Figural !

Gavin Nugent · 28th June 2014, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Almost reminds one of the Green Man from another culture .

Vanna Ghiringhelli notes this fella as an unknown demon....can anyone quanitify this "Unknown Deman"

Gavin

VVV · 28th June 2014, 10:30 AM

Most probably it was supposed to be a Yaksha.
A better reference work for old keris and their original symbolism (as an alternative to the contemporary interpretations) is Kris disk by the late Karsten Sejr Jensen.

Michael

David · 28th June 2014, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VVV

Most probably it was supposed to be a Yaksha.
A better reference work for old keris and their original symbolism (as an alternative to the contemporary interpretations) is Kris disk by the late Karsten Sejr Jensen.

Michael

I don't own the Kris Disk, but would love to know more about Jensen's determining factors for this attribution. Was it purely because the figures are vegetal in form or were there other clues he followed that lead to this theory? Yaksha as depicted in surrounding cultures do not appear in such abstracted form, though in Thailand they do often have green faces, probably as a hint to their nature-spirit qualities.

A. G. Maisey · 29th June 2014, 09:47 AM

In respect of the hilt shown by Gavin in Post # 77.

Mention has been made of the opinions of Vanna Ghiringhelli and of Karsten Sejr. Jensen, and it is true that the opinions of both these people must be given due consideration.

Vanna Ghiringhelli is a noted academic who has a very firm foundation in Hindu culture, certainly more mainstream than specifically early Javanese, but her depth of understanding of this mainstream permits an informed analysis of the streams which have their source in the mainstream.

Karsten Sejr. Jensen was a dedicated researcher with a very high level of interest in the keris, and this permitted him to form some very interesting ideas which must be given careful consideration. However, as he himself states:-

"--- Therefore the interpretations, that I give them, are only possible interpretations and there may be many layers under and above the meaning that I indicate.---"

My own opinion is that at this remove it is a total impossibility to affix any specific identity to any of these figural interpretations found in keris hilts.

Indeed, even at the time when one of these hilts was carved, no person apart from the client and/or the carver may have known the true identity of the figure that was represented in the carving.

Why might this be so?

Because the figure may have been intended to represent an ancestor of the client personified as a yaksa (Jav.). The yaksa itself may have been intended as the personification of a deity.

In Javanese thought, most especially early Javanese thought, when a person passed to the other world, that person's earthly spirit could be absorbed into the unseen essence of a being from the Unseen World. Rulers and other great notables were often represented after death as deities, for example Gajah Mada as Ganesha.

Deities could present themselves as Yaksas, Lord Siwa himself was not averse to assuming the form of a yaksa when it served his purpose.

So, even though a figure may be in the form of a yaksa, that does not necessarily mean that it was intended as a simple representation of a yaksa, but may have been intended as one of the higher deities which had absorbed the spirit of an ancestor.

The client of course knew who the figural representation was intended to be, as in early days did the artist who carved the figure, but nobody else was likely to know.

One does not gather power by providing gratuitous information.
This is, and seems to always have been, a basic element of the Javanese world.

Thus if one commissions a representation of a yaksa that in fact is intended as a vessel for the spirit of an ancestor, is it wise to let anybody else know the true nature of the representation?

In light of the above, I think that I am in the Vanna Ghiringhelli camp:- "unknown".

VVV · 29th June 2014, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I don't own the Kris Disk, but would love to know more about Jensen's determining factors for this attribution. Was it purely because the figures are vegetal in form or were there other clues he followed that lead to this theory? Yaksha as depicted in surrounding cultures do not appear in such abstracted form, though in Thailand they do often have green faces, probably as a hint to their nature-spirit qualities.

David, I didn't write that Jensen state it is a yaksha (he usually calls it "a raksasa prince").
You really should try to get hold of the Kris disk. Besides being like a Stone or van Zonnenveld for the keris world regarding that it compiles most of what has been written about it outside Indonesia, it also is the largest and best picture source for complete "historic" keris (complete=the dress is also old and have not been changed according to the present fashion).

Yes, Alan, a yaksha is not always a yaksha and, like the quote from Jensen, there are always several layers in an interpretation. But that is quite obvious for all outsider interpretations (and quite often even the insiders themselves are not aware of all the symbolism and meanings in a motif they use).
I prefer to use the short answer in a forum like this but I am aware that we are living in a postmodern era where nothing is neither black or white nor is there only one correct answer to any question...

Michael

David · 29th June 2014, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VVV

David, I didn't write that Jensen state it is a yaksha (he usually calls it "a raksasa prince").
You really should try to get hold of the Kris disk. Besides being like a Stone or van Zonnenveld for the keris world regarding that it compiles most of what has been written about it outside Indonesia, it also is the largest and best picture source for complete "historic" keris (complete=the dress is also old and have not been changed according to the present fashion).

Thanks for your response Michael. Please forgive my inaccurate assumption, but since you stated it was most probably a yaksha followed immediately by a praise of the Kris Disk as a better reference for original symbolism it seemed to me you were implying that was the source of your information. Hopefully you can see why i would make such a connection. I have never heard or read this identification for this hilt form before and was hoping for some further supportive reference points. Perhaps you could share with us then whether you heard or read this suggested elsewhere or if it is a theory of your own making.
As for the Kris Disk, i have indeed been looking for a reasonably priced copy for some time.

VVV · 29th June 2014, 08:30 PM

Sorry David, I do understand now why you read it that way.
Somehow I remembered that we have had this discussion before and found this thread from 2008.
Since then I am leaning more and more towards that most of the hilts attributed as rakshasas are instead yakshas, based on their usually more benevolent character and to their function as guardians of places in the nature (genii loci). In my 2009 study of 138 Malaysian incantations collected during the colonial times, different kind of guardian spirits clearly dominates as receivers of the spells (58% followed by "Satanic" (pure evil) characters 17%). They were "dressed" in either Islamic, Hindu or even pre-Hindu clothes. Very much resembling how saints were/are used in Roman-Catholic countries.

Michael

A. G. Maisey · 30th June 2014, 02:44 AM

Yes Michael, of course you are correct:- Machlup and Arbesman are only the tip of the iceberg, but those two happen to be a very prominent and well-known tip. It has been obvious from probably the beginning of mankind's learning curve that the cat can be skinned in more ways than one.

Again I agree with you that since this Forum is not academically based, and additionally because many of our contributors do not have English as a native language, it is perhaps best to keep responses and new information to a simple, straight-forward, basic level, and this is precisely what I have been trying to do for the entire time I have been involved in discussions here.

However, I do believe that there is a difference between simplicity and insufficient information to permit understanding of base concepts, but this mindset makes it reasonably difficult to determine a point at which to draw the line between "too much", and "not enough".

For example, it is easy for the modern day western collector to differentiate between the raksasa and yaksa --- I'll use Javanese spellings, since we are discussing Jawa.

The raksasa is big, ugly and hairy, and he's a baddy.

The yaksa is a nature spirit somewhat delicate, and essentially a goody.

Thus, if we are involved in a discussion that is centered around the beliefs and terminology of modern day western collectors it is probably more than enough to restrict ourselves to this level of terminology.

However, when a question is raised that seeks to find the specific identity of one of these artificially created groups, it becomes more than a little difficult to provide an explanation in the absence of sufficient information to understand that explanation.

If we stop with generic terms, as understood by collectors outside Javanese society, yaksa & raksasa are probably enough, but then when we get to trying to understand the differences between these two generic groups we can be faced with a problem:- should we apply our own construction to the understanding, should we apply the understanding of present day Jawa, or should we seek to apply the understanding of the people responsible for the production of the artifact that we are attempting to understand?

My present belief is that the nature of the question raised dictates the nature of the answer given. I am open to opposing argument to this position, as my own ideas do sometimes vacillate between trying to provide reasonably complete answers, and answers just sufficient to extinguish the question.

This matter of raksasa and yaksa is a good example of what I mean.

Many of the hilts that have these abstracted figural forms would have been produced by people who spoke Old Javanese.
( Modern Javanese seems to be accepted as having begun its development in the courts of Central Jawa following the establishment of the Second Kingdom of Mataram, roughly some time around 1600)

In Old Javanese the understanding of "yaksa" was that it referred to a group of creatures who were half-gods dedicated to the service of (principally) Wisnu, however, sometimes they were found in the company of dangerous creatures such as the pisaca, a group that included the setan, raksasa, iblis, jin, and other evil and dangerous creatures.

In Old Javanese thought the raksasa was an evil, dangerous demon.

So in Old Javanese thought, the yaksa was usually, but not necessarily, a goody, but in reality the yaksa could also be a bhuta.
A bhuta is generally taken to refer to an evil spirit that haunts lonely places, but it can also mean simply a giant, and in Old Javanese it can carry a wider range of meaning, dependent upon context.

In present day Jawa Krama the yaksa is thought of as a member of the same group of creatures as the daitya, raksasa and asura. In Old Javanese thought the Asuras were enemies of the Dewas, the Daityas were a sub-clan of giants belonging to the larger group of Asuras.

Now, what I have written above is in my view the absolute basic, simplistic level of info needed for a layman to understand the nature of a yaksa and the nature of a raksasa. When we have this most basic level of understanding it becomes clear that to try to differentiate between the yaksa and the raksasa becomes somewhat difficult. Most particularly so if we are trying to understand an abstracted figural carving made by a person who saw the world in Old Javanese terms.

For a long time the world of collectors outside Jawa referred to these figural hilts as "raksasa".
Not particularly accurate, not making any attempt to understand the form in terms of the creators, but sufficient so that all other collectors outside Jawa knew what was being talked about.

We have at least two choices:- we stay with the terminology of yesterday, or we attempt to expand our understanding to allow us to use a perhaps more accurate terminology.

One route is for the collector, the other route is for the student.

28th June 2014, 10:30 AM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Most probably it was supposed to be a Yaksha. A better reference work for old keris and their original symbolism (as an alternative to the contemporary interpretations) is Kris disk by the late Karsten Sejr Jensen. Michael

29th June 2014, 09:47 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	In respect of the hilt shown by Gavin in Post # 77. Mention has been made of the opinions of Vanna Ghiringhelli and of Karsten Sejr. Jensen, and it is true that the opinions of both these people must be given due consideration. Vanna Ghiringhelli is a noted academic who has a very firm foundation in Hindu culture, certainly more mainstream than specifically early Javanese, but her depth of understanding of this mainstream permits an informed analysis of the streams which have their source in the mainstream. Karsten Sejr. Jensen was a dedicated researcher with a very high level of interest in the keris, and this permitted him to form some very interesting ideas which must be given careful consideration. However, as he himself states:- "--- Therefore the interpretations, that I give them, are only possible interpretations and there may be many layers under and above the meaning that I indicate.---" My own opinion is that at this remove it is a total impossibility to affix any specific identity to any of these figural interpretations found in keris hilts. Indeed, even at the time when one of these hilts was carved, no person apart from the client and/or the carver may have known the true identity of the figure that was represented in the carving. Why might this be so? Because the figure may have been intended to represent an ancestor of the client personified as a yaksa (Jav.). The yaksa itself may have been intended as the personification of a deity. In Javanese thought, most especially early Javanese thought, when a person passed to the other world, that person's earthly spirit could be absorbed into the unseen essence of a being from the Unseen World. Rulers and other great notables were often represented after death as deities, for example Gajah Mada as Ganesha. Deities could present themselves as Yaksas, Lord Siwa himself was not averse to assuming the form of a yaksa when it served his purpose. So, even though a figure may be in the form of a yaksa, that does not necessarily mean that it was intended as a simple representation of a yaksa, but may have been intended as one of the higher deities which had absorbed the spirit of an ancestor. The client of course knew who the figural representation was intended to be, as in early days did the artist who carved the figure, but nobody else was likely to know. One does not gather power by providing gratuitous information. This is, and seems to always have been, a basic element of the Javanese world. Thus if one commissions a representation of a yaksa that in fact is intended as a vessel for the spirit of an ancestor, is it wise to let anybody else know the true nature of the representation? In light of the above, I think that I am in the Vanna Ghiringhelli camp:- "unknown".

29th June 2014, 08:30 PM	#7
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Sorry David, I do understand now why you read it that way. Somehow I remembered that we have had this discussion before and found this thread from 2008. Since then I am leaning more and more towards that most of the hilts attributed as rakshasas are instead yakshas, based on their usually more benevolent character and to their function as guardians of places in the nature (genii loci). In my 2009 study of 138 Malaysian incantations collected during the colonial times, different kind of guardian spirits clearly dominates as receivers of the spells (58% followed by "Satanic" (pure evil) characters 17%). They were "dressed" in either Islamic, Hindu or even pre-Hindu clothes. Very much resembling how saints were/are used in Roman-Catholic countries. Michael

30th June 2014, 02:44 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Yes Michael, of course you are correct:- Machlup and Arbesman are only the tip of the iceberg, but those two happen to be a very prominent and well-known tip. It has been obvious from probably the beginning of mankind's learning curve that the cat can be skinned in more ways than one. Again I agree with you that since this Forum is not academically based, and additionally because many of our contributors do not have English as a native language, it is perhaps best to keep responses and new information to a simple, straight-forward, basic level, and this is precisely what I have been trying to do for the entire time I have been involved in discussions here. However, I do believe that there is a difference between simplicity and insufficient information to permit understanding of base concepts, but this mindset makes it reasonably difficult to determine a point at which to draw the line between "too much", and "not enough". For example, it is easy for the modern day western collector to differentiate between the raksasa and yaksa --- I'll use Javanese spellings, since we are discussing Jawa. The raksasa is big, ugly and hairy, and he's a baddy. The yaksa is a nature spirit somewhat delicate, and essentially a goody. Thus, if we are involved in a discussion that is centered around the beliefs and terminology of modern day western collectors it is probably more than enough to restrict ourselves to this level of terminology. However, when a question is raised that seeks to find the specific identity of one of these artificially created groups, it becomes more than a little difficult to provide an explanation in the absence of sufficient information to understand that explanation. If we stop with generic terms, as understood by collectors outside Javanese society, yaksa & raksasa are probably enough, but then when we get to trying to understand the differences between these two generic groups we can be faced with a problem:- should we apply our own construction to the understanding, should we apply the understanding of present day Jawa, or should we seek to apply the understanding of the people responsible for the production of the artifact that we are attempting to understand? My present belief is that the nature of the question raised dictates the nature of the answer given. I am open to opposing argument to this position, as my own ideas do sometimes vacillate between trying to provide reasonably complete answers, and answers just sufficient to extinguish the question. This matter of raksasa and yaksa is a good example of what I mean. Many of the hilts that have these abstracted figural forms would have been produced by people who spoke Old Javanese. ( Modern Javanese seems to be accepted as having begun its development in the courts of Central Jawa following the establishment of the Second Kingdom of Mataram, roughly some time around 1600) In Old Javanese the understanding of "yaksa" was that it referred to a group of creatures who were half-gods dedicated to the service of (principally) Wisnu, however, sometimes they were found in the company of dangerous creatures such as the pisaca, a group that included the setan, raksasa, iblis, jin, and other evil and dangerous creatures. In Old Javanese thought the raksasa was an evil, dangerous demon. So in Old Javanese thought, the yaksa was usually, but not necessarily, a goody, but in reality the yaksa could also be a bhuta. A bhuta is generally taken to refer to an evil spirit that haunts lonely places, but it can also mean simply a giant, and in Old Javanese it can carry a wider range of meaning, dependent upon context. In present day Jawa Krama the yaksa is thought of as a member of the same group of creatures as the daitya, raksasa and asura. In Old Javanese thought the Asuras were enemies of the Dewas, the Daityas were a sub-clan of giants belonging to the larger group of Asuras. Now, what I have written above is in my view the absolute basic, simplistic level of info needed for a layman to understand the nature of a yaksa and the nature of a raksasa. When we have this most basic level of understanding it becomes clear that to try to differentiate between the yaksa and the raksasa becomes somewhat difficult. Most particularly so if we are trying to understand an abstracted figural carving made by a person who saw the world in Old Javanese terms. For a long time the world of collectors outside Jawa referred to these figural hilts as "raksasa". Not particularly accurate, not making any attempt to understand the form in terms of the creators, but sufficient so that all other collectors outside Jawa knew what was being talked about. We have at least two choices:- we stay with the terminology of yesterday, or we attempt to expand our understanding to allow us to use a perhaps more accurate terminology. One route is for the collector, the other route is for the student.