How to read a greneng

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, yes, Gustav has been very helpful, and as I have indicated in my post above, I value his assistance very much.

You are absolutely correct Kai, we cannot use any cut off date for influences other than Buddhist-Hindu on the symbolism found in the keris. I said as much in my "--- they did not switch the lights off---" comment.

The keris may have been born into a Hindu-Buddhist society, but other people copied court style and those other people did other things with the Hindu-Buddhist symbolism. After Islamic domination the most important intentional influence was Islam, but there was always other influence as well, some of that influence was ignorance, some was probably not. As with any belief system, the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist belief system was not free of sects and divisions. I believe that for the core of court society, especially for the k'satriyas, the ron dha was understood as "Aum", but outside that core other forces were in play.

You have raised the matter of continuance into the modern era, my entire focus on this matter, right from and before the beginning of this current discussion has been, and continues to be, Jawa before Islam. Within this narrow focus I narrow the focus further:- the ron dha. All the time greneng, greneng, greneng occurs and re-occurs, but I cannot comment on the greneng, except in the context of the ron dha. I have not researched the symbolic content of the complete greneng with its multiple variations, I'm sure there is one, and eventually we will probably be able to present a supportable interpretation of the entire greneng, but that time is not now.

I do not want to get into hilt discussion. The hilt is additional to the keris, it is not the keris. The hilt can and does change according to circumstance, in older examples its interpretation can often only be known to the maker or the client. Styles are fairly readily identifiable, themes are perhaps identifiable, these can sometimes be linked to areas and eras, but just as with the keris itself, the hilts moved all over the place. Only in the setting of very recent courts can we link the hilt to specific usage and hierarchy. In brief:- the study of the hilt is linked to, but separate from the study of the keris. I do not have the time to engage in detail in this study.

Kai, I do not want to talk about grenengs. I do want to talk about the variant element that can be found in some grenengs, that Gustav has presented to us. Now that we have been able to identify and isolate this element, I want to get out of this thread and start a new one that has the very narrow focus of this element. Not the greneng, but the element of the greneng.

Did this feature survive on Bali? From my perspective I am not yet sure.

Kai, I am not at all certain that this variant element that Gustav has come up with is not something from pre-Islam. Read my response to Gustav. I will not be pinned to comments made in discussion, especially when I am trying to elicit complete disclosure from a source. When I publish an opinion I try to make sure I can support the opinion, when I float an opinion in discussion it is what is in my mind at the time I float it, and sometimes it is used to prompt a response.

In respect of Gustav's examples what I am currently prepared to rely upon is that these examples are a legitimate form that comes from an early period, the form is presented in various renditions, but all except one of those renditions carries characteristics that I consider to be sufficient to read the form as intended to have the same meaning. It is a consistent variation that is sufficiently dominant in its context to deserve thorough attention, and we have Gustav to thank for bringing it to our attention.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, it seems that you regard the exchanges in this thread as debate. To me, this is discussion. Debates are held as competitions to score points. Discussions are not confrontational nor competitive, they have the purpose of clarifying a situation, or information.

Yes, the discussion has veered towards debate, but from my perspective it has always been discussion and my comments have eventually given me the result I wanted. There is no unfriendliness here, I regard Gustav as a good friend, a little sensitive perhaps, but his sensitivity is a valuable part of his nature and gives him an ability to do things that are beyond many of us.

In this discussion I feel that we have finally reached a point where we can move away from lengthy circuitous exchanges and get down to a (hopefully) narrow focus on something of value. In order to facilitate this objective my personal feeling is that this present discussion should end here and a new thread be opened to permit us to focus on this variant element that Gustav has given us.

[David]

Well, that well may be Alan, however i'm not going to lock this thread. You and/or Gustav are, of course, welcome to open a new thread on this specific variant element if you wish, but members should feel free to continue posting here if they feel they have something relevant to add to what has already been said.

[A. G. Maisey]

Of course David, I did not suggest that you should lock it, and I see no reason to lock it, but I feel that the area we have stumbled into is too important to get mixed in with the original material that got us to this point.

It is my intent to open a new thread as soon as I am able --- if somebody else doesn't do so before I get the time.

[Johan van Zyl]

I want to try to dispel some of the seriousness of this debate/discussion with a humorous anecdote of my own. Having varied interest, not only in the keris, I have followed many such debates, just as lengthy and convoluted as this one. A noteworthy example is the incessant "battle" that was carried on years ago in the letters column of one of our major agricultural magazines by a certain Dr Lucas Potgieter on hunting rifles and stopping power, and how to quantify the latter. His "antagonists" were a number of practical hunters equally adept in hunting as he. As the debate petered to a close eventually, with no "winner" having attained victory, one elderly hunter wrote in and said (I quote from memory): "I and my friends have been following this debate with great interest. We had not taken part at all, as we had been sitting high up in a thorn tree out of harm's way while the bulls were battling it out on the ground. It is only now that the dust is settling, that we see fit to come out of the tree."

I think that illustrates my own position during this debate/discussion!

I found myself admiring the limitless patience which the debaters had for one another's views. I have followed debates in other forums where the verbal attacks against parties expressing their opinions have been vicious to say the least. I saw none of that here.

My two cents worth is that the present "lengthy circuitous exchanges" do not serve to educate forum members effectively. At the same time I feel it would be a tragedy if knowledgeable people like Alan & Gustav (and others) decide to hold back their expert comments in order to prevent a circuitous "outbreak" of debate/discussion.

I myself now know a little something about my tiny collection of two kerisses, exactly because forum members were willing to answer and discuss my many and varied questions. For that I am eternally grateful.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your comments Johan.

Once again I will make the point that there was no debate going on in our exchanges. It was discussion. Debate involves attempts to convince people of something, I don't think Gustav was pushing any argument, he was just showing pics and making comments, similarly I was not pushing any argument, just commenting. Debate does not look anything like this. I've been involved in debates, real ones, face to face with a clock ticking and a necessity to make convincing argument. Debates can leave you bruised. Nobody gets bruised in discussion.

The reason Gustav and I are so polite to one another is because we were not debating. There is no need to get nasty in a discussion, but it is sometimes necessary in true debate to destroy not only the opposition position, but also the person presenting that position.

But we're nice people here, we don't do that sort of thing.