Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PenangsangII
This is yet another classic case of East Vs West. As I had written earlier, in Malay or Javanese culture for that matter, knowledge is to be sought thru certain customary ways - we cannot simply go to a guru and ask a lot of questions. OTOH, in western cultures, you are very encouraged to ask a lot of questions. So, you know how difficult it is to gain knowledge (esp if it involves mysticism, spirits etc) from a traditional Malay / Javanese guru. This is exactly what I am going thru now as I live in the very same culture, hence I am in the forum - to exchange knowledge. There's so much to learn in a very limited life span. Life is just too short.
|
To the contrary, i do not believe this is a case of East vs West as all. That's a cop-out. Afterall, you ran into this very same problem with this discussion on a forum which is maintained and supported mostly by Easterners. I do agree that Westerners (especially we Americans
) live in a "fast food culture" and want everything now (or even yesterday). And we see how this has effected our approach to spirituality especially with the commercialization of Eastern thought through so-called "New Age" spiritual movements. HOWEVER....this debate that is causing trouble here (as it did elsewhere) is not about the attainment of some great spiritual wisdom. I agree that sort of knowledge needs to come slowly, with much hard work by the aspirant on the path to spiritual enlightenment. There are never any easy answers there or easy paths. But what we are debating here is a question of history, plan and simple. A theory of origin has been presented which flows against the general concensus of the history of the keris. This does not make it necessarily wrong, but it does mean that many questions will naturally be asked (by both East and West) seeking supportive evidence for this contrary theory. To act as if one holds such information, yet to refuse to release it is to me nothing but the height of arrogance, unless of course, there really is no support for this theory at all and it is all just empty hot wind. Sorry Sepokal, i do not see the "irony" in asking someone to give some proof for their controversial theory. You say "there is no profit for me" revealling this information says much about you. How about gratitude and respect of the community? Certainly if you can prove your theory it would be a benefit to the entire keris collecting world. Where is the "profit" in not releasing the information you claim to know?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PenangsangII
Methink, Persians (Aryans) were known to be among the first who used damascene pattern forging of weapons. They also used wavy swords - but to accommodate the local environment, the wavy damascened swords had to go thru evolution, hence the keris we see today. Of course, this theory is not absolute, but logical.
|
Not as logical as you might believe. AFAIK all of the earliest keris were straight blades, not wavy and they had no pamor patterns to speak of. If Islamic Aryans brought the keris to Malaysia and Indonesia one might wonder why they didn't make wavy damasced blades from the start.
I may also be wrong about this since it is not my area of study, but isn't Damascene blade work a completely different process from keris making?
