The Beginning:- A Question

[Bob A]

Taking the blade as a whole, one way of approaching the question is to consider that the surface of the blade, in its entirety, is the beginning.

That's the part that interacts with the rest of the universe, if you will, and separates the keris from everything else; the interface between the object and its surroundings, the essence of its reality.

[David]

I'm not sure what i really think about this, but when i first read the question the first thing that popped into my head is that the blade begins where i come in contact with it since the keris is then an extension of the self. So i am inclined to say the pejetan/blumbangan area.

[drdavid]

Keeping in mind the lingam then the beginning/base should be where the pesi joins the blade. This might not include the gonjo which could be seen as an external addition to the lingam. The pesi itself could be seen as an internal attachment feature rather than part of the lingam. Shavism might dispute this interpretation of the lingam symbolism

[drdavid]

You might also ask who does the keris truly belong to ie the giver (wielder/lingam holder) or the receiver (victim/yoni), if it is the giver the beginning (point of first contact) is the gonjo or blumbangan, if it is the receiver then the point of first contact is the tip
DrD

[A. G. Maisey]

In some cases Dr. David, that keris might belong to entire family, or even an entire community.

Your first idea was very nice. At school I was taught never to use words like "good", "bad", "nice" without pausing to think if there is a better word that could be used instead. I went to a pretty old fashioned school. So I did think before using "nice", and this is indeed a very correct word in this instance.

[Bob A]

No philosphers in my cupboard, Alan; I even looked for a Philosopher's Stone, but no luck. My dross will have to remain, ungilded.

OK looking at a keris. If it's sheathed, very little of the actual blade is visible, and I don't consider the dress as an integral part of the keris, though many would disagree. For me the blade is, if not everything, at least the essence.

Unsheathed, while I'd like to make a point of the point, it's still the shape or outline of the blade that catches the eye and forces a closer look at details. While you may think that this is not quite "the beginning," I'd reply that it was the goal of the maker, and existed in some form in his mind's eye, which he then brought into existence on this lower plane.

I'd take issue with the gonjo being the beginning; anatomically it seems incorrect, if one considers the whole of the object, which is among many other factors a symbolic representation of the virile member, so to speak. That said, the point of either is in many ways also the end of the object under discussion, yet it's what is first met with when used for its intended purpose.

So I'd have to say that the end is also the beginning, conceptually. So to speak.

Interesting question.

[Rick]

Possibly the real beginning of a keris is in the mind's eye of the Maker.

[A. G. Maisey]

OK David, another vote for the Big End.

Bob, I like your idea, in fact I like it quite a lot, it seems to me to be an interpretation of the concept that nothing exists unless it is seen, that is, that everything only comes into existence at the point where it can be seen to exist, thus if it does not exist it has no beginning, and if no beginning, it also has no end.

You're not a cupboard philosopher are you Bob? This sounds exactly like like the sort of conversations I have with some of my more academic mates.

Its a great answer, but I was thinking in very simple terms, as I said when I asked the question, I'm just looking for opinions, and I'm not being technical.What I would like to achieve, if possible is a group opinion that is weighted more one way than the other,whichever way that might be.

So Bob, if you were to take off your philosopher's hat, and just take a simple layman's position, where do you think this object that we know as a keris might begin?

There it is, its laying on the table, we walk past, we notice it, where does it start?

[kai]

Hello Alan,

2 more votes? I can offer 4 to 5...


I do like Bob’s suggestion a lot. However, playing advocatus diaboli, I’d rather opt for the core of the blade than the surface since the latter is bound to change from erosion, cleaning and any restoration attempts while the essence is bound to persist.

If not restricted to any material part of the keris, I go for the makers mind though.

I was thinking in very simple terms, as I said when I asked the question, I'm just looking for opinions, and I'm not being technical.What I would like to achieve, if possible is a group opinion that is weighted more one way than the other,whichever way that might be.

So Bob, if you were to take off your philosopher's hat, and just take a simple layman's position, where do you think this object that we know as a keris might begin?

Where does a Naga begin? Where does a knife begin? Where does a human begin? If pressed to decide for a part of the body of the latter, most highly educated folks nowadays would probably opt for the head while the “heart” will likely be the response of really wise individuals.

If pressed for any anatomical answer, this question pretty much is a non-sequitur: A beginning implies a temporal connotation (like an historical origin, a birth or creator’s act, a start for reading, etc.). I’m sure Alan is getting at something - however, if the question is merely trying to narrow down on a particular part of any keris, I’d posit that the question certainly wasn’t simple and, especially, not phrased well enough...

Also perceived (main) function of the keris will influence which part may get selected. My idiosyncratic anatomical choice might be the base of the blade, especially both sogokan, if present. Or the jenggot and greneng for reading the blade - this opens another can of worms though!

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

My idiosyncratic anatomical choice might be the base of the blade, especially both sorsoran, if present.

Can we assume you meant to say sogokan, since the sorsoran MUST be present (as it actually is the whole of the base of the blade) and there can only be one, while sogokan may be present and there could very well be two if it is (though sometimes only one).

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Kai, your opinion was one of the ones I have been looking for, and I will respond to your post before going to the destination I intended when I asked my opening question, which was this:-

What I would like to know is this:-

on a keris blade, where is the beginning of the blade?

Is it the point, one side or another, or is it somewhere else?

It was phrased as a simple, direct question, and during the course of this discussion I have repeated that it was intended in a simple sense a couple of times, repetition that should not have been necessary, because as a part of the question I gave an example that clarifies perfectly what I had in mind. One does not provide physically related examples if one is looking for philosophically based answers.

In fact, there is a correct answer to this question, it is an answer that I have known for many years, I've never wheeled it out before, for the simple reason that it is only one piece of trivia amongst many and I doubt that there has ever been a reason to put the record straight. However, I made reference to it in one of my recent catalogue descriptions, and a friend who saw the catalogue text when I was still preparing it suggested that I should put it up into the Warung. So I am doing that now.

Scroll down and look at the picture I have posted.

This is a copy taken from Ensiklopedi. I think everybody here will recognise this pamor, it is Batu Lapak, sometimes the name will be given as Watu Lapak, but that is just a peculiarity of the Javanese language, "B" and "W" can be interchanged at the wish of the speaker or writer, usually to create a more pleasant spoken delivery.

I cannot remember ever seeing the name of this pamor given as anything other than Batu Lapak. Every keris literate person whom I know in Jawa gives the name as Batu Lapak. There can be no argument about what name we use for this pamor, it is Batu Lapak.

It is a name that is easily understood, "batu" or "watu" means stone or rock in Bahasa Indonesia, Malay, Javanese, Sundanese, it is a word that everybody who has spent five minutes with Bahasa Indonesia knows, probably one of the first words that is learnt when learning any of these languages. "Batu" does not seem to appear in either Old Javanese or in Modern Balinese, so it has probably come into BI, Modern Javanese, and Sundanese from Malay. The form of pamor batu lapak looks a bit like a little rock that has been set into the very base of a keris blade. Batu lapak pamor is only found in one place on a keris blade, directly below the pesi, in the sor-soran.

So that is the "batu" part of the name, but what about the "lapak" part?

Well, "lapak" is not Bahasa Indonesia, nor is it Malay, it does occur in Sundanese, where it is understood as "a mark, or a trace", it does not occur in Balinese.

But in Javanese we do find "lapak", and the meaning of lapak is "saddle", so clearly the meaning of "batu lapak" is "saddle stone".

Or is it?

This name has always troubled me. A saddle stone? What sort of stone is that? Or does it mean a stone saddle? Or a stone that is put into a saddle? I'm not the greatest horseman in the world, but I have spent one hell of a long time on bicycle saddles, and sorry, but I just cannot reconcile the idea of a stone being anything at all to do with a saddle.

So being the inquisitive sort of bloke that I am I started asking questions, and I started to get some different sort of answers to exactly what the word "lapak" means. Certainly it means "saddle", a saddle, the sort of saddle you put on a horse. But it has other meanings as well, the two that I got given back to me most often were that lapak means "after this", or "after that", in the sense that "after I finish this I'll start that", and "a beginning".

Not only am I inquisitive, but I have a tendency to doubt everything, so when I get given explanations and meanings of things, I usually like to check those explanations and meanings, just to make sure I understand what I've been told, and to check that the person who told me is in fact giving me something that is reasonably accurate. So I checked a number of dictionaries to see if I could find this idea of "beginning" or "starting" attached to the word "lapak".

What I found was really quite illuminating. I have access to a number Javanese dictionaries, in most of these dictionaries "lapak" is given the one simple meaning of "saddle", but in the most authoritative Javanese dictionary that I have access to it is given the additional meanings of "after that/this", and "the beginning" ( in Javanese of course, it is a dictionary for Javanese people, see photo).

So now if we consider the pamor name "Batu Lapak" we must consider whether "saddle stone" is the correct understanding or if "beginning stone" might perhaps be a more accurate understanding of this "Batu Lapak" name.

Personally, my vote goes to "Beginning Stone" I think "Saddle Stone" is about as wrong as it can be and has been wrong for a long time.

If "beginning stone" is correct, then of course that name identifies the place where the actual keris, the wilah, the symbol of Siwa and of masculinity begins, and it is right at the point where the pesi meets the wilah.

Now who voted for that?
It was Dr. David I believe, and I do not think that the good doctor knows one word of Javanese, he simply thought about it and applied logic, and presented a straight-forward, simple answer. Even if he does know a little bit of Javanese it is almost certain that he would not know this obscure use of the word "lapak".

I find this idea of batu lapak as an indication of the point where the wilah begins, to be very interesting in another way also. In modern times most keris blades either have the pesi forged in, or cut in, but in old blades the pesi was often attached to the wilah after the wilah had been forged, and this act of attaching the wilah created a batu lapak. So yes, the place where the pesi meets the wilah is indeed the beginning of the wilah.

But pause for a moment and envisage in your mind's eye what an upright wilah that has no pesi looks like. It is a mountain, it is the Gunungan, it is Mount Kailas, it is Mount Meru, it is the iconic Siwa.

And just exactly what is the Keris?

[kai]

Thanks a lot, Alan, for your elucidation!

When focusing on Mount Meru, it may still be a matter of perspective (eagle vs mountaineer), function (temple site for a Shiva devotee vs magma chamber for a volcano), etc. While the latter image seems to fit quite nicely, we can drop it from closer consideration, I guess. I agree that your interpretation makes a lot of sense.

I find this idea of batu lapak as an indication of the point where the wilah begins, to be very interesting in another way also. In modern times most keris blades either have the pesi forged in, or cut in, but in old blades the pesi was often attached to the wilah after the wilah had been forged, and this act of attaching the wilah created a batu lapak. So yes, the place where the pesi meets the wilah is indeed the beginning of the wilah.

Do you have any example of this old-style attachment that you could show, please? I know the repair (or original attachment) method which leaves a rectangular mark at the base if cut in neatly. Still a pretty far cry from a typical batu lapak - thus, a picture would be really kind!

Regards,
Kai