Gentlemen, i cannot tell you how wonderful this conversation is for me right now and the synchronicity of thought it is having with other conversations i am having in other places at the moment.
Alan, this last post of yours is just amazingly presented from my perspective. Thank you very much. :)

Dear Alan,
You have explained things so eloquently, no other words are needed.

Looking at your comment in respect of creation and men, another thought.
My teacher taught me exactly the rule you mentioned. He added that the combination of men made objects and creation would empower the object. For educational purposes, could you comment on that?

I agree, keris are an asset with a potential monetary value. The thing that bugs me the most is that some trading is done with the idea that with obtaining the keris you gain a higher (social, spiritual) standard. It becomes a kind of competition. And with that, the more you can spend, the higher the standard you can obtain.
That’s totally different from the regular man's economic necessity.
Although I think it is a shame to sell a prized family possession, I also realise that is a very elite point of view.
In the western world we have discarded all things spiritual and now some of us are in deer need for them. So we turn to cultures which still uphold these values. When we see these cultures picking up the western path by choosing a Honda instead of a keris, we are shocked. We forget that to (re) appreciate ones roots, apparently one has to go through a series of cultural stages. With the risk of losing things in transit.

Maybe it is better to say that I can afford to stay away from trading. Sometimes I cannot avoid a money exchange. I paid for the keris sajen. But also sometimes I step away from a tempting keris. Martin Kerner offered me the keris Vogelsäng shortly before he passed away. The proto keris was excavated inside the krater of mount Bromo. From me he would accept any offer because, as he told me, he wanted a good home for the keris. I thanked him for his kind offer, but refused. Why, it is such an unique keris, only seen depicted in Candi Sukuh? The keris was an offering to the spirits of mount Bromo. It should not have been taken away from the mountain in the first place. That's why I drew that line. No idea where it is now.

I'm pleased that what I have written in my post # 40 was of interest.

However, what I did not say in that post, and what I would like to add now, is that the view I have placed before you is not an all encompassing perspective that covers all Javanese people through all periods of time. It is a bit of a mish-mash of a few dominant ideas that wind through 1000 years or more.

For instance, the remarks in respect of women and their place in society would have no place in the society of the Hindu-Buddhist era. Quite the reverse would be true:- man + woman complete the societal unit and are the foundation of a strong society. One cannot be complete without the other. The central icon of the belief system during that era was the Lingga-Yoni, symbolic of not only Siwa and his Shakti, but of the male/female principle and the totality of past-present-future. Without reproduction the cosmos collapses. This is something that is very well understood by all traditionally based farming societies, but people who buy their milk in cartons from a supermarket need to stop and think just exactly where the milk comes from, especially if they have never seen or smelt a cow.

Money was clearly not a dirty word in Majapahit times:- Majapahit was deeply involved in trade, and much of that trade was controlled by princes and nobles from the Majapahit court.

But then Islam entered the arena and gradually a new set of values replaced some of the old values. Then there was the domination of the Javanese ruling elite by Europeans, which did not help much in the maintenance of the old ways.

So what we see now, and in the recent past cannot be taken as representative of an unchanging perspective through the totality of Javanese time. However, it is probably true to say that the Hindu-Buddhist influence, the Islamic influence, the influence of Europeans, and right now at the present time, the influence of Internationalism are merely layers that cover an unchanging foundation, a foundation that is so ingrained in the Javanese persona that most Javanese people would not consciously recognise its elements. Its just there. It exists but is unseen, and it does not come to the surface until some situation calls for it to re-emerge.

Those elements that are constant are the ancestors, the stream of being that flows through everything in existence, and the unity of the One God : The Creator : The Maintainer : The Finisher. Time does not flow in a straight line, it is cyclical, so that which finishes, forms the new creation. Everything in existence is a part of the same whole.

If we can relate to this way of looking at the fact that we exist at all, it brings us back to something I wrote in my previous post:-

"--- all in existence is an expression of the Creator's will ---"

if this is true, does man create anything?

Before the Modern Era when a Balinese person created any art-work, he was performing the act of creation for God. It was not the final result that was the objective, the objective was the form of worship that the act of creation involved. A shrine is an empty place until the moment that the spirit of that shrine takes up residence in it. A man can be thought of in the same way. This way of thinking is not unique to any culture, but recurs and recurs and recurs through all cultures.

So:-

" --- the combination of men made objects and creation would empower the object ---"

was the object made by man?

Does "man" actually have the independent power to make anything?

A nice philosophical question: Does man create anything.
I teach fine art for a living. I use to be quite a proficient painter. There I had the same feeling as when I danced. When a painting was finished I had to conclude that somehow the painting had ‘done itself’. Dancing a dance or being a dance (filling the character of the dance). This difference has the same scope. Was it just channelling a higher genius, Godly energy? Maybe. When man touches Roh it is due because of his intend, free choice or was it already in store for him? If so, how can man strive to reach a higher level? Or was even this road already intended. Many religions ask themselves the same question.
Both my teachers told me not to follow a ready path but make my own. And to be aware of the events,(or objects) which occurs during my journey.
The thing is, both keris and stones are a manifestation of our reality.
Was the combination of keris and stone intended like a marriage. One fulfils the other?

This pyrit has not been touched. It is pure kodrat. The nails runs through and through. Kodrat Paku Buana.

Reading back I have to re-phrase. Making my own path is not like breaking new ground. It is more like surfing on top of a wave (a nice metaphor which must appeal to you ), following the wave, anticipating on what I ‘see’. Tak dir is true, but somehow this is not contradicting, me surfing. :)