Lord Ganesha corresponding to these 16 forms. In each aspect Ganesha is shown with specific color, shape, posture and a variety of objects in his hands. Ganapathi is also symbolically worshipped in the form of a kumbha consisting of a coconut sitting atop the mouth of a round pot or vessel surrounded by five mango leaves. In some places Ganesha is worshipped in the form of lingas, salagramas and yantras. The swastika is also considered to be a symbol of Ganesha because he is a god of luck and auspiciousness. The sixteen forms of Ganesha are shown below:

Bala Ganapathi
Taruna Ganapati
Bhakti Ganapathi.
Maha Ganapathi
Vira Ganapathi
Sakti Ganapathi
Duvija Ganapathi
Ucchistha Ganapathi
Vighnaraja Ganapathi
Kshira Ganapathi
Lakshmi Ganapathi
Siddhi Ganapathi
Urdhava Ganapathi
Heramba Ganapathi
Vijaya Ganapathi
Niruttha Ganapathi

David · 4th January 2009, 11:53 PM

It would be nice to find a related image for all 32 aspect names.

Rick · 5th January 2009, 01:30 AM

G.I.S. Ganesha ???

Anandalal N. · 5th January 2009, 02:50 AM

I am of course referring to Raksha in general. I have little knowledge of the Raksha on keris hilts.

Here is one aspect of Ganapathi Dyanam from the RUPAMALA - a 11-12 century silpasastra or instruction for workmen/artisans originating from Sri Lanka.

The Dhyana of the Three eyed Ganesha

I bow to the Vigna Rajah, distinguished by an elephant face, with sharp tusks, three eyes, a big belly, having the features of a Bhuta, adored by men and gods, of a red colour, a king of gods, son of Isvara.

Gaja vadana vicitram tikshna dantam trinetram
Brahadudaramasesham bhuta rupam puranam
Amara nara supujyam rakta varnam suresam
Pasupati sutamisam vighna rajam namami

Note the reference to bhuta rupam i.e. the appearance of a Bhuta. Refers back to the earlier discussion of 2006 on this forum where Bhuta Nawasari as a Rakshasa king had ben discussed.

David · 4th January 2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henk

Looks like a great keris. Would like to see the whole blade and the scabbard as well.

Sorry Henk, not sheath with this one. And i would like to keep the topic of discussion on the hilt.

4th January 2009, 02:14 PM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Obviously Ganesha can be depicted in many ways and the form seems to evolve at the whim of the carver somewhat. The statue i posted might not be anicent, but it does have some age to it and seems to be in a public space where it serves some community purpose. All i am trying to do is understand to the best of my ability the intention of the carver of my hilt. The parallels between the statue and my hilt (body and trunk position, texture of trunk, shape of mouth and position of tusks, presence of human nose as well as trunk, etc.) lead me to believe that the hilt carver based his figure (at least in part) on certain previous aspects depicted in older figures (even if not ancient, i think we must accept this statue as being at least "historical" in some sense). Though i wasn't sure if this hilt was intended as a Ganesha before, based on this statue i would say it was...that is, if this statue was also intended to be Ganesha. Here is another more modern mask of Ganesha that also shows the same mouth, tusk position and trunk attachment as my hilt. Attached Images

4th January 2009, 02:34 PM	#3
Anandalal N. Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 84	Hi David Sorry I missed the thread since I had to go out of town. Now with the close up I agree that it is unlikely that it is a raksha solely since the appendage seems attached to the upper lip. As for raksha with bulging eyes etc., there are several aspects to this. Firstly are the physical characteristics of the figures - bulging belly, flaming hair, rounded appearance, the half crouched stance etc., which are distinguishign features as well as the instruments or accessories. Then there are the other factors which are added on to depict certain aspets or even manifestations such as 'raudra' loosely interpreted as ferocious - bulging eyes, open mouth displaying fangs, teeth etc. These are not primary characteristics for distinguishing the figure since they depict emotion etc.... This is however moot since I agree that it probably is not a raksha and since Maisey calrifies that matter further. Good luck.

4th January 2009, 08:15 PM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	I'd like to suggest here that we are discussing interpretations of a universal (for lack of a better word) form with some 'strictly defined' attributes; ones that make the form unmistakable like tusks and a trunk ... Could we posit that these attributes are all that's needed to identify and any variants are simply the Artist's interpretation of different aspects of the same deity ? IOW, that is Ganesha, just a different aspect . Found on web: Forms of Ganesha The idols and temples of Ganesha are found all over the world. We have archeological evidence to suggest that he was worshipped in some temples of northern India as early as first century AD. The Ganapatyam lists 32 iconic forms of Lord Ganesha of which 16 are considered to be the most popular. They are not different Ganeshas but personification of his various aspects and attributes. There are idols and images of Lord Ganesha corresponding to these 16 forms. In each aspect Ganesha is shown with specific color, shape, posture and a variety of objects in his hands. Ganapathi is also symbolically worshipped in the form of a kumbha consisting of a coconut sitting atop the mouth of a round pot or vessel surrounded by five mango leaves. In some places Ganesha is worshipped in the form of lingas, salagramas and yantras. The swastika is also considered to be a symbol of Ganesha because he is a god of luck and auspiciousness. The sixteen forms of Ganesha are shown below: Bala Ganapathi Taruna Ganapati Bhakti Ganapathi. Maha Ganapathi Vira Ganapathi Sakti Ganapathi Duvija Ganapathi Ucchistha Ganapathi Vighnaraja Ganapathi Kshira Ganapathi Lakshmi Ganapathi Siddhi Ganapathi Urdhava Ganapathi Heramba Ganapathi Vijaya Ganapathi Niruttha Ganapathi Last edited by Rick; 4th January 2009 at 08:29 PM.

4th January 2009, 10:07 AM	#1
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	David, That's a very handsome find. About the hilt, I agree with Alan. He has certainly a point about the craftsman trying to make a living. Every artist who tries to make a living makes objects that probably will sell best by the audience but he will not forget his own interpretations of the subject. Looks like a great keris. Would like to see the whole blade and the scabbard as well.

4th January 2009, 11:53 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	It would be nice to find a related image for all 32 aspect names.

5th January 2009, 01:30 AM	#7
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	G.I.S. Ganesha ???

5th January 2009, 02:50 AM	#8
Anandalal N. Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 84	I am of course referring to Raksha in general. I have little knowledge of the Raksha on keris hilts. Here is one aspect of Ganapathi Dyanam from the RUPAMALA - a 11-12 century silpasastra or instruction for workmen/artisans originating from Sri Lanka. The Dhyana of the Three eyed Ganesha I bow to the Vigna Rajah, distinguished by an elephant face, with sharp tusks, three eyes, a big belly, having the features of a Bhuta, adored by men and gods, of a red colour, a king of gods, son of Isvara. Gaja vadana vicitram tikshna dantam trinetram Brahadudaramasesham bhuta rupam puranam Amara nara supujyam rakta varnam suresam Pasupati sutamisam vighna rajam namami Note the reference to bhuta rupam i.e. the appearance of a Bhuta. Refers back to the earlier discussion of 2006 on this forum where Bhuta Nawasari as a Rakshasa king had ben discussed.