Between Solo and Yogya

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Just one very minor thing needs to be made clear from Raden's post:- when a keris blade is subjected to normal maintenance procedures involving cleaning up an edge, or tidying up a ganja or kembang kacang, this is done cold, and it is only done after asking permission of the maker of the blade and any presence which may be inside the blade. We do not just pick the blade up, throw it into a fire, and take to it with hammer, tongs and electric grinder.Correctly carried out it is an almost religious ceremony.

dear,

Alan, I also heared that before cleaning and edging (and mbesut-ing/reshaping) there are sop (standard of procedure) or laku (english ?) including "nayuh". The result of this laku will used as a based whether the working should continue or not.

According to the legend of pasopati of mpu Ramadi, I would like to reveal some information based on Wayang. The name of Kiai Pasopati, Kiai Limpung, Kiai Nenggolo have been known in Wayang. If wayang were a legend (beleved as history not story). it should be long long before Christ even much long before Abraham the great grandpa of Christ.

Seemingly, the legend has been developing.
As Alan does beleived of the legend of King Arthur, I do believe of the legend of Mpu Ramadi just because I lived in the foot mountain Merapi mountain. It you visit Mountain Merapi, you will get more story about him. In some places, in hills and creeks, people believed some prominent spirits owned by Mpu ramadi living there till now, such as Ki Surenglogo et cetera et cetera et cetera

BUT, if someone states that what kind of keris pasopati created by Mpu Ramadi is similiar with Dhapur Pasopati what we know today, my stand is the same as Gonjowulung: DOUBTING with BIG QUESTION MARK.

In my opinion, Pasopati of Mpu Ramadi does not refer to the shape. However, it refers to the power of Mpu Ramadi's Pasaopati. The power of Mpu Ramadi's Pasopati was drawn as powerful as the (h)Arjuna's [?] Pasopati in Wayang. About the shape of that keris, none knows, because after spending much attention on the legend of its power, people neglected to specify the shape of the pusaka

If we read the ancient Jawa history, Mpu Ramadi was founder one of two prominent dynasties in Jawa. He lived in foot mountain of Merapi long before Pralaya (Merapi eruption dated so and so). At that time, area surrouding Merapi mountain in center of civilization in Jawa. Now, we can see on of its artifac: Borobudur & Prambanan temple. Actually, Borobudur temple was just medium size temple. There was bigger one but defastating by Pralaya. If I am not mistaken. Perhaps, what I said has big inaccuration. It is better someone here in this forum checks in library and corects what mistakes I did about Mpu Ramadi based on (accepted) History books. So, everyone will get truer information. Then we will be enlighted together. Sil vous plait?

merci beaucoup,

Usmen

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Usmen, if you believe the legends surrounding Empu Ramadi, as I believe the legends surrounding Arthur, then your belief is as mine:- rather fragile.

I am of the opinion that serious researchers into legend are in more or less general agreement that many, if not most legends have a basis in fact, but that basis may be very, very different from the legend as it stands at this point in time.

As I have already stated:- we should not confuse legend with fact.

All of these beliefs and legends are interesting, and provide useful background which will allow people to come to an understanding of the way in which many people in Jawa regard and feel about the keris. The legends are of anthropological value, but they are not of historic value, and bearing in mind that history itself is very often open to question, they can most certainly never be accepted as factual.

Let us be aware of the legends, but let us not confuse the legends with facts, nor with hypotheses which can be supported with logic or with evidence.

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Pak Usmen, if you believe the legends surrounding Empu Ramadi, as I believe the legends surrounding Arthur, then your belief is as mine:- rather fragile.

I am of the opinion that serious researchers into legend are in more or less general agreement that many, if not most legends have a basis in fact, but that basis may be very, very different from the legend as it stands at this point in time.

As I have already stated:- we should not confuse legend with fact.

All of these beliefs and legends are interesting, and provide useful background which will allow people to come to an understanding of the way in which many people in Jawa regard and feel about the keris. The legends are of anthropological value, but they are not of historic value, and bearing in mind that history itself is very often open to question, they can most certainly never be accepted as factual.

Let us be aware of the legends, but let us not confuse the legends with facts, nor with hypotheses which can be supported with logic or with evidence.

dear,

Absoltely, I agree with you.

Anyway, sometimes, even if we are a member of logic society, we should enjoy legends as they are. One of its benefit, it could make us feeling stonger.

Yeah, frankly speaking, some stories were told in holly books, they seem legends rather than facts. But as we tried to be a devoted lamb, we totally believe in. Moreover, factually, it makes us stronger to face with the fragile realm of the world. Human needs fantacy.

warm regards,

Usmen

[Raden Usman Djogja]

original was "dear"

revised is " dear Alan [and kerislovers]"

[A. G. Maisey]

No Pak Ganja, the book to which I refer is credited to KGPH Hadiwijaya.

The title of the original work is as I have given it, and noted thus in the introduction, but when Damartaji copied it and released it in 1998, they titled it as:- "DHAPUR, buku gambar bentuk keris dan tombak".

The original was dated 24 April 1920, and the date of the introduction to the Damartaji edition is 12 Februari 1998.

If we go to page 17 of this book, we will find dhapur pasopati (pasupati), illustration number 32.

The attribution for dhapur pasopati as shown on page 17 is:-

mitos/dongeng:-
Pemrakarsa---Sri Paduka Maharaja Budda;Empu---Ramadi; Tahun Jawa---152.

Regretably we cannot say that "---dhapur pasopati was actually created in the early era of the 3rd. century---"

We can only say that legend tells us that dhapur pasopati was created in the 3rd century.

There is a vast difference between the attribution given by legend, and when dhapur pasopati may have actually been created.

Pak Ganja, is there a possibility that you have been provided with slightly inaccurate information?

I'm quite certain of my information, as I have the book in question in front of me as I write.

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Usman, I cannot disagree with what you have written.

All of life is simply an illusion, and a few fairy stories can make that illusion more comfortable to live in.

But sometimes some of us need to step outside the illusion and try to come to an understanding of what really happened, and when, and why. Those of us who choose to step outside the bubble---or are pushed--- pay dearly for this lack of wisdom.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

mitos/dongeng:-
Pemrakarsa---Sri Paduka Maharaja Budda;Empu---Ramadi; Tahun Jawa---152.

Regretably we cannot say that "---dhapur pasopati was actually created in the early era of the 3rd. century---"

We can only say that legend tells us that dhapur pasopati was created in the 3rd century.

There is a vast difference between the attribution given by legend, and when dhapur pasopati may have actually been created.

Pak Ganja, is there a possibility that you have been provided with slightly inaccurate information?

I'm quite certain of my information, as I have the book in question in front of me as I write.

You are right, Alan,

The book of Kanjeng Gusti Pangeran Haryo (KGPH) Hadiwijoyo you mentioned in previous posts, did say about Empu Ramadi and the dhapur pasopati. While the book I referred, was the "Dhapur" book which was published by Damartaji (written by Waluyo Wijayatno -- the secretary of Damartaji) but used the source of Mr Hadiwijoyo book. This book contains pictures only (the similar ilustration as Mr Hadiwijoyo book) but with captions only.

Yesterday, I met Mr Haryono Haryoguritno at his home in Rawamangun Jakarta for a certain project on keris. In our side conversation, we talked also on this matter. How could happen, such complicated dhapur as pasopati was created by Empu Ramadi in the Jawa year or 152? Raden Ngabehi Ronggowarsito -- in a different era -- even mentioned in his Book on Dhapur Keris and Tombak (spear) that Empu Ramadi made the dhapurs of pasopati, lar ngatap (straight keris with two sogokan until almost the tip of keris blade) and cundrik in the Jawanese year of 152...

Yes, it is only legend. Logically, according to Mr Haryono Haryoguritno, the dhapur of older keris might be as simple as dhapur betok, or brojol which has not too complicated details. But, figure like Raden Ngabehi Ronggowarsito in his days, had vast authority to say on many thing -- not only literature matters, but also on kerises, on other javanese traditions. He might be regarded as Mpu (Master) in almost everything including keris, although actually Ronggowarsito was not an expert in keris, for instance. So no wonder, if it could happened, he made mistake too...

So many things in keris knowledge, that need to be argued if we talk about "kerisology". On tangguh for instance. Why we regarded this keris as a keris made in Majapahit period, or Mataram period. Or even, made by Ki Nom, or Empu Singawijaya for instance. So many things in this keris world still need more precise information...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Pak Ganja, but its not really a matter of being right, or wrong.

This was just a matter of slight confusion:- you were talking about one Damartaji publication, I was talking about another, and we both did not know of the other publication.

No big deal, we're back on track now.

Yes, I agree that there are great holes in our supposed knowledge of keris. Perhaps the principal reason for this is the propensity of keris fanciers to take myth, legend, and popular belief as fact. Virtually all our so-called "knowledge" comes from later than the beginning of the 19th. century, yet early in the 19th. century Raffles observed the keris in Jawa at that time fulfilled a similar function to the small sword in Europe fifty years previously. That is, almost exclusively as an item of dress.The day of the origin of the keris was already 500 years or more back in history when people began to record the "knowledge". Go back 5 months in time and try to get a truly accurate fix on something, that can be supported with evidence.The only way to understand the keris in Jawa is to understand Jawa at the time during which we wish to understand the keris. For instance, to understand the position of the keris in Jawa in the year 2007, we need to understand Javanese culture and society in the year 2007. Take the parrallel:- to understand the keris in Jawa in , say, 1407, we need to understand Jawa in the year 1407.Not an easy thing.

The simple fact of the matter is that the keris is a Javanese icon, and as such is subject to a system of belief that accepts certain legend and myth as fact. Nothing wrong with that, it gives a lot of people comfort.In fact, even though logically I know that certain things to do with the keris are the product of belief, emotionally I am quite prepared to accept those things as true. But logically I am obliged to doubt them. It all depends what thought mode I am in.

You mention tangguh, and we know that an understanding of tangguh is essential for us to be able to gain a (Javanese) understanding of the keris, however, nobody ever speaks of how, when, and why this system of classification that we know as "tangguh" arose.Go back to the roots of tangguh, and many people might find a distasteful truth that they cannot accept.