H4ow to count Luk???

[A. G. Maisey]

Once again Ariel, you are absolutely correct.

However you are correct only from the view point of a person who has not yet learnt the elements of the belief system that governs an understanding of the Javanese keris.

In this Forum it has often been repeated that an understanding of the keris is dependent upon an understanding of the belief system that is attached to the keris. The whole thing is based on belief. Everything that is of any importance in the world of the Javanese keris is based upon belief. It is a field of knowledge that has quite specific rules attached to it, rules that are not unlike the rules that govern major religions:- we cannot understand any major religion by reverting to logic. The same is true of the keris, logic has no part in its understanding.

The way in which the waves, ie, luk, are counted in a Javanese keris blade is no less dependent upon this belief system than is anything else in the world of the keris.

Of course, if we wish to step outside the rules that govern this understanding for Javanese people, then we can make our own rules and decide for ourselves how we wish to count those waves. This then would be our own understanding, not the understanding of the people who originated and own this cultural icon, the keris.

However, such an approach would seem to be out of step with the approach taken by collectors in any field of ethnography that I can think of, where the collectors and students who live in societies that are foreign to the society that is home to the object collected or studied, do strive to try to understand the object of their interest in terms that are in synch with the understanding of the people of that originating society.

As an example we could perhaps consider the field of nihonto. Have collectors in this field followed their own guidelines, or have they endeavored to understand the way in which the Japanese people approach the subject?

If we wish to understand the keris we really have no alternative but to try insofar as we are able to understand the perspective of the Javanese people.

But if we only wish to collect the object and divorce that object from any understanding of it, then we can take any approach to its collection that we wish.

[Jean]

Thank you Alan for this very informative discussion, and also to all the participants in this debate, whether keris believers or just collectors
Regards

[rasdan]

Yes Alan, I am asking about the actual number of luk. I just thought that it is possible for a non-Hindu keris maker to use a Hindu way of counting/making the luk. But still of course that does not explain the last luk ending towards the wadidang phenomena. Anyhow, thank you Alan for you insight.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, I do think that it is valid to collect things, including keris, just for the sake of collecting. The urge to collect things that give us pleasure seems to be universal. Thus its probably unfair to refer to anybody as "just" a collector.

Similarly I do not believe that it is necessary to become a "keris believer" in order to appreciate many of the qualities of the keris.

However, I do most definitely believe that for anybody who wishes to understand the keris, and keris culture, it is absolutely necessary to understand, or at least try to understand the belief system that is incorporated into keris culture:- we need to understand what the Believers believe, we do not need to become one.

I'd like to make an analogy.

Let us say, just for argument's sake, that I am a devout Buddhist.

During my childhood I had contact with a kindly Catholic priest who had come to my village to provide medical aid. Because of this contact, very early in my life I gained an interest in the paraphernalia of the Faith that I saw this priest using, most particularly was I attracted to his crucifix.

As I grew older I began to buy any crucifix that I might happen to stumble upon, and by the time I was an adult I had a very considerable collection of crucifixes. I did not understand exactly what was so important to Catholics about these little crosses, but looking at them and handling them gave me pleasure. Not only did I not understand the importance of the crucifix to those who were adherents to the Christian Faith, I had not the vaguest idea of any of the beliefs of this Faith.

But I did like my crucifixes.

There is a lot more to this story:- went to live in the city, I began to attend church services, gained an understanding of the Christian Faith, I furthered my education, went to university and after years of study I gained a doctorate in comparative religion. Eventually I truly understood what my crucifixes were all about. In fact, I understood my crucifixes very much better than most people who practiced the Christian Faith.

I did not become a Christian, I remained a Buddhist.

But I did understand Christianity, and I did understand exactly what a crucifix meant within that Faith.

My understanding had the effect of intensifying my pleasure in my collection of crucifixes.

[ariel]

I just re-read the topic. Took me only 2 years to get back to it.

Alan, your last post had a truly beautiful example of the dichotomy between knowledge ( science, learning, understanding etc. ) and a true belief, between the rational and the spiritual. Perhaps, the best I have ever heard.
Thank you.

[A. G. Maisey]

I thank you Ariel, for your compliment.