Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2016, 08:56 PM

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?

14th December 2016, 08:56 PM	#43
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,975	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?