ora ana jirim madheg dhewe, mesthi gumantung marang ananing kajaten
Space or volume depends upon existence, substance, or will.
ora ana jirim kang ora dumunung ing kajaten
Space or volume exists in existence, substance, or will.
jirim iku dudu kajaten, nanging jirim mujudake sisipataning kajaten, kayata: srengenge, manungsa, wit, sir, pikir, nur
Although volume or space is not existence or substance, or will, it is nevertheless volume or space which manifests the manifestation of existence, substance, or will.
Ora perlu nakokake sisipataning kajaten sok uga kawruhan jirime, awit sisipataning kajaten wis ana ing jirime
It is within the volume or space the nature of substance, existence or will, can be found.
jirim iku marakake kajaten kagungan sipat urip, mobah mosik, gnayu, matu, anjanma, nyrengege. Samono uga kajaten iku dudu jirime, dudu uripe, dudu mobah mosike, dudu kayune, watune, jalmane utawa srengengene. Lah kang endi ta kang jeneng kajaten? patrape nyatakake ora kena mung nganggo pikiran, kudu nganggo rasa kang sajati, awit pikiran iku mung bisa nyatakake jirim.
It is volume or space which ascribes the nature of existence. Existence or substance, or will, is not the volume or space nor the aforementioned nature. Logic alone can perceive volume or space, but it cannot perceive existence or substance, or will. Existence, substance or will, can be perceived by “the ultimate perception” (rasa kang sajati).
The question is: what is “the ultimate perception” herewith? Considering that Serat Jatimurti is a product of post-Walisongo Java, can “the ultimate perception” herewith be related to neo-platonic, or the similar-with-neo-platonic, metaphysics held by Javanese (as in “manunggaling kawulo gusti”)? The Reality, as, for instance, the Reality as perceived by Syekh Siti Jenar, cannot be perceived through logic alone. The Reality can only be perceived through a different mode of perception; a more total perception. Is this the mode of perception required to perceive kajaten?
Some other questions can also be raised. Comment le sense du mot « kajaten »? It is translated herewith as existence, substance, or will. However, does kajaten share the same notion with “existence” in Western existentialist sense? Does it share the same notion with “substance” (geist) in the German idealist sense? If “kajaten” can be translated as “will,” is it similar to the “will” that Schopenhauer mentioned?
I suspect, however, a probability that the Javanese notion of “kajaten” is not precisely the same as the aforementioned Western European notions of existence, substance or will. I need helps and advise on this matter, in order to understand the serat
Space or volume depends upon existence, substance, or will.
ora ana jirim kang ora dumunung ing kajaten
Space or volume exists in existence, substance, or will.
jirim iku dudu kajaten, nanging jirim mujudake sisipataning kajaten, kayata: srengenge, manungsa, wit, sir, pikir, nur
Although volume or space is not existence or substance, or will, it is nevertheless volume or space which manifests the manifestation of existence, substance, or will.
Ora perlu nakokake sisipataning kajaten sok uga kawruhan jirime, awit sisipataning kajaten wis ana ing jirime
It is within the volume or space the nature of substance, existence or will, can be found.
jirim iku marakake kajaten kagungan sipat urip, mobah mosik, gnayu, matu, anjanma, nyrengege. Samono uga kajaten iku dudu jirime, dudu uripe, dudu mobah mosike, dudu kayune, watune, jalmane utawa srengengene. Lah kang endi ta kang jeneng kajaten? patrape nyatakake ora kena mung nganggo pikiran, kudu nganggo rasa kang sajati, awit pikiran iku mung bisa nyatakake jirim.
It is volume or space which ascribes the nature of existence. Existence or substance, or will, is not the volume or space nor the aforementioned nature. Logic alone can perceive volume or space, but it cannot perceive existence or substance, or will. Existence, substance or will, can be perceived by “the ultimate perception” (rasa kang sajati).
The question is: what is “the ultimate perception” herewith? Considering that Serat Jatimurti is a product of post-Walisongo Java, can “the ultimate perception” herewith be related to neo-platonic, or the similar-with-neo-platonic, metaphysics held by Javanese (as in “manunggaling kawulo gusti”)? The Reality, as, for instance, the Reality as perceived by Syekh Siti Jenar, cannot be perceived through logic alone. The Reality can only be perceived through a different mode of perception; a more total perception. Is this the mode of perception required to perceive kajaten?
Some other questions can also be raised. Comment le sense du mot « kajaten »? It is translated herewith as existence, substance, or will. However, does kajaten share the same notion with “existence” in Western existentialist sense? Does it share the same notion with “substance” (geist) in the German idealist sense? If “kajaten” can be translated as “will,” is it similar to the “will” that Schopenhauer mentioned?
I suspect, however, a probability that the Javanese notion of “kajaten” is not precisely the same as the aforementioned Western European notions of existence, substance or will. I need helps and advise on this matter, in order to understand the serat
---------------------------
Here is my sketchy first attempt to comprehend the theory in the text (by comparing it with Western European theory):
Serat Jatimurti states that volume or space depends upon existence, substance or will. In fact, volume or space exists in existence/substance/will.
Yet on the other hand, in the serat it is also stated that the nature—or corporeal manifestation—of existence/substance/will is defined by volume/space.
Here we can see a difference from Western theory. In Western tradition of philosophy, there has been a question, which is rather like the egg-chicken question: which one comes first, presence/existence or essence? As we know, Heidegger said that essence precedes presence/existence. Sartre believed vice versa. This effects the question on space. Does space precedes essence (so it provides the essence to be), or is space an effect of essence? From this debate, we can notice that in Western tradition, there is a separation between space and essence. If space is corporeal, then essence is transcendental.
Perhaps it is due to such separation that in the twentieth century some thinkers and theorists—who are associated with phenomenology, such as Heidegger and Norberg-Schulz—discussed the notions of space and place. Space is corporeal thing which is associated with something rather positivistic (recall how Mies perceived space, not place, within Cartesian grid system), whereas place contains a rather spiritual (“spirit” in term of geist or Sein) baggage. They needed to differentiate the notions of space and place precisely due to the separation.
The case is rather different, however, when we discuss Javanese theory of space. Space (jirim) and essence (kajaten) are not dichotomies. In order to be, space needs essence, and essence needs existence.
Space (jirim) can only be due to essence (or perhaps will, in a rather Schopenhaurean sense). Yet without space, essence (kajaten) would be meaningless, or un-perceived. Essence would be rendered unimportant when it cannot be perceived.
Such interconnection between the corporeal (in this case, space) and the transcendental (in this case, essence), may remind one with some segments within Western thoughts. For instance, Spinoza (who would in turn influence Deleuze).
Here is my sketchy first attempt to comprehend the theory in the text (by comparing it with Western European theory):
Serat Jatimurti states that volume or space depends upon existence, substance or will. In fact, volume or space exists in existence/substance/will.
Yet on the other hand, in the serat it is also stated that the nature—or corporeal manifestation—of existence/substance/will is defined by volume/space.
Here we can see a difference from Western theory. In Western tradition of philosophy, there has been a question, which is rather like the egg-chicken question: which one comes first, presence/existence or essence? As we know, Heidegger said that essence precedes presence/existence. Sartre believed vice versa. This effects the question on space. Does space precedes essence (so it provides the essence to be), or is space an effect of essence? From this debate, we can notice that in Western tradition, there is a separation between space and essence. If space is corporeal, then essence is transcendental.
Perhaps it is due to such separation that in the twentieth century some thinkers and theorists—who are associated with phenomenology, such as Heidegger and Norberg-Schulz—discussed the notions of space and place. Space is corporeal thing which is associated with something rather positivistic (recall how Mies perceived space, not place, within Cartesian grid system), whereas place contains a rather spiritual (“spirit” in term of geist or Sein) baggage. They needed to differentiate the notions of space and place precisely due to the separation.
The case is rather different, however, when we discuss Javanese theory of space. Space (jirim) and essence (kajaten) are not dichotomies. In order to be, space needs essence, and essence needs existence.
Space (jirim) can only be due to essence (or perhaps will, in a rather Schopenhaurean sense). Yet without space, essence (kajaten) would be meaningless, or un-perceived. Essence would be rendered unimportant when it cannot be perceived.
Such interconnection between the corporeal (in this case, space) and the transcendental (in this case, essence), may remind one with some segments within Western thoughts. For instance, Spinoza (who would in turn influence Deleuze).
