Opinions please

[A. G. Maisey]

Possibly David, possibly.

What I actually wrote, and what Jussi picked up on was this:-

"Yes, the ways in which European ideas of "magic" might have influenced Javanese perceptions of not only the keris, but also of other aspects of Javanese life is something that as far as I know has not been subjected to close investigation."

I used inverted commas around the word magic, because I was talking about the European concepts of magic rather than the way in which Javanese people understand parallel concepts.

In Javanese the word for what we think of as stage magic is "sulap", and actually it has the sense of sleight of hand.

The word for black magic is "sihir" , which is from the Arabic, it is not an indigenous word, and I believe that in the Arabic it actually means asking for help from demons or evil spirits to harm somebody, essentially it is what people in European societies think of as "black magic". This word does not appear in Old Javanese, so it is a pretty recent way of looking at the idea of using the dark forces of the Hidden World.

Those Javanese who have been influenced by Western Culture probably now have concepts of magic that are not much different from the concepts of magic held by lay people in European societies, but the indigenous Javanese concepts relating to what Europeans might think of as magic are quite different to these.

I believe it goes without saying that we can automatically exclude stage magic, or sulap, from consideration. In fact, when I wrote the word "magic" it didn't even occur to me that there is something called stage magic, I guess because I never think of these performances in these terms.

So yes, I did sort of sidestep Jussi's reference to the magic of technology, simply because I did not really want to write thousands of words in trying to explain why the Javanese would never confuse technological advancement with their own ideas of supernatural forces, any more than they would confuse the working of supernatural forces with sleight of hand. Javanese people simply do not think in this way.


When the Europeans first came to Jawa they came into contact with an advanced culture, a culture that had had contact with the civilisations of China and India for over 1000 years. The Javanese were already familiar with the technology that these Indian and Chinese civilisations used, and they had adopted some of this technology for themselves.

After the industrial revolution in Europe, when technology took off and we saw the move to the cities in the British Isles and Western Europe, the Javanese had already been in close contact with the Dutch and other Europeans, for well over 100 years. We could comfortably liken the situation of the Javanese to the situation of Europeans who were living in rural areas of Britain, or perhaps France or Italy:- remote from daily contact with advanced technology, but certainly not unfamiliar with its existence.

In our own time we have seen the appearance on the scene of personal computers.

My first real job was in the data processing section of a major government organisation. Around 80 or 100 girls putting holes into little cards, other girls reading those cards, others working on comptometers (machines for mathematical calculation), a mostly male administrative staff of perhaps 30 people, over 6000 square feet of floor space. At the time, mid-1950's, this was an advanced information technology --- even though it originated in the 18th century and what we were using in the mid-1950's probably hadn't changed all that much since about 1920.

These days I carry greater computing capacity in my briefcase, than was available from all those old IBM machines and the enormous staff required to operate them.

This is truly magic --- or very rapid technological advancement --- but it didn't stun me as it developed, I knew it was happening, I saw it coming, as did any educated person in our society.

I believe that the Javanese who saw the introduction of European technology to Jawa during the 19th century would have had a similar attitude. At least the educated ones would have. Farmers and other people who were out of the mainstream in rural backwaters would probably be somewhat more amazed, but I have not encountered any evidence that would suggest that any Javanese would have confused advanced technology with the magic associated with his own unseen world.

The Javanese of any time after European contact were not primitive natives who had no concept of the happenings in the world outside Jawa. They were members of an advanced culture, and could probably be regarded as living on the fringes of the civilised world.

They could very certainly differentiate between technology with which they were not familiar, and the essence of the Unseen World. However, the way in which a Javanese person would regard the Unseen World and those things attributable to it, should not be confused with the way in which a person of Western European heritage would think of "magic".

But if we do a fast forward to the 20th century, what we begin to see, I think, is the attitudes of educated Javanese people toward the keris mirroring the mystical/magical view of Western Europeans. When I am sometimes confronted by this I cannot help but ask myself where these ideas came from.

I know I did use the word "magic", but I used this word as something associated with European ideas. In truth, I try in so far as is possible to avoid the use of this word in respect of the keris or of other aspects of Javanese society and culture. In the European mindset the keris can possibly be thought of as a "magical" thing in some ways, but in the Javanese mindset the relevant ideas simply do not translate in any way as any type of magic that a European could readily understand.

This is a bit like trying to understand the indigenous Javanese ideas associated with what happens to the human essence after death. People of European heritage simply do not have a frame of reference to allow them to understand.

Now, when we consider death from the indigenous Javanese point of view, we come very close to a similar way in which the old Javanese people thought about the powers of the worker in the forge. The concept of death embodies the concept of rebirth. Anybody from any agricultural based society anywhere in the world is unable to escape from this idea:- things die, and they are reborn next season. The society of Jawa is an agriculturally based society.

The idea of death embraces the idea of rebirth, thus death is only a part of life, for life to exist, death must also exist.

The worker in the forge fulfils a similar function:- he takes iron that is dead and he turns it into something that is living, but this living piece of iron will eventually perish, only to be renewed again. The iron changes, but it does not disappear, its form alters, but it is only waiting to be brought back to life by the worker in the forge.

This is not magic. It is simply the way in which the world functions, and its there for everybody to see, all they need to do is to look.

Candi Sukuh on Mt. Lawu is possibly associated with this relationship between the forge worker (pandai, mpu), and the renewal of souls.(O'Connor).

But here we are specifically looking at the keris, and trying to consider how the ways in which Javanese people regard the keris might have been influenced by ideas and concepts that came into Javanese society from outside Javanese society.

For example, traditionally the Javanese gentry have regarded the keris as a store of wealth. When did this attitude start to appear in Javanese society? Is it possible to identify any of the possible causes for its appearance in Javanese society?

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The worker in the forge fulfills a similar function:- he takes iron that is dead and he turns it into something that is living, but this living piece of iron will eventually perish, only to be renewed again. The iron changes, but it does not disappear, its form alters, but it is only waiting to be brought back to life by the worker in the forge.

This is not magic. It is simply the way in which the world functions, and its there for everybody to see, all they need to do is to look.

Sorry Alan, but i maintain that is exactly what magic is, again, "the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will." Magick is a part of the natural world. Seeing magick is about looking for it. Now my world view on magick has been heavily influenced by the very European magickal lodges of the late 18th and 19th centuries and their philosophies on the subject. I suppose that the general European populous may have had a somewhat different viewpoint on the subject. But i believe that the European idea of magick that came from within European magickal societies (actual occult philosophies not generally accepted or even considered by the mundane citizen) was not so far from the Javanese concept of magick as you might think.
It was not my intention to bring the concept of stage magic into the conversation at all. Of course we are not discussing that. I was simply explaining the use of the spelling "magicK" to differentiate it from common stage magic. Nor when i speak of magick am i in any way referring to either European or Javanese ideas about "black" magic.
I am quite aware that the Javanese were not primitive people and would not be fooled by advanced technologies of the Europeans. I quite agree that as technology grows slowly before you it does not shock, surprise or fool you by its progress. This still does not mean that Western technology (and the culture, products want to, ideals and desires it brought with it) has not affected how Indonesians view the keris. The more that Javanese society has become influenced my modern technology and the information age, the more i believe they have moved away from their world view of the seen and unseen worlds. This world view is probably seen more like superstition with each proceeding generation.
I find it interesting that you have tried to draw me into this discussion repetitively stating that there are no "rights" or "wrongs" on this issue, yet you seem to find fault in my opinion anyway.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, if I have offended you I most sincerely apologise.

I extend my apology further if you have perceived my statement of opinion as a statement that finds fault with your opinion.

You have put forward your opinion, I have put forward my opinion, as I have stated more than once, in this thread there are no rights and no wrongs.

My objective is to try to draw out the opinions of all those who have an opinion, if this thread were to deteriorate into a point scoring match this would discourage people from floating their opinions. Thus, it began as, and as far as I am concerned, it remains simply a place to put forward an opinion.

Nobody is necessarily right, and nobody is necessarily wrong.

Just opinions.

The point I was trying to make, and that I apparently failed to do, is that the Javanese may have a concept that a European would regard as magic, but the Javanese perception of that concept would be not be similar to the European perception. The Javanese person would think about the idea in a different way to the way in which the European person would think about the same idea.

To a degree I've dug my own grave here, by straying into commenting on an area of keris belief and Javanese belief that I am usually very careful to avoid, except in face to face discussion with people who have the background that permits them to accept as understood many of the ideas associated with this area of Javanese culture.

I have absolutely no problem at all with you, or anybody else considering some of the things about the keris, and about Javanese culture as being either "magick", or "magic". This is an individual prerogative.

In fact, the Javanese word "sihir" is very close to the Oxford definition of magic, but that Javanese word is not an indigenous Javanese word, and does not represent an indigenous Javanese concept that can be applied to the keris.

However, many of the ideas that both enthusiasts outside and inside Jawa now apply to the keris do come within the ambit of the Oxford definition of "magic".

So, to return to the main thrust of this thread:- where might some of these ideas have come from, and why?

Did "sihir" enter the language along with Sufism?

David, again I apologise for any offense , negation, insult or criticism which you may find in my comments, please be assured, I am not attacking you, I am merely stating my opinion, which you are welcome to accept or reject as you see fit.

Edit

I probably should mention that when I think about magic within the Western European framework, I am thinking in terms of the folk ideas of magic, the ideas of magic held by the common people that have been handed down to them by their ancestors, and represented in the English language by the Oxford definition.
I do not have the specialist knowledge necessary to presume to comment of the ideas of Aleister Crowley's "magick".

[David]

Oh Alan, you should know mw well enough at this point to know that i am in no way insulted by your comments. You have certainly written nothing that i could be offended by.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In fact, the Javanese word "sihir" is very close to the Oxford definition of magic, but that Javanese word is not an indigenous Javanese word, and does not represent an indigenous Javanese concept that can be applied to the keris.

However, many of the ideas that both enthusiasts outside and inside Jawa now apply to the keris do come within the ambit of the Oxford definition of "magic".

So, to return to the main thrust of this thread:- where might some of these ideas have come from, and why?

Did "sihir" enter the language along with Sufism?

However, your line of response is a bit frustrating since it seems to pick and choose certain statements and ignore the rest and perhaps more important gist of what i am trying to say. I have already given the definition of magick that i choose to work from in order to give everyone as clear an idea of exactly what I mean when I use the word and say the i believe the Javanese have always considered the keris to be a "magickal" object, even before European contact. In that context it is unimportant what the Oxford dictionary has to say about it or whether or not it is in alignment with the meaning of the Javanese word "sihir". And if the word "sihir" implies maleficent action it is obviously not what i am talking about. The definition i have put forth is not my own and has been used by practitioners of magickal arts and philosophies in the West for at least a century and probably understood as such for much longer than that. It is not something of my own invention that i simply pulled out of left field and slapped down here. There is undoubtably a schism between those who are personally involved in a magickal paradigm and lifestyle and those outside that paradigm who may have a more mundane definition that is generally driven by the fear of the unknown or unfamiliar and can only relate to the word in terms of fanciful acts (i.e. keris that fly through the air) or black magic intended to harm another. This is not what i mean when i use the word and have distinguished that by quoting my own world view definition and establishing the different spelling to avoid confusion. It does not seem to have worked, however.
However, if, as you state, many of the ideas that both enthusiasts outside and inside Jawa now apply to the keris do come within the ambit of the Oxford definition of "magic" then it does indeed seem that those ideas of "magic" may indeed have entered the Javanese understanding from an outside source and you are probably right to imply that Islam/Sufism may have been that source. It seems to me that the idea of djinn and maleficent forces of the unseen world that can be used by unscrupulous individuals to wield power in the seen world is an Arabian concept. It is not, however, what i mean when i say that the keris is a magickal object.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your reassurances that I have not insulted you David, but have merely been a source of frustration. I regret this frustration that I have caused you, but I probably cannot avoid causing some degree of frustration, or maybe merely dissatisfaction, because to address all that would need to be addressed to provide a clear understanding of the differences between your base, the European lay person's base, and the various levels that can apply in Jawa, would use an enormous amount of time and an enormous amount of words. Certainly more than have a place in a thread in an on line discussion group, a thread that declares in the first sentence that its purpose is to seek opinions. Possibly in order to gain those opinions we may need to engage in some rather convoluted discussion, but I do hope we can keep that to a minimum.

I'm going to use an analogy here in the hope that this may clarify why I keep repeating that there is a basic difference in the way that European people and Javanese people think that precludes the understanding of ideas and approaches to the world that we cannot see. This difference would apply as much to European understanding of that which is Javanese, as it would apply to Javanese understanding of that which is European. Moreover, because time alters perception the understandings and misunderstanding have altered throughout time.

To address the time factor, I will set my analogy in the second half of the 19th century; near enough to us in time to have some appreciation of the differences between that time and the present, and far enough away from us in time to permit comparison with the present.

Belief systems are an integral part of the human experience. The belief systems that any particular society, or person within a society chooses, or is obliged, to use are indicative of that society's or person's needs and obligations, and the availability of resources to satisfy those needs and obligations.

Food is similarly a necessity that permits the continuation of the human experience:- without food, we die. Except perhaps for some notably Indian extremists who apparently have been able to live for very extended periods of time in the complete absence of food --- but I think we can exclude those good people from consideration.

So, here we are in County Cork, Ireland, in 1875. Thomas Patrick considers that the peak of culinary delight is a good solid stew, full of mutton, potatoes, onions, parsley and with lots of good heavy dumplings. Thomas Patrick is a poor tenant farmer, he hasn't seen this sort of meal on his table often, but it is his dream cuisine.

But over the water in London, Cyril Peregrine enjoys nothing so much at table as a good roast with the usual side dishes. Cyril Peregrine is a member of the English upper class.

On the other side of the world, just outside Sragen in Central Jawa Pak Sigit is a poor tenant farmer, just like Thomas Patrick in County Cork. Once, many years ago Pak Sigit had been fortunate enough to be invited to his landlord's house for a gathering, and he had tasted kalak. He had never been able to afford to try it again, but sometimes in his weaker moments he would dream of that kalak, and his mouth would water.

Three different people, in three different societies with three different cultural bases.

All three have different ideas of what makes a really good meal.

Thomas Patrick and Cyril Peregrine would be able to eat each other's food, they might not enjoy it quite as much as their own food, but they could eat it.

But could they eat Pak Sigit's dream cuisine?
Not likely. In fact I would suggest that the mere smell of the chilli used in that dish of kalak would cause their eyes to water, make them sneeze and keep them 20 meters from the table.

What would Pak Sigit think of Irish stew and a traditional English roast?
Well, he could undoubtedly eat either, but would he enjoy them? No. In fact he would disallow them because of their blandness and for another very important reason:- neither meal is served with rice. A Javanese does not consider that he has had a proper meal unless it is based around rice.

If the time frame and the situation were to be changed, we would probably see Tom and Cy come to enjoy kalak, perhaps after living in Jawa for an extended period of time. In the 21st century Pak Sigit's grandson might win a scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge and come to truly love roast beef. Even in Jawa itself many of the younger generation drool over McDonald's and Pizza Hut --- mostly because they see it as a prestige thing to be able to eat this delightful cuisine.

So, food and belief systems.
Both necessary for continuation of the human experience.

What is acceptable, nay, necessary, or perhaps essential to a person from one cultural base is not necessarily palatable or even understandable by a person from a different cultural base.

Not without first gaining a thorough understanding of the society that has grown from that different cultural base, and perhaps not even then.

To return to here and now.

This difference and the difficulties involved in explanation, most especially in things associated with Javanese/Balinese perceptions of the Unseen World are the reason that I do try to avoid discussion in this area of knowledge unless I am in the physical presence of a person who has an understanding of the cultural base and society associated with the topic.

Quite simply it is not possible to understand one world view when working from the base of an entirely different world view.

David, I do hope that the opinions I have expressed above will clarify my position in this matter.

[Gajah]

An Indonesian friend of mine, who follows this forum but isn't registered, shared with me his view on the topic today. Coming from someone who grew up in the Javanese culture, I thought it worthwhile to post it here (with his permission):

Lets start with the Ancient Java, even before the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism. Ancient Javanese already had their own system of belief which is animism (like all ancient society in this world). Since animism view that there are spirits reside in everything, humans life are surrounded with the spirits. There was need to have and maintain good relationship between the humans and the spirits. As human population grew, humans needed more space for settlement, that means the society expanded to the place believed belongs to the spirits. There were negotiations between humans and the spirits through the shaman so that both sides reach a peaceful and desired solution.

One of the solution reached was the spirit agreed to move to somewhere else. But, how did the spirit move ? This was the role of keris putut sajen. This keris was not a weapon nor a heirloom by that era. It was created to be a medium to move the spirit. The evil spirit also can be locked in that keris after conflicts with the humans in form of calamity, disease or poor harvest. With certain rituals, the keris then moved to somewhere else, while for putut sajen that contained evil spirit, it was dumped on the sea or volcano, far from human settlement. The other function was for offerings to the spirits. Physically, keris putut sajen is very simple, without pamor or decoration and even without ukiran or warangka.

Then Hinduism spread to Java. Animism was not necessarily extinct. Human started to learn that rulers must get legitimation from the spirits world (Now, in form of Hindu God). Keris started to change from medium to lock evil spirit to medium where the legitimation of the spirit reside. While for spiritual personality like shaman or priest, the keris was a medium of keeping the spiritual power as the result of spiritual achievement. This can be considered as a period that keris become pusaka to the ruler that passed the keris to younger generation.

Not much of changes when Buddhism spread in Java. Until Islam spread in Java, the way Javanese treated keris was a little bit different. They viewed that the power inside the keris is a power granted and permitted by Allah. Don't depend on the power but on the Allah. But the concept that keris hold legitimation to become a ruler still lived on by the title of "Piyandel" or "pusaka keraton" or palace's heirloom.

While for interaction with the western colonization (especially Dutch), keris evolved to focus more in functionality. It was in 18th century when an mpu was asked by the Javanese Sultan (Pakubuwono) to create a keris that can penetrate Dutch armor. There came the Brojoguno Keris that applied more steel to harden the point and thicker (also heavier) blade. Though the forging was not widely spread, the technique appear only during the Dutch Colonization.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you very much for passing along these comments Gajah.

Yes, I would agree that your friend's comments do accurately reflect some of the opinions of some Javanese people, and as such are undoubtedly of interest.

Thank you again.

Edit

An after-thought that may be of interest.

I can recall an occasion when I accompanied a family friend who had been employed to dig a new well for a village near Boyolali. The location had already been established, and the purpose of the visit was to go to the site with a dukun (shaman) to ask for permission from the spirit who inhabited the location, if a well could be dug.
Offerings were made, prayers recited, the dukun went into a trance-like state, and eventually a white presence that looked something like a snake emerged from the ground. The dukun spoke with the presence and the presence replied with instructions on what needed to be done before the well was dug.
The man employed to dig the well did not understand anything that was said, and neither did I, and we heard nothing but the voice of the dukun.
Nor did I see the white presence, but according to the well digger, something did appear out of the ground that had a snake-like appearance, but was also something like smoke. Neither of us heard anything but the voice of the dukun.
However, the people of the village were satisfied that the correct permission for the well had been obtained, and the well was dug and produced water.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Quite simply it is not possible to understand one world view when working from the base of an entirely different world view.

You've got me wondering now Alan. Do you believe that all Javanese share the same world view? What about Westerners, or even to be more specific, how about Americans? Do you believe that my own personal world view is more likely to be closer to your own or what you might perceive as a Javanese world view? Or perhaps that my own world view is closer to whatever you believe to be the generic American world view? If you could answer these questions what evidence would you base these assumption on?

[A. G. Maisey]

Please accept my apologies for causing you any confusion David. I guess it is probably inevitable that some confusion must be generated when we are limited in discussion by what we can put on paper, but even so, I perhaps should have been more explicit with some of what I have written, although in all honesty, it did not occur to me that questions such as the ones you have framed might even arise. I sometimes take too much for granted. Call it a character fault.

You've raised a number of questions, so probably the easiest way for me to respond is to interpolate my responses:-

Do you believe that all Javanese share the same world view?

No, and I'll go further, I do not believe that even the same Javanese person holds a consistent world view.
The way most people see the world can vary according to situation, and that idea of "situation" automatically embraces the concept of time. This applies no less to a Javanese person than it does to anybody else.
For instance, the modern Javanese engineer who has come from a village background could well espouse one world view when in the work place, or outside his village environment, but when he is back in the village, he becomes a member of the village hierarchy and will adopt the hierarchical position and world view that is expected of him.

What about Westerners, or even to be more specific, how about Americans?

I'll assume that "Westerners" is near enough the same as "people from a Western European cultural base", thus, everybody in the Old World, plus those of us whose ancestors came from that Old World.

No, of course not, there is observable wide variation in the way different people from this base see and react to the world around them.
I'll assume that the generality already stated applies as much to all non-indigenous people from all the Americas as much as it does to people anywhere else with the group delineated by paragraph 1 of this response.

Of course, if we include indigenous people within the group, then again, we can expect situational variation in probably most cases, however, in the case of indigenous people who are still living as their ancestors lived, then it might be necessary to carry out very specific investigation of each individual group before any opinion could be formed.

Do you believe that my own personal world view is more likely to be closer to your own or what you might perceive as a Javanese world view?

No idea at all David. I'm sorry.

Or perhaps that my own world view is closer to whatever you believe to be the generic American world view?

Again, I am completely unable to answer this question.

If you could answer these questions what evidence would you base these assumption on?

What I've written above are not assumptions, they are opinions.
In one case above I have given a very brief outline of an informed opinion, in another case I have given an opinion that could probably be described as the opinion of an educated layman, in a couple of cases I have not given an opinion at all, simply because I have insufficient information to form an opinion.
One of the beauties of opinions is that anybody can have an opinion, and that opinion does not require any evidence at all to support it --- unless the person stating the opinion wishes others to adopt it, in which case he might well wheel out a whole barrow load of evidence.

My position in this thread is that any opinion that I state is up there for others to accept or reject as they see fit. I'm not pushing any barrow here. I don't care if anybody accepts my opinion, and I care even less if they reject it. In fact, I am more than happy to hear any argument against any of my opinions, and I won't argue back.

This thread was started to extract opinions. Arguing against the opinions of others is not really such a great way to encourage people to state their opinions.

David, in respect of the quote that preceded your questions:-

Quite simply it is not possible to understand one world view when working from the base of an entirely different world view.

As already stated, this is my opinion. It is an opinion that I have formed after a very long time spent reading anthropological text books, and reinforced by very close personal contact with two cultures that are not my own --- well, in one case very close and very lengthy contact, in the other case lengthy contact but lacking the same degree of personal contact. This opinion seems to me to reflect a widely held opinion within the community formed of professional anthropologists. These people could well be wrong. My own opinion, although an informed opinion, could well be wrong.

I have many character faults, and one of these is that when somebody can demonstrate that something I believe to be true, is in fact untrue, I am not offended in any way, rather I welcome the revelation of a new truth.

So it is, that if you can demonstrate that the opinion of mine that you have quoted is in fact inaccurate and insupportable, then I will welcome that revelation.