Meng-Kayu-Kan Batu

Teks: Josef Prijotomo. Foto: Mohammad Nanda Widyarta

Tatapikir (mindset) kita telah terlanjur melihat dan memperlakukan candi sebagai sebuah wujud dari Indianisasi arsitektur Nusantara. Indianisasi sendiri merupakan pernyataan dari DGE Hall sebagaimana tercantum dalam bukunya yang berjudul Indianization of Southeast Asia, Indianisasi dapat saja dimengerti sebagai pengindiaan, bisa pula berarti mengindia, malahan bisa pula diartikan sebagai penghadiran (candi/arsitektur) oleh India. Kita tak akan melakukan perbincangan mendalam mengenai hal itu; karena yang akan kita jelajahi adalah kemungkinan yang bisa dikedepankan bila tatapikir (mindset) itu dikesampingkan; dan sebagai penggantinya adalah pemakaian tatapikir (mindset) yang berbasis Nusantara berikut ini: “candi adalah wujud eksplorasi Nusantara dalam menghadirkan arsitektur kayu dengan menggnakan pengetahuan dan teknologi arsitektur batu”.

Candi, arsitektur batu dan konstruksi serta teknologi batu adalah satu kesatuan. India memang menjadi titik asalnya. Dengan memakai batu sebagai bahan utama, pengkonstruksian bangunan dilakukan dengan dua teknik dasar yakni pertama teknik tumpuk dan kedua teknik sambung. Teknik tumpuk menghasilkan lempengan/bidang yang mengatas/vertical sedangkan teknik sambung menghasilkan lempengan yang menyamping/horisontal. Teknik kunci/sambung digunakan pula untuk menangani bagian bangunan yang membentuk belokan, dan karena itu dapat saja dikatakan sebagai teknik yang dipakai untuk menangani bagian pojokan.

Sebidang dinding adalah hasil utama dari penerapan teknik tumpuk dan sambung ini. Dinding yang terbentuk adalah lempengan yang pejal/massif dan dengan sendirinya tidak tembus pandang. Sekaligus, dinding ini menghasilkan pemisahan yang tegas antara yang di sini dengan yang di balik dinding; sebuah pemisahan yang tegas sehingga ayng di sini dengan yang di situ samasekali tak perlu ada perkaitan apapun juga. Karena itu, bila empat dinding dirangkai menjadi satu dan membentuk sebuah kotak, rongga di dalam kotak ini menjadi sangat tersembunyi dan terisolasi daro lingkungan di sekitar kotak tadi. Agar keterisolasian ini dapat ditiadakan, dinding harus diberi lubang. Pelubangan lalu menjadi sebuah persoalan konstruksi yang tersendiri, terutama pada bagian bidang dinding yang berada di atas lubang tadi. Konstruksi susunan batu harus memungkinkan batu-batu di atas lubang tadi masih dapat tetap menjadi dinding meskipun di bawahnya ada lubang yang menganga. Sementara itu, pojokan-pojokan dari kotak serta bagian dinding yang ada di kiri dan kanan lubang juga memerlukan penanganan konstruksi yang tersendiri agar kekuatan dan kekokohan dinding tidak berkurang menjadi semakin melemah.

Pengkonstruksian batu menjadi dinding berbentuk kotak dan berlubang memperlihakan penyelesaian arsitektural yang tertentu dan tersendiri. Yang terjadi di arsitektur batu India dengan yang arsitektur batu Eropa ternyata memperlihatkan perbedaan-perbedaan yang cukup bena (significant). Perhatikan saja karya-karya arsitektur India dan Eropa dari abad 8-10, maka akan dengan nyata dapat disaksikan perbedaan garapan arsitekturalnya. Dengan perbedaan itu pula, bangunan percandian di Indonesia menjadi sangat tepat bila digolongkan ke dalam pengkonstruksian yang bercorak India. Perhatikan saja salah satu candi di kompleks percandian Gedong Sanga, Jawa Tengah, yang dibangun sebelum abad X Masehi. Kedekatan penanganan konstruksi dengan India cukup jelas, seperti hadirnya penebalan pada pojok dan pada bidang dinding di kiri-kanan lubangan; juga pada penggunaan batu dengan ukuran yang lebih besar dari batu yang dipakai untuk dinding. Sebatas penglihatan yang seperti ini, keIndiaan candi Gedong Sanga itu tidak dapat diingkari adanya.

Kejadiannya akan berbeda bila sekarang kita memberi perhatian yang seksama terhadap tata-wajah dari bangunan candi yang bercorak India tadi. Untuk itu, kita akan memberi perhatian pada pelipit dan penyelesaian dekoratif dan ornamental dari bangunan batu tadi.
Penebalan yang dilakukan pada pojokan-pojokan serta di kiri-kanan lubang telah menghasilkan sekurangnya dua efek visual yang pasti. Pertama, munculnya vertikalitas yang mengalahkan horisontalitas jejeran batu yang ditumpuk-tumpuk. Sosok keseluruhan banguan lalu mejadi terkesan lebih ramping sekaligus lebih menjulang. Yang kedua, pennjolan mengakibatkan lempengan dinding seakan terdorong ke belakang, menjadi sebuah lempengan yang berada di belakang tegakan-tegakan penonjolan pojokan. Timbullah latar depan dan latar belakang; terjadilah kemeruangan. Di sini, lubang pada bangunan menunjuk pada adanya ruang di dalam (di balik) dinding yang masif, menunjuk pada ruang yang nyata-nyata ada, menunjuk pada ruang ragawiah (physical space). Sementara itu, lempengan dinding yang seakan menjadi latar belakang itu adalah ruang maya (abstract space, virtual space). Bahwa lempengan dinding ini adalah ruang maya dapat dipermantap melalui lempengan dinding yang di kiri-kanan lubang. Di situ dihadirkan sosok manusia yang diperlihatkan sedang dalam keadaan tidak diam, sedang bergerak atau sedang akan bergerak. Sosok ini sepertinya sedang/akan bergerak dari dalam ke luar, atau sedang/akan beringsut dari kiri ke kanan. Sikap tubuh seperti ini sangat mungkin khas Indonesia (dank arena itu perlu dilakukan pemeriksaan pembandingan dengan yang India atau/dan di Asia Tenggara, tentunya dari abad yang sama).

Gejala hadirnya ruang maya menjadi semakin menarik. Perhatikan saja bidang dinding yang tidak dilengkapi dengan sosok yang sedang/akan bergerak. Oleh vertikalitas yang muncul sebagai kesan (berkat adanya penonjolan di pojok dinding), maka bidang dinding kosong ini menjadi menyempit, sedemikian sempitnya sehingga nyaris tidak berdaya dalam menghadapi kekuatan penonjolan yang tegak itu. Pengerjaan yang lebh dramatic dapat disaksikan dari salah satu penanganan pada lubangan candi. Di sini kekontrasan yang sangat kuat dihadirkan oleh tegakan itu dengan menghadirkan tegakan yang dipenuhi dengan ukiran. Pada bagian atas lubangan, batu dengan ukuran yang lebih besar dihadirkan dengan pnyelesaian ukiran berwajah seram. Tonjolan di pojok lalu menjadi pelaku utama bagi bidang tampang bangunan candi ini; sekaligus mengambil alih kemasifan dominasi dari sebdan dinding batu. Tonjolan tegak itu lalu menjadi tiang-tiang yang dijejer! Ya, tonjolan yang asalnya adalah garapan konstruksi untuk memperkuat bagian pojok dari kotak yang tebuat dari batu, kini telah menjadi sebuah unsur utama sebuah bangunan. Pertanyaannya, bangunan yang manakah yang menjadikan tiang sebagai unsur utama konstruksinya? Tak lain adalah bangunan kayu, ya, bangunan kayu.
Bangunan kayu dihadirkan pada konstruksi yang serba batu, ini bukan kerja yang gampang. Ini menuntut kemampuan yang jenius untuk memalih (transform) dua system konstruksi yang saling berlawanan watak dan teknik konstruksinya. Sampai saat ini, pemeriksaan terhadap candi-candi India dari masa sampai abad X Masehi, masih belum menghasilkan petunjuk adanya candi di India yang digarap seperti itu. Percandian di India masih hanya merupakan gubahan arsitektural dari konstruksi batu belaka. Mengandaikan bahwa candi Nusantara adalah buah karya arsitek India tentu kurang jitu, mengingat candi Nusantara menyerempakkan sistm dan teknologi kayu dan batu, sedang yang India hanya sistem dan teknologi batu saja. Pilihan akan siapakah arsiteknya terpaksa harus ditujukan pada arsitek Nusantara sendiri. Ya, para arsitek Nusantara yang sudah piawai dengan sistem dan konstruksi kayu melakukan perjalanan ke India untuk memperoleh pengetahuan tentang sistem dan konstruksi batu. Sepulang dari India, kerja kreatif dan usaha keras ara arsitek Nusantara ini telah mampu menghasilkan sebuah bangunan kayu yang dihadirkan pada bangunan batu. Sekarang, kalau saja dianggap bahwa yang India itu di jaman menjelang abad X adalah yang global, maka arsitek Nusantara menanggapi globalisasi itu dengan mengglobalkan yang Nusantara; bukan menusantarakan yang global. Mengapa demikian? Ya karena dalam percandian Nusantara ke-kayu-an menjadi latar depan sedang ke-batu-an menjadi latar belakang semata!

Javanese Spatial Knowledge; a Knitting of the Transcendental and the Corporeal (an Early Confirmation)

Here is a part of an old Javanese text, Serat Jatimurti, which mentions jirim:

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. The manner volume, or space manifests the manifestation of existence is akin to the way the following manifesting the manifestation of existence: sun, human beings, tree, thought, light)

Another quote from the same text:

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])

Before I continue, I think I need to lay down some definitions on key Javanese terms:
Jirim: volume, space, or extension
Kajaten: existence, will, or essence
Pikiran: thought, logic, or reason (akin to French raison)
Rasa: feel, taste, or perception. The phrase rasa kang sajati refers to the ultimate perception, which involves our reason, senses, and perhaps will as well.
These Javanese terms would be used throughout this note un-translated.

What I am trying to point out through quoting the two excerpts from Serat Jatimurti is something related with epistemology, in its relation with spatial perception in Javanese society.

Similar to the idea on epistemology as proposed by Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Javanese epistemology opines that what we know is not to be gained only through the reasoning of thought (par la raison seulement). Here I use the term “reason” in post-cogito manner. Yes, reason is deemed important in Javanese system, hence the term pikiran exists in Javanese vocabulary, and used in texts pertaining to, or touching upon, epistemology, such as Serat Jatimurti. However, as Serat Jatimurti proposes, reason alone cannot do it (ora kena mung nganggo pikiran). Rasa kang sajati needs to be used as well in order for us to gain knowledge.

In my opinion, this view of Javanese epistemology confirms what has been said hitherto. By understanding Javanese epistemology, we would be able to see the relation between Javanese spatial perception and:

• The presence of perspective on carved relief panels on 13th-15th century Javanese candis.
• The characterization of Semar (with his special, ultimate weapon) in Javanese wayang (note that Javanese wayang adopted Indian epics as the source of narrative. However, the character of Semar and punakawans are not found in Indian version of the narrative. Semar and the punakawans are Javanese invention added to the narrative).
• The absence of space between words in Javanese system of writing.

Consider the excerpt of Serat Jatimurti, in which jirim is said to manifest kajaten. In this excerpt (the first quotation above), it is said that jirim manifests kajaten, and so do other things such as the sun (srengenge), human being (manungsa), tree (wit), etc.

As for me, such view may remind us with something called pantheism. Whether the Javanese view is really pantheistic in the usual sense, or it is actually something different, I would reserve this matter to be discussed and debated by more capable people than me. However, I would like to point out the way different, seemingly unrelated things (human beings, the sun, tree, etc.), are knitted in such a way that they become nodes of network. They become one thing with myriads of manifestations. A tree, a person, the sun, and of course, space are different manifestations of kajaten. Those who are familiar with Western thoughts may compare and contrast this view with that of Spinoza.

As a consequence, there is no difference between the transcendental and the corporeal. If I may quote the often stated phrase in 1990s architectural parlance, then the boundaries between the two have been blurred.

Yes, if we insist upon understanding Javanese spatial perception through the usual Western paradigm, we may find difficulties to relate spatial perception with the absence of space between words in Javanese writting or Semar's fart; although such difficulties may not be encountered when trying to comprehend the issue through 13th-15th century relief panels on Javanese candis.

But when we see it through Javanese "pantheistic" system, then it would not be difficult to comprehend Javanese spatial perception through the aforementioned aspects.

Back to the issue of epistemology. Here, rasa is very important. Our senses become important, for those present around us are manifestations of kajaten. If the knowledge of kajaten is the ultimate knowledge (so I assume for now), then it is necessary to comprehend kajaten through its various manifestations. Our senses do not only consist of visual sense. Touch, smell, sound and taste are also parts of our senses. Space, as a manifestation of kajaten, is not to be experienced partially. One needs to involve all of her/his senses, as well as intellect, to experience, and hence perceiving, space.

Perhaps this is a factor behind the presence of perspective on relief panels on 13th-15th century Javanese candis. Perspective represents what one sees within jirim. I also need to inform that unlike candi relief panels form the previous era, each relief panel on 13th-15th century Javanese candis shows no empty space. Spaces on the panel which are not reserved for main characters are filled with decorative carvings. Could these decorative carvings represents what could have been experienced sensually; that is, sensually other than visually?

Such importance of total sensory experience in perceiving space explains why the story of Semar’s fart implies the manner space is perceived. Space is perceived not only visually. It is also perceived through other senses.

This also explains the absence of spaces between words in Javanese texts. In distinguishing a word from another, and to comprehend as well as to interpret the content of the text, a reader needs to use not only her/his sight (to recognize each letter), but also his/her rasa. This also implies the manner jirim is to be perceived; it has to be perceived through the use of intellect, sight, and rasa.

A Short Note on Javanese Daily-ness

Having read Josef Prijotomo’s last two entries (Space in Text, Space in Architecture, and Fart and Mount Mahameru), I notice one thing: for the Javanese, what they encounter and experience on daily basis is what matters. As such, their perception of space is determined (if I may use the word “determined” hereby) by their daily experiences and perceptions.

This also reminds me with Prijotomo’s book, (Re-)Konstruksi Arsitektur Jawa; Griya Jawa dalam Tradisi Tanpatulisan (Wastu Lanas Grafika, Surabaya, 2006), which I made a review upon, which was eventually published on The Jakarta Post (The Conundrum in Explaining “Non-literal” Text, May 13th, 2007). In this book, it is explained that the space of a Javanese structure is formed by the roof (the roof provides shading; the shade is where the space be). Yes, it looks so obvious. But Javanese are not Platonic people. Hence Nietzsche was German instead of Javanese.

The book also explains how a Javanese house (griya) embodies Javanese knowledge. The way the house is constructed disseminates this knowledge on various aspects. A house is, of course, a daily thing.

So is a fart. It is a profane and daily thing. Perhaps it is precisely its “banality” (that is, its daily-ness) that prompted the creator of Semar character to decide Semar’s ultimate weapon is his fart. And Semar became a character in wayang, which is also a part of Javanese daily life. Being a part of daily-ness (being a medium of entertainment), wayang acts as a tool for disseminating knowledge—just like a house.

Perhaps daily-ness is also the factor behind Majapahit’s era perspective (refer to my entry on Javanese perspective as demonstrated by an archaeologist on his paper). The perspective found on carved relief panels of Majapahit candis (such as Candi Sukuh) represents none other than what a Javanese person perceives when she/he gazes across a space. It is not a space perceived through a religious or metaphysical point of view. It is simply what one actually perceives visually.

Prijotomo’s writing on space in Javanese text also touches upon daily-ness. On daily basis, one sees various phenomena. One does not only witness one phenomenon. Things sacred and things profane, thing logical and things absurd, are present simultaneously in our daily experiences. As such, differentiation through segregation is not necessary. In daily-ness, one can see differences within knitted, yet varying, phenomena. Therefore, Javanese text does not necessitate having a space between two words; two different things do not have to be segregated, for in daily occurrences different things happen simultaneously.

Daily-ness is perhaps a key to understand Javanese perception, and understanding, of space. Perhaps this is a theoretical subject that can only be understood not by reading books on architectural theories, but by experiencing the spaces as daily phenomena.

One thing that needs to be considered is epistemology. Reason alone is incapable to understand the subject of Javanese space. It seems that for Javanese, reason cannot act alone to perceive and understand. Daily-ness includes senses. Hence Semar’s fart becomes something that forms space, according to Prijotomo.

On this matter of epistemology, comparison can be done by putting Javanese and Western epistemologies side by side, if we need to contrast them. But in order to get similarities, we may compare Javanese epistemology with that of—for instance—Islamic society in medieval Middle East. It is interesting that thinkers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna, in Latin form) proposed something similar to Javanese epistemology: reason alone is incapacitated to perceive and comprehend things. There are also others, beside reason, that one has to use in order to perceive and understand things; others such as will and senses.

Space in Text, Space in Architecture

Spaces between Words in a Sentence
Let us discuss the space as we find it in construction of writing, as such, based on the Latin writing system, we have a space bar on our computer keyboard. By observing the formation of sentences in Latin system, spaces between words are just as important as the words themselves. Therefore, a sentence is a juxtaposition/construction of words and spaces.

In Javanese system, the formation of sentences is done by tying up a word with the next word that comes after it. Space is not to be present. What is presented on a written sentence, then, are words connected with each other without spaces among the words. Such tying up of the words at times is carried out in a very strict manner that the succeeding character is tasked to “kill” its preceding character. Such tying up of the words really demonstrates that space is meaningless for Javanese writing (Note: it is Javanese writing we are talking about hereby, NOT Javanese sentence ==> We hereby need to differentiate Javanese writing and Javanese sentence)

Hence, when we are to discuss the space between words in written form, Javanese system of writing demonstrates the following:

WRITING: words are connected to each other without providing an opportunity for space to be. Does this mean there is a chance for “words destruction” (i.e.: mistake in differentiating a word from other words completely change the meaning of the word)?

READING: the first and foremost task in reading is to place a space between a word and another: which is none other than an act of EMPTYING. It is also an act of IMPRISONING; as well as UNTYING. Nevertheless, the act is not FILLING A SPACE BETWEEN WORDS; nor DETERMINING A DISTANCE; nor DELAYING A TIE.

It has been discussed that in reading, one is required to firstly untie one word from another. To be more precise, the first act is to build a certainty of which words are present in a row of scripts. Keep in mind that Javanese system does not deny interpretation; in fact, the first task according to the system is to interpret the row of scripts as a row of words.

So, between the author and the reader, there lies this following Javanese ETHIC: “the reader is not to be dictated by the author.” The reader is given a total freedom to interpret what is written. The reader, then, has the total freedom to build meaning; the total freedom to be not ruled by the author.

Would this ethic not loose its true direction so that the reader assumes the role of the author? Certainly not, for the task to stray away is tasked to the author. The author is required to control the interpretation to be built by the reader. Through the selection of words, this act of controlling the interpretation is carried out. This is also the factor why Javanese words have synonyms, in which one word may have several synonyms.

Now, on the reader. Are the codes of ethics for reading also applicable to the reader? This study has not answered this particular question. Nevertheless, we can still ponders upon it. When one is reading, what is actually done in the act of reading, and what is to be gained? Is reading about "listening to text," as once said by Budi A. Sukada? Is reading about "searching for what is said by the author"? Is reading about "learning,” that is to say, building up the reader’s body of knowledge by using reading/text as sign and point for building the body of knowledge? One thing can be regarded as a certainty: the reader has the right to build up his body of knowledge on his own, even if it means the reader is free of and unrelated to the author, through what in Javanese known as keratabasa or othak-athik gathuk.[i]

Keratabasa and Othak-athik Gathuk
Here, the word is encountered by the reader as a row of letters which do not have to be strictly associated with the word’s meaning. This row of letters indeed forms a word, yet it is a word emptied of its meaning. Such void of meaning is then filled by the reader with her construction of meaning. However, though meaning has been emptied, it does not eman tha the word has become completely meaningless. It is othak-athik gathuk which attempts to leave some traces of meaning or concept of the word. But then, the traces become the references for constructing the meaning of the word.

Example: the word kathok (pants). It is an abbreviation of the phrase: "diangkat mbaka sithok" (pulling up one by one). The meaning of kathok = pulling up one by one; for kathok becomes an abbreviation, therefore loosing its meaning. In understanding the concept of “pants,” as outfits which putting them on has to involve pulling up one’s legs one by one, the event called diangkat mbaka sithok becomes profoundly important.

Another example is cangkir = cup (such as a teacup). This word becomes an abbreviation of the phrase "nancang pikir" = "tying up thought." When a cup is used to offer a drink to a guest, the guest’s thought should be tied to that of the host. Compared with kathok which is an abbreviation of a direct act for making use the object, then in the case of cangkir the abbreviation is intended to signify the intention of the act of offering a drink in the cup. Another example would be "guru." The word can be an abbreviation of "digugu lan ditiru" (obeyed and followed); "yen minggu turu" (sleeping on Sunday), "wagu lan kuru" (looking unproportional and thin).

All these show how the reader has extensive freedom to construct body of knowledge by using the written letters. The reader may construct her own version of knowledge, with no requirement to submit to the author. The author’s knowledge is engendered in the letters as reference, or limits of interpretation and construction of knowledge.

Space and Nusantara’s Architectures
Writing in Javanese letters (as in writing in Balinese letters) does not include spaces between words which form the sentence. This brings at least two consequences, particularly in association with our knowledge on Nusantara architectures (Java and Bali in this case). First, Javanese recognize the presence of space, yet consciously do not present it. The reason is quite obvious: space is (regarded as) an unseen thing. By experiencing—reading a text—one can be aware of the presence of space. Which one is the space, or rather, where is the space? Upon reading and understanding the text, one can determine where the spaces are within the text’s corpus. So, a space can be determined after a word is determined. Just like a piece of white, empty paper. It is a space. Yet we are aware of this only after we have written some letters on it. Analogizing this in the case of Nusantara’s architectures, the presence of space would be recognized after construction of a building has been composed.

Second, meaning or intention of a text can be determined after an act of interpretation has been carried out. Interpretation is required, for without it, words and spaces between words would not appear. Analogizing this in architecture, meaning or intention of an architectural presence can only be determined after an interpretation on architecture has been carried out.

Something matters more, though. Only through interpreting Nusantara’s architectures one can determine the certainty of space. Can we then say architecture is about making space? A long discussion is to be done, if we want to discuss it.

Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008



[i] These two Javanese terms refer to an act of fitting up words to seemingly unrelated, or unexpected, meanings.

Fart and Mount Mahameru

An excerpt from an entry to this blog, 30th August 2008, entitled Space (from a Javanese text, Serat Jatimurti. Courtesy of Josef Prijotomo)

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.

If Semar’s fart is jirim (space), the excerpt demonstrated the necessity for kajaten (essence) for the presence and being of the fart. Is there anything from what we know about Semar which would make it possible for us to uncover what and who is this kajaten (essence)?

Fart is the 'air' that is exerted from stomach, and that means, this fart becomes the one that makes jirim (space) exist and be present. By reading the story of Semar—in which he is named as Hyang Ismaya—one knows that Hyang Ismaya had carried out the order given by his father. In order to become the ruler of the upper world (the deities’ realm), the lower world (demons’ realm) as well as the middle world (human being’s realm), Hyang Ismaya was required to swallow the whole Mount Mahameru and jettison it away out of his stomach afterward. In doing the order, Hyang Ismaya managed to swallow the Mount Mahameru. However, he failed to propel the Mount Mahameru out of his stomach. Consequently, Hyang Ismaya not only failed to become the ruler of the three realms, he also became an ugly looking creature; his belly bloats. From the story, we know that inside Semar’s belly, resides the Mount Mahameru. When Semar farted, he let out Mount Mahameru. From this we know that the jirim (space) defined by Semar’s fart is created by Mount Mahameru, which is the kajaten (essence).

A little story about Mount Mahameru. It would be beneficial if we provide certain interpretation on Mount Mahameru in Semar’s tale, in particular its position as kajaten (essence) for jirim (space). The order to swallow and let out the mount can be interpreted as an order to receive knowledge to be later on developed and applied. It is possible that Mount Mahameru was just a metaphor representing the knowledge on the aforementioned three realms which surround human beings; the Universe, the earthly world, and the real lives of human beings. Also, there are the three realms; the realm of good (deities), the realm of evil (demons), and the realm of real human actions. In short, it is possible that what Mount Mahameru represents in the tale of Semar is none other than “the ultimate knowledge of everything.” If it is so, it would be prudent to regard Mount Mahameru as kajaten (essence).

Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008

(ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF JOSEF PRIJOTOMO'S ACCOUNT ON SEMAR'S FART AND SPACE)

1
Let us try to see the connection between Semar’s fart and rongrongan. By regarding Semar’s fart as an architectural space, sound and smell become indications of a space defined through extension. That is to say, there is a distance up to which the smell can be smelled, and the sound can be heard. Hence, smell, sound and distance form the space. Notice that visual aspect is not included as a factor of space formation. One might say that in Javanese world, the presence of space has nothing to do with sight, space is unseen; that is how Javanese perceive their architectural space.

2
Compare this with that of Plato, who also recognized volume (or extension). For Plato, geometry is also a factor behind the presence of space. Geometry is assumed by Plato because space is conceived in mind; geometry is also a result of the mind. Yet Plato did not orient his thought on space toward the real, corporeal world. He conceived space as an abstraction of visual presence of the real world. The Platonic solid becomes the geometry of the space. Notice that Plato depended on sight as the medium to get the geometry.

How about Semar and his fartial space? In his case, the world is no longer a sighted-ness, but rather smell-ness and sound-ness. Smell and sound cannot be abstracted into geometries, for they cannot be sighted. Therefore, Javanese perception of space does not involve sight and geometry. Only by being too generalist then we can conceive a space defined by smell and sound as a sphere. The involvement of sight as a factor in Plato’s space implies infinity. One can see infinitely through space (we can still see stars which are years of light speed); sight is capable to perceive infinite extension. But it is not so for smell and sound; they have limited extension. Hence, Semar’s space is an extension with limit. Outside the parameter where sound and smell can be perceived is not a part of the space.

From this comparison between the infinite and the finite, one can start to see something about how Java and Plato perceive the world and knowledge. Finite-ness is the realm of Semar’s thought, whereas infinity is the realm of Plato’s. Semar’s becomes an other for Plato’s.

3
Rongrongan may denote the real rong (as plural), while simultaneously means “something like rong,” artificial rong, although it looks so similar to real rong. ‘Rong’ itself is a cavity in the ground where insects live. Dug into the ground, rong provides a dark place, where sight is rendered useless. The sound and smell of the insects would be the indicators of rong’s presence around us (assuming we are familiar with such sound and smell). It is the sound and smell which indicate the space The farthest distance of the sound and smell does not indicate the size of rong’s volume; the distance indicates our capability to recognize the presence of rong. If so, aside from the fact that rong is a space with its volume, there is also a territory of space; it is an area that allows us to perceive rong through smell and sound. This territory is the “place,” for it is there we can know that there is a space/rong. Place and space are not related yet different things; here in Javanese case, place clouts space!

Hence the presence of a rong/ruang/space becomes directly connected to place. Notice that in this case place does not accurately denote where the space is; place is the territory where others has the chance to know that there is a space there, and they should retrace it in order to arrive at rong/ruang. This entails one thing. Rong/ruang/space does not only involve making the presence of volume, but also involves making the presence of place, a territory, which makes it possible for others to know and finally find volume/rong/ruang/space which is present. Such event turns out to be a habitual among the Javanese. To indicate where my house is, I do not provide others with my address. Instead, I would tell them some signs in my neighborhood. For instance, I would tell them that on the east side of my house, there is a trembesi tree, two houses after the third turn, etc.

4
It is time for Semar’s space and rongrongan. The radius of smell and sound produced by Semar’s fart is the pananggap sector of a Javanese house; whereas Semar, the rong, is the guru sector of a Javanese house!

Semar and His Fart (in Indonesian, by Josef Prijotomo)

1
Mari kita coba lakukan pengkaitan antara kentut semar dengan rongrongan. Dengan menganggap bahwa kentut semar adalah sebuah ruang arsitektur, maka di sini suara an bau menjadi faktor penunjuk adanya ruang yang dikontrol secara langsung oleh jarak. Maksudnya, jarak adalah penentu bagi terbau dan tidaknya bau kentut; juga menjadi penentu bagi terdengar atau tidaknya bunyi kentut. Dengan demikian, bau, bunyi dan jaak (atau volume) merupakan faktor-faktor ‘pembentuk’ ruang tadi. Perhatikan bahwa penglihatan samasekali tidak diikutsertakan sebagai factor, dan dengan demikian boleh saja dikatakan bahwa dalam dunia Jawa keberadaan ruang itu memang tidak berkaitan dengan ihwal keterlihatan, ruang memang tidak terlihat, itulah yang dikenal oleh Jawa mengenai ruang arsitekturnya.
Agar supaya penyandingan dengan rongrongan dapat lebih mudah dilakukan, rasanya akan lebih baik bila terlebih dulu menyandingkan ruang semar ini dengan ruang Plato.

2
Sekarang sandingkanlah ruang semar dengan ruang versi Plato, yang juga mengenal volume (atau jarak/ukuran). Bagi Plato, geometri juga menjadi factor bagi adanya ruang. Geometri diambil oleh Plato karena ruang itu dipikir, dan salah satu hasil dari kerja pikiran adlah geometri, pengetahuan tentang mengukur/keterukuran bumi, atau menjadi lebih popular dengan ilmu bentuk.. Selanjutnya, meski geometri menunjuk pada bumi, tetapi Plato tidak menunjuk pada bumi sebagai obyek nyata/riil, melainkan menunjuk pada abstraksi yang ditarik dari kehadiran visual bumi. Platonic solid lalu menjadi geometri yang menyertai ruang tadi. Perhatikan, di sini Plato menangani geometri dengan menggunakan penglihatan sebagai medium untuk mendapatkan geometri tadi.
Bagaimanakah halnya dengan semar dengan ruang kentutnya? Dalam kasus semar, bumi bukan lagi sebuah keterlihatan melainkan sebuah keterdengaran dan keterbauan. Baik bau maupun bunyi tidak dengan langsung bisa diabstraksikan menjadi geometri, dan upaya untuk mengabstraksikan geometrinya hanya akan sia-sia adanya, mengingat baik bau maupun bunyi tidak berurusan dengan penglihatan. Jadi, pemikiran Jawa tentang ruang tidak dilakukan dengan melibatkan penglihatan maupun geometri (=abstraksi atas yang terlihat). Dengan memaksakan diri saja kita bias mengabstraksikan baud an bunyi itu sebagai sebuah bangun bola. Selanjutnya, kalau kita sandingkan lagi antara Plato dengan semar, keterlibatan penglihatan dalam Plato lalu memungkinkan untuk menghasilkan geometri yang tanpa batas, mengingat penglihatan juga tanpa batas (kita masih bias melihat bintang yang jauhnya jutaan tahun cahaya), penglihatan mampu nutk menunjuk jarak yang tak berhingga. Tidak demikian halnya dengan bau dan bunyi, mereka ini hanya berhadapan dengan keberhinggaan. Dengan demikian, ruang semar adalah ruang yang berhingga, ruang yang terukur jaraknya. Di luar jangkauan bunyi dan bau, bukan lagi ruang namanya. Apa nama bagi yang diluar jangkauan bau dan bunyi, saya masih belum menemukannya.
Berkenaan dengan keberhinggaan dan ke-tak-berhingga-an, menjadi terkuak pula bagaimana Jawa dan Plato memikir tentang bumi dan pengetahuan. Keberhinggaan menjadi ranah dari pemikiran Semar, sedang ketakberhinggaan adalah ranah dari pikiran Plato. Pemikiran semar lalu menjadi pemikiran ‘liyan’ bagi pemikiran Plato.

3
Rongrongan bisa berarti rong yang sebenarnya (sebagai kata majemuk), naun bisa pula berarti seperti rong, rong buatan, bukan rong sesungguhnya meskipun sangat mirip dengan rong. ‘rong’ sendiri adalah sebuah lubang di tanah yang menjadi tempat tinggal cengkerik, gangsir dan beberapa binatang lainnya. Tergali ke dalam tanah, rong dengan langsung merupakan sebuah tempat yang gelap, sebuah tempat yang tidak memberi tempat bagi penglihatan untuk berperan. Bau dan bunyi dari binatang penghuni rong lalu menjadi penunjuk kuat bagi adanya rong disekitar kita (tentunya kalau kita sudah akrab dengan bau dan bunyi tadi). Ini berarti bahwa adanya sebuah rong di sekitar kita dapat diyakini manakala bau atau bunyi dari rong dapat sampai ke indra pendengaran atau pembauan kita, dan bukan penglihatan kita! Di sini, jarak terjauh dari bau dan bunyi bukan penunjuk atas besarnya volume rong, melainkan jarak bagi kemampuan mengenal adanya sesuatu rong. Bila demikian halnya, maka di samping rong yang adalah ruang beserta volumenya, ada pula wilayah ruang, yakni sebuah luasan yang membuat kita mampu mengetahui adanya rong dengan menggunakan bau dan dengaran. Wilaah itu pula yang rupanya merupakan ‘tempat’ (place) mengingat dari wilayah itulah kita bisa berkesempatan untuk memperoleh keyakinan bahwa di sana ada rong/ruang. Tempat dan Ruang bukan lagi berhimpitan, melainkan tempat itu melingkungi ruang!
Dari gambaran yang terakhir tadi, kehadiran sesuatu rong/ruang menjadi berkaitan langsung dengan tempat. Tetapi perhatikan, I sini tempat itu tidak menunjuk dengan tepat di manakah ruang berada; tempat adalah kawasan di mana orang lain berkesempatan untuk mengetahui bahwa di situ ada ruang, dan orang itu mesti melakukan penelusuran lagi untuk dapat sampai pada rong/ruang. Apa artinya? Artinya aalah sebagai berikut ini. Membuat rong/ruang tidak hanya meliputi pengadaan volume, melainkan mengadakan pula tempat, mengadakan sebuah kawasan yang memungkinkan orang lain untuk mengenal dan akhirnya menemukan volume/rong/ruang yang diadakan. Peristiwa seperti ini ternyata juga lumrah terjadi di masyarakat Jawa. Untuk memberitahu di manakah rumah saya, orang lain tidak kita beri alamat rumah kita, melainkan tanda-tanda di lingkungan sekitar rumah saya, misalnya, di timurnya pohon trembesi, dua rumah seteleh belokan ketiga, dan sebagainya.

4
Kini saatnya ruang semar dengan rongrongan. Radius bau dan bunyi kentut semar adalah sector pananggap dari sebuah rumah Jawa; sedangkan sang semar, sang rong, adalah sector guru dari rumah Jawa!


sektor guru
sektor pananggap