Bali Keris for classification

ganjawulung · 23rd August 2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The idea of the Naga is widespread in Asia. Yes, origin is Hindu, and from there into Buddhism. It is a Sanscrit word and in Sanscrit it means a being that is in the form of a large snake. There are a number of Nagas, probably most important amongst them is Vasuki or Basuki, who is the essence that binds the earth. In the Gita, Krishna when explaining how he could be everywhere at the same time said that as a serpent he was Vasuki.

To those who are not familiar with Hindu beliefs, it is easily understandable that the Naga can be taken as the dragon and as such as a symbol of China. Cirebon was founded fairly recently, around 1470 or 1480 I think, and as a Muslim state. That the founders of Cirebon took the Naga as a symbol of China is perfectly understandable..

The opinion above is what written in Mr Rokhmin Dahuri's book that I mentioned. But according to "wayang" (javanese traditional puppet leather) story, naga figure known as "Antaboga". (See the picture, Central Java version and West Java version).

Sang Hyang Antaboga, or Sang Hyang Nagasesa or Sang Hyang Basuki is the ruler of the base of the earth. His royal palace called Kahyangan Saptapratala, or 7th layer in the base of the earth. His wife was named as Dewi Supreti, and had two children: Dewi Nagagini and Naga Tatmala. Although the palace in underneath the earth, the story of wayang told us that the situation is almost the same as in the other "kahyangan" above or on the earth...

And the garuda figure, in the wayang story, called as "Jatayu" or "Jetayu". This jumbo bird figure, was dead because of fighting with king of Alengka, Dasamuka who was kidnapping the wife of Rama, Dewi Sinta... (See the picture)

Hope this information is useful for you...

Ganjawulung

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

To somebody unfamiliar with the Javanese language "mundhak" would sound as "munda".

"Kenci" is in fact a legitimate word in Javanese, it is a singkatan ( abbreviation) for "kertu cilik"---"small card", and refers to the small playing cards that are used in dominoes and other card games. However, I sincerely doubt that it has an application in reference to anything at all to do with the keris.

Yes, "mundhak" is a very very common word in Java. For instance, "mundhak gedhe" means becomes bigger, or "mundhak cilik" means becomes smaller... But, "lar munda"? I am still in my opinion: this is not the correct term for a certain dhapur in keris. "Lar munga" maybe acceptable, for mentioning the "manglar munga" dhapur with figure of naga and garuda...

Ganjawulung

ganjawulung · 23rd August 2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Yes, "mundhak" is a very very common word in Java. For instance, "mundhak gedhe" means becomes bigger, or "mundhak cilik" means becomes smaller... But, "lar munda"? I am still in my opinion: this is not the correct term for a certain dhapur in keris. "Lar munga" maybe acceptable, for mentioning the "manglar munga" dhapur with figure of naga and garuda...

Ganjawulung

Sorry, pls correction:
Not figure of naga and garuda, but "elephant with wings". That is "manglar munga" or "lar munga"...

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 23rd August 2007, 08:55 AM

Pak Ganja, I apologise for not being sufficiently clear in what I wrote.

My mention of mundhak does not necessarily disallow your hypothesis, but to disallow Jensen's use of the word it would be necessary to go to his source of information and investigate that in terms of time, place and informant.

We need to realise that what we may accept as correct today was not necessarily correct at some time in the past, similarly, something that was current usage at some time in the past, need not necessarily be correct today.

All I have done is produce a possible word that could be part of the answer to Jensen's usage. The way in which it originated could have been distorted or misunderstood by the person who provided the source that Jensen drew upon. When we start to play with possibilities in words transmitted into foreign languages we are really opening a can of worms.

My personal opinion on all these dapur names, pamor names and etc, etc, etc is that they are really not worth a cup full of cold water.Especially when we get into regional variations. Viewed from the historical perspective current names of anything can be misleading as to source.Yes, we need some sort of commonality of terminology in order to communicate, but really, the whole thing can become ridiculous.

Perhaps our time might be better spent in attempting to fathom the meaning of various aspects of the keris, rather than wandering around in wordland--Lullaby of Wordland. And when I speak of meaning, I am not speaking of the current philosophical meanings that are so readily and easily bounced around.

PenangsangII · 23rd August 2007, 02:18 PM

This may have been discussed previously, but I am still unable to figure out how anyone would properly grip bali handles such as gerantiman, cenangan or even the simplest bondolan, if keris bali is to be used for combat?

David · 23rd August 2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

This may have been discussed previously, but I am still unable to figure out how anyone would properly grip bali handles such as gerantiman, cenangan or even the simplest bondolan, if keris bali is to be used for combat?

We seem to be getting a little bit off topic here, but yes, this has been discussed before. Please feel free to add to the thread if you have more info or questions:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...bali+hilt+grip
...and don't be afraid to use the search function on this forum when you wonder such things in the future.

23rd August 2007, 02:18 PM	#4
PenangsangII Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 401	Bali handles This may have been discussed previously, but I am still unable to figure out how anyone would properly grip bali handles such as gerantiman, cenangan or even the simplest bondolan, if keris bali is to be used for combat?

23rd August 2007, 08:55 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,044	Pak Ganja, I apologise for not being sufficiently clear in what I wrote. My mention of mundhak does not necessarily disallow your hypothesis, but to disallow Jensen's use of the word it would be necessary to go to his source of information and investigate that in terms of time, place and informant. We need to realise that what we may accept as correct today was not necessarily correct at some time in the past, similarly, something that was current usage at some time in the past, need not necessarily be correct today. All I have done is produce a possible word that could be part of the answer to Jensen's usage. The way in which it originated could have been distorted or misunderstood by the person who provided the source that Jensen drew upon. When we start to play with possibilities in words transmitted into foreign languages we are really opening a can of worms. My personal opinion on all these dapur names, pamor names and etc, etc, etc is that they are really not worth a cup full of cold water.Especially when we get into regional variations. Viewed from the historical perspective current names of anything can be misleading as to source.Yes, we need some sort of commonality of terminology in order to communicate, but really, the whole thing can become ridiculous. Perhaps our time might be better spent in attempting to fathom the meaning of various aspects of the keris, rather than wandering around in wordland--Lullaby of Wordland. And when I speak of meaning, I am not speaking of the current philosophical meanings that are so readily and easily bounced around.