• 6 Acri (2013:74) considers it as a modern texbook of Hinduism. It is inspired by several OJ and India (...)
• 7 The term “igama” is used to define religion in its philosophical sense, in this case of the Śaivism (...)
• 8 Ida Saṅ Hyaṅ Vidhi is the Balinese Hindu name for God.
• 9 Acri (2011b:156) states that Balinese religion appears to be a ‘localized’ form of Śaivism characte (...)
• 10 Acri (2013:74) translates the title as “Textbook of the Sāṅkhya Philosophy,” while Hooykaas (1951) (...)

1The Old Javanese (OJ) terms expounding the tenets of Śaivism found in Bali may be traced to those of Indian Śaivism. Most of those terms are found in OJ texts that have been traditionally handed down in Bali for generations. Many such religious texts show a hybrid character. This tradition of hybridization is still documented in a modern authoritative book of Śaivism in Balinese entitled Aji Sangkya (AS),6 compiled in 1947 by Ida Ketut Djelantik. In the introduction, the author mentions Igama Siwa7 while promoting teachings about the existence of Ida Saṅ Hyaṅ Vidhi8 and His bliss for creating the universe and everything within it, including humans (Djelantik, 1947:1). In this sense, Djelantik made an effort to attribute an equal position to both “traditional” Śaiva theology and reformed Hinduism within the frame of the Balinese religion.9 Meanwhile, by its very title, the AS10 is affirmatively related to Sāṁkhya, an ancient Indian dualistic philosophical school, as well as Yoga. The AS asserts explicitly both positions as the ultimate understanding of the true Yoga on the theoretical basis of the Sāṁkhya (Djelantik, 1947:14).

• 11 See Sumardjo (2002).

2However, this position regarding the theology of Śaivism is not new. Śaivism reconciles the dualism of the Sāṁkhya and the monism (advaita) of the Vedānta (Bernard, 1999:130). Soebadio (1985:54; cf. Yasa and Sarjana, 2013:126) noted that in Indonesia, Śaivism (and Śaivasiddhānta in particular) has a very close relationship to both the monistic and dualistic schools of philosophy. Suamba (2016:300-1) affirms that it has undergone very dynamic processes of finding “the best” in order to fit the local tradition. The AS may thus be regarded as a text that is ontologically rather dualistic, yet monistic as well as Śaivistic at the same time. This textual eclectic attitude can be detected also in the new hybrid textual constructions by Balinese intellectuals, as well as in many aspects of Balinese culture and religion.11 As Acri (2013:97) asserts, “most Balinese reformist authors never rejected altogether the fundamental tenets and deeply Śaiva persuasion of their traditional theology but simply sought to reconfigure and integrate it in order to ensure compliance with certain trends of neo-Hindu orthodoxy.” This means that the hybrid construction of the AS reflects the traditional character of Balinese Hinduism inherited from the OJ Śaivistic tradition of eclectic behaviour. Hence, it is rather difficult to reduce Balinese Hinduism to a specific strand in relation to Indian thought because it has a very dynamic inclusion of textual canons, which is complicated further if one observes Balinese religious praxis. This article analyses the eclectic attitude reflected by the AS, one of the authoritative books on Balinese Hinduism, in order to attain a hermeneutic interpretation.

• 12 One of the oldest extant texts of the Sāṁkhya philosophical system is Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṁkhyakārikā ( (...)

3A discussion of the relationship between puruṣa and prakṛti in the Sāṁkhyakārikā (SK)¹² and puruṣa and pradhāna in the AS first requires a comparison of the concepts found in both texts. In the SK, the process of manifestation of the prakṛti or material principle plays an important role in its philosophy. First, a connection with the puruṣa is established so that the material becomes conscious, to the point of releasing the relationship of the material from the puruṣa, or vice versa (the liberation of the puruṣa, i.e. isolation or kaivalya). Next, the separation from the body (śarīrabhede) takes place, and the prakṛti as the root cause (pradhāna) ceases to operate, having accomplished the purpose of the puruṣa, and attains a form of liberation that is both completely absolute (aikāntika) and final or permanent (ātyantika) (SK 68 in Saraswati, 2008:118). The prakṛti does not evolve and is not created from anything (SK 3). It is the origin or root of all matters (mūla). In this view, the prakṛti is the uncaused first principle, and the cause of all. Similarly, the puruṣa is neither created nor creative; it is just there. The connection between the two is caused by the attractiveness of the prakṛti for the puruṣa.

• 13 Jakubzak (2006:186) notes that in the Upaniṣads the seeing bird refers to the passive inner control (...)
• 14 The Old Javanese dictionary by Zoetmulder (1982:266) glosses buddhi as the power of forming and ret (...)

4SK 19 and 20 explain the passiveness of the puruṣa (draṣṭṛtva). The nature of the connection (saṁyoga) of both is that the prakṛti has no consciousness but possesses the natural tendency or qualities (guṇa) to attract the puruṣa. This is related to the explanation given in SK 21, which is more straightforwardly presupposing the prakṛti as andha (blindness) and the puruṣa as paṅgu (lameness).¹³ In the SK, the initiating discourse implies that interest in the nature of existence is triggered by misery (duḥkha) in which ordinary efforts, such as using drugs, are not enough to solve the basic questions of “being.” The discriminative knowledge (viveka), the manifest (vyakta), and the non-manifest (avyakta) may be the prerequisite to discover the answers to the questions. There are two more similar principles, namely avikṛti (neither developing nor evolutive principle) and vikṛti (developing principle). The avyakta is in one direction to the avikṛti, the prakṛti with its tendencies (triguṇa), whereas the vyakta and the vikṛti are the tattva (principles) from buddhi (“intellect”)¹⁴ downwards (Bhattacharyya, 2008:158-60). Additionally, the prakṛti manifests as the buddhi only through its connection with the puruṣa. In line with the three sources of misery, there are also three methods for searching knowledge (pramāṇa): dṛṣṭa or direct experience, anumāna or inference, and āptavacana or statements from experts or trusted sources. From this, it can be understood that the SK paradigm is built through a psychology of anxiety, which can only be diminished by the knowledge of truth.

• 15 See Yasa and Sarjana (2013:39).
• 16 See Suamba (2016:16).
• 17 The term is rather confusing since the word wretaya is not found in Sanskrit. The author, perhaps, (...)

8However, in the AS, the buddhi has a different sense (see e.g. 3.1). It is regarded as citta or “mind” that undergoes the degradation of consciousness, because the focus of the AS is on the consciousness. This structuring follows the structure found in the Tattvajñāna (TJ),15 which offers a schematic presentation of Javanese Śaivism.16 In fact, in the SK, the citta is never explicitly mentioned or included as one of the principles. In the philosophical system found in the SK and the YS, the buddhi is considered one category that actually forms the citta, along with the ahaṁkāra and the manas. In this sense, the buddhi is the in-between state, which is expressed by the Balinese words bingung (confuse) and biapara (confusion). When it comes to indecision, according to the AS, the buddhi then has various characteristics: caturaiśvarya (four powers), aṣṭatuṣṭi (eight contentments), aṣṭasidi (eight perfections), balikaning caturaiśvarya (opposite of four powers), and pañcawretaya17 (five distress) (Djelantik, 1947:10). In line with the category of the caturaiśvarya found in the AS, SK 23 mentions it similarly within the frame of sattva called sāttvikametadrūpa, namely dharma (goodness), jñāna (knowledge), virāga (indifference), and aiśvarya (power or highest attainment and perfection). However, the AS has a more complicated layered explanation. Each item is categorised in a more detailed fashion, for instance dharma, which is further divided into sīla (Balinese solah rahayu: good behavior), yajna (Balinese barés: generous), tapa (Balinese ngated utawi matunain indria: discipline or reducing sensual pleasure), virakta (Balinese medalem sayang: having compassion), tyāga (Balinese las utawi lagas: consistent or brave), and yoga (concentration).

• 18 According to Zoetmulder (1982:28), the ahaṁkāra means conception of one’s individuality, the egoist (...)
• 19 Cf. Jakubzak (2006:188).

9According to both the AS and SK, after the buddhi comes the ahaṁkāra.¹⁸ In SK 24, it is explained as a statement of the self or “sense of ego.” This sense of ego is not a subjective substance, but an objective one (Bhattacaryya, 2008:222). It is composed of the personal pronoun aham, “I”, and the root kṛ, “to do, make or perform.” This sort of Individuating Principle produces new modes of being. In line with that, according to the Sāṁkhya, the function of the ahaṁkāra is to feel the sense of I-ness,¹⁹ which makes the self feeling that it is acting, wanting, and having. Acri (2011a:425) translates it, on the basis of its occurrences in the OJ text Dharma Patañjala (DP), as “self-identity.” Palguna (2014:179) defines it in the light of Kakavin Dharma Śūnya as ‘ego’ or “self.” Then, because it is influenced by the sattvaguṇa, the ahaṁkāra manifests into eleven tattvas and, when it is influenced by tamas, it further evolves into the five subtle elements.

• 20 According to Zoetmulder (1982:1096) manah (Skt manas, mind in the widest sense as applied to all me (...)

11As seen in the description of the ahaṁkāra outlined above, from the vaikṛta comes the manas.²⁰ The definition given to the manas resembles that of the buddhi, as described earlier. SK 27 and 29 further explain the nature of the manas as a determinant of the nature of the evolution of the five jñānendriya and five karmendriya. The manas also provides a basis for consideration, deliberation, thought, and analysis (saṁkalpa). Additionally, together with the mahat or buddhi and the ahaṁkāra, the manas functions to support or maintain the vital breath (prāṇa) that preserves life. Thus, life is highly determined by these three principles.

• 21 The puruṣārtha has four dimensions, namely dharma, artha, kāma and mokṣa, which are well-known in B (...)

12The SK also explains the functioning of the three together (the buddhi, the ahaṁkāra, and the manas) with one of the senses simultaneously or subsequently in the process of responding to an object, or in cases where awareness of something arises not from something that is directly experienced (for example, conceptualisation, or logical inference). All three operate based on memory and imagination (SK 30). In SK 31, it is stressed once again that the motives for all the activities linked to the tattvas are fulfilling the aim of the puruṣa (puruṣārtha).²¹

• 22 In Monier-Williams (1999:397) the word cetana is defined as being visible, clear, superior, excelle (...)

15The word Īśvara could be understood as a theistic element in the YS. This understanding is also shown by the translation of the word Īśvara as “God” by Vivekananda (1976) and Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Iserwood (1953). However, YS I.24 considers the equation between the words puruṣa and īśvara. There is also a comparison that gives the superior position to Īśvara over the puruṣa. In other words, the puruṣa is the adept; there is a distance caused by devotion. All the verses that use the word īśvara in the YS imply the union of the puruṣa with Īśvara through practice of yoga. This leads to a slightly different understanding of the divinity of Śiva in the AS. Śiva is considered equal to the cetana,²² which also means being intelligent, human being; soul, mind; and awareness, understanding, intelligence.

• 23 The Balinese word ménget is composed of {ma-} “suffix meaning to have” + {inget} “remember,” “havin (...)

16Then, in the AS, Śiva is understood as (Balinese) ménget²³ (having memory or consciousness). Then, it is divided into three categories according to Śaiva point of view of OJ texts: Śivātmā, Sadāśiva, and Paramaśiva. This distinction results from the different qualities of consciousness of Śiva. The lowest hierarchical Śiva is the Śivātmā, having a similar state of consciousness as the puruṣa; the middling consciousness is Sadāśiva or the worshipped Almighty God; and the highest is Paramaśiva or the transcending and pure consciousness. These different qualities result from the influence of the acetana, the unconsciousness. This means that Śiva has a state of transcendence and immanence at once.

• 24 See Sudarshana Devi (1957:38,76).

17This is certainly different from the understanding of Īśvara in the YS, which continuously resides in a transcendent position. At this point, it can be understood that the YS paradigm is Godliness, worship, and an emphasis on the transcendental. In other words, the relationship between the puruṣa and Īśvara in the YS is the bottom-up relationship of theology in one direction. If the SK builds a downward evolution doctrine – without Īśvara – of all manifestations, the YS builds an upward spiritual doctrine. Nevertheless, YS I.24 explains that Īśvara is a special puruṣa, untouched by misery and actions and their results and desires (Vivekananda, 1976:138). This makes His transcending state similar to Paramaśiva. Moreover, it is explained in YS I.27 that the manifestation word for Him is ‘OṀ’ (praṇava) (ibid.: 141). This similar position of Paramaśiva and Īśvara is clearly stated in VT 7-10²⁴ as well as practiced in everyday Hindu prayers in Bali.

• 25 According to the historical investigation by Goodall (2004:xxvi), “Early non-dualist works of the s (...)

19The immanence of Śiva into Śivātmā occurs as the puruṣa is produced by the influence of Māyā. As explained in Schomerus (2000:44; 381), Śaiva doctrine (for instance, monistic Śaiva Siddhānta) in India understands Śiva as Sat, existing as a true reality. According to non-dualistic schools, everything comes from this reality, Śiva. At this level, Śiva is understood in the sense of monism. Moreover, in the theology of monistic Śaiva Siddhānta, God is also Cit (pure intelligence) and Ānanda (joy and the basis for the blessedness of souls) (Schomerus, 2000:48). Thus, the basis of puruṣa is happiness, according to the sense of Śiva as Ānanda. The entity mentioned in the AS after the Śivatattva is the Māyātattva. The discussion about the Māyātattva replaces the term acetana. On the other hand, when examined intertextually, the use of the word māyā is found in early Siddhāntatantras, as Goodall (2004:xxvii; quoting Sanderson, 1992) explains, to mention the material cause (upādāna-kāraṇam), while Śiva is only the efficient cause (nimitta-kāraṇam) of the universe. This conforms to a dualist idea of causality, which was prevalent in “orthodox” Śaiva Siddhānta,²⁵ which has greatly influenced the conceptual relation of Śiva and Māyā.

• 26 Based on Husserl, the object is known due to the intentionality of the subject to it (Blackburn, 20 (...)
• 27 The relation of two things is based on the horizon of both, without subject-object relation, but th (...)

23In the AS, the word prakṛti is not used, but the word pradhāna means the unconsciousness of the Māyā. This meaning tends to be positive and to have a complementary position with the puruṣa. Herein lies the difference between the AS and the two canonical texts of dualism. The puruṣa and the pradhāna are intended to complete each other and form a duality or hermeneutic intersubjectivity. In some parts of the AS, the relationship of puruṣa-pradhāna can turn into pradhāna-puruṣa. When referring to the YS, the prakṛti is the objective entity of knowledge determined by the subject of knowledge, the puruṣa; thus, one is allowed to leave the other after knowledge is discovered. On the contrary, in the AS, the relationship between the two has dialectically made them exist together with reciprocal positioning and mutual understanding of the objective experience. This is in line with the view of Gadamer that knowledge is entirely dialectical (Gadamer, 2004:439). The last sentence of the first paragraph of page 8 confirms the position of both principles in the AS, (Balinese) Nénten wénten punapa punapi iriki ring jagaté sané tan madaging Predana-Purusa, apan mawiwit Predana-Purusa, mawinan sami awaking Predana-Purusa (“There is nothing here in the universe that does not contain Pradhāna-Puruṣa, because all come from Pradhāna-Puruṣa, and all manifest from Pradhāna-Puruṣa”) (Djelantik, 1947:8). This gives a clear understanding of the different position of the YS, which tends to make the puruṣa the subject. However, according to the SK, the prakṛti is positioned as the Husserlian phenomenological object,26 which comes first before the subject. Therefore, the YS never leave the subject-object dichotomy. Nonetheless, in the AS, the relations between the two entities are dialogically built; both are subjects stylistically implied by the use of the Balinese verbs ngwrediang (issuing; developing) and mangelimbakang (spreading) to mention the activities of the puruṣa and the pradhāna. Therefore, it can be understood that the AS develops the Gadamerian intersubjective philosophical discourse,27 whereas the YS remains in the position of subject-object determined by the intentionality of both relationships like the SK.

• 28 In chapter II, the term is not mentioned but categorized according to its activities (vṛtti) as the (...)
• 29 The term “mind” is closely related meaningfully to the term “cogito” or the Cartesian Doubt. In thi (...)

24The dualistic relationship between the puruṣa and the prakṛti of the SK has made what is called in the YS as citta emerge. This reflects the way in which the AS frames the meeting of the puruṣa and the pradhāna. Unlike in the SK, in the YS, the word citta is the key to understanding all the yoga doctrines mentioned in chapter I Samādhi Pāda, chapter III Vibhūti Pāda, and chapter IV Kaivalya Pāda.28 The word citta is often translated as “mind.” Thus, the central point or core of the yoga doctrine in the YS may be in the mind.29

• 30 The adoption of the eight ancillaries of yoga by Djelantik was regarded by Bakker (1993:302, cited (...)

28The term aṣṭāṅgayoga has been interpreted as the eight limbs or, rather, ancillaries of yoga. These eight ancillaries are found in the YS of Patañjali and other later texts of the Indian tradition. The Dharma Pātañjala (DP), the text studied by Acri (2011a:477), devotes almost one-third of its exposition to this type of yoga. Ensink (1974:198 in Acri, 2011a:477) notes that the importance and uniqueness of the DP lie in the fact that it constitutes the only OJ source that expounds the yoga with eight ancillaries (aṣṭāṅga) – characterising the Pātañjala variety of yoga – instead of the yoga of the six ancillaries (ṣaḍaṅga), which characterises a variety of Tantric yoga described in the majority of Śaiva and Buddhist sources from both the Indonesian Archipelago and the Indian Subcontinent.30 Acri (2013:85) states that the most widespread form of yoga in the Javano-Balinese literature, including Tuturs and Tattvas, is the (more or less markedly) Tantric variety of yoga of the six ancillaries (ṣaḍaṅgayoga). Further, Acri (2011a:477-8; 2013:86) states that over time, Patañjali came to be recognised as the ultimate authority on yoga in the mainstream Brahmanic traditions, and even in Śaiva sources (especially in South India). Thus, the YS assumed the contours of the ‘classical’ or ‘orthodox’ formulation of yoga in the Hindu episteme through the centuries. Surely enough, in line with these developments, and in harmony with both the YS and the DP, the aṣṭāṅga variety of yoga is found in the AS.

• 31 See Sudarshana Devi (1957:66;106).
• 32 Adapted from the translation by Sudarshana Devi (1957:106).

29In YS II:28, the aṣṭāṅgayoga is called yogāṅgā. The text explains in advance about viveka, which means (right) discrimination achieved by practicing the eight ancillaries of yoga. Then, the following sūtras explain the ancillaries one by one in detail. It is interesting to compare the yama and the niyama in the YS, the AS, and earlier OJ texts. The VT expounds a similar list of yama and niyama, in śloka 60 and 61.³¹ Moreover, before the verses about the yama and the niyama, it is stated: (OJ) Nahan yaṅ ṣaḍaṅgayoga ṅaranya, pinakajñāna saṅ paṇḍita, mataṅyan kapaṅgih Saṅ Hyaṅ Viśéṣa, ika ta kayogīśvaran maṅkana, ya teka karakṣanriṅ daśaśīla (“These six ancillaries of yoga form the knowledge of the paṇḍita [priest]. That is why one attains viśeṣa. This kind of yogīśvara-hood is to be guarded by the ten virtues [daśaśīla]”)³². This means that the five yama and the five niyama can be added to the ṣaḍanggayoga. Similar to the exposition in the VT, the term daśaśīla is also found in the Vratiśāsana.

• 33 In Monier-Williams (1999:439) tarka is glossed as conjecture; reasoning, speculation, inquiry; phil (...)
• 34 Compare VT 33.4, “tarka means deliberative knowledge” (OJ) tarka ṅaraniṅ jñāna mangūha (Sudarshana (...)
• 35 See Table 2: The Ancillaries of Yoga in Acri (2013:87).

32Unsurprisingly, the term tarka³³ is not mentioned as one of the eight ancillaries of yoga in the AS, since this item is only found in ṣaḍaṅgayoga. In YS I.17, there is an item referred to as vitarka (reasoning), but it does not belong to the aṅgas. Tarka has become one of the aṣṭasiddhi (eight supernatural powers) found in the VT³⁴ – comparable to the term viveka in the SK and YS. Tarka usually features as the fifth aṅga before samādhi in the texts of Śaivism in both Sanskrit and Old Javanese (including VT and TJ).³⁵ According to VT 58, the word tarka or tarkayoga means continually reflecting on Him (God) as ethereal and representing continuity and stability and as a being devoid of sound (Sudarshana Devi, 1957:105). The God reflected in the VT is called Paramārtha (the Highest Truth). This term shows the distinction between the ṣaḍaṅgayoga and the aṣṭāṅgayoga.

• 36 All the explanations are based on Vivekananda (1976:218-219).
• 37 See Djelantik (1947:17).

34An interesting point is the explanation of dhāraṇā,³⁶ dhyāna, and samādhi. In YS III.1, dhāraṇā refers to the mind when it holds on to some object, similarly in the AS, it refers to focusing on a single object, which becomes the true aim. Then, dhyāna refers to keeping the mind in a state of holding onto the object for some time, and to the unification of the mind with its object: like a mixture of freshwater and seawater, its taste becomes salty, as explained in the AS. This may be regarded as the commitment of the author of the AS to the yoga tradition of Pātañjali (as per the YS) rather than to that of OJ texts. In the OJ tradition of yoga, dhāraṇā and dhyāna are not in sequential position, while in the AS the sequence appears exactly as per the YS. Then, dhāraṇā is understood as the state when “Oṅkāra which is the nature of Śiva should be placed in the heart absorbed in tattvas.” Because Oṅkāra is held continuously, hence it is known as dhāraṇā’ (VT 57 translated by Sudharsana Devi, 1957:105). Meanwhile, the understanding of dhyāna is characterized by a peaceful mind state. Herein lies as well the difference between the Śaiva Yoga and the Pātañjala Yoga; the Śaiva consistently suggests Śiva in the manifestation of Oṅkāra (“OṂ,” praṇava) as the object of meditation on dhāraṇā, without continuation on dhyāna, whereas the Pātañjala does not mention any specific object. The AS follows the latter: (Balinese) ring asiki sane mawit tatujon sujati³⁷ (“a single object, which becomes the true aim”).

• 38 The term is related to the Gadamerian hermeneutics that I-lessness is the state when speaking to so (...)

35The adherence of the author of the AS to the tradition of Patañjali is somewhat less apparent in his explanation of the word samādhi: in the YS, the state of samādhi is like unexpressed meaning in any form, whereas in the AS, it is explained as “the state of selflessness (I-lessness)³⁸” (Balinese) tan kantun éling ring rage. Prabhavananda and Iserwood (1953:171) refer to it as absorption. Bernard (1999:190) defines it as the individual who becomes one with the object of meditation. Pott (1966:6) argues that in the state of samādhi, “Human consciousness has gone (śūnya), and one is no longer subject to relativity. It is a condition which cannot be described in words, one of great bliss and transcending any conception of time and place.” It can be concluded that samādhi is the state of the intersubjectivity or interconnectedness of the one who meditates with the meditated, undifferentiated state of subject-object.

• 39 See Bhattacharyya (2008:293) as well as Acri (2011a:483).

36Acri (2013:97) regards samādhi (which he translates as absorption, as per the YS) in the context of the Śaiva yoga expounded in Sanskrit sources as well as in the DP as union with God. Another understanding is expounded in the VT: “Samādhi (concentration) is to think of Him continuously as absolute, unconceptual, without desire, calm, unchanging and without characteristics (Sudharsana Devi, 1957:105).” According to Jñānasiddhānta (JS), samādhi refers to concentration – when the mind is unworried, it has no concepts, it has no possessions, there are no desires in it, it has no objects, and it is clear without obstructions (Soebadio, 1971:187; 213). Even so, the term samādhi is complementarily used to refer to the term yoga.³⁹ In both traditions of yoga, Śaiva and Pātañjala, samādhi is the highest attainment, however, once more, different object of both determines different state of it, between Śiva and unspecified object.

• 40 The word Kapara is derived from prefiks {ka-} + {para} meaning general, all, without mentioning any (...)
• 41 Definitions of the levels and registers of Balinese vary. For instance, the Dinas Pengajaran Daerah (...)

39Related to this eclectic construction, Djelantik had constructed a breakthrough before the issue of state religion in Indonesia was forcing the Balinese people to adhere to one of the religions recognized by the state. As pointed out by Picard (2011:124), the struggle for state recognition firstly took place from 1950, three years after the AS was published, when the Minister of Religion came to Bali for this task. Following those events, Balinese Hinduism finally found the best formulation for recognition. In relation to this, with the publication of the AS, Djelantik had predicted, so to speak, the political pressure of the central government towards the Parisada to universalize the Balinese belief system. Moreover, Djelantik wrote that the AS was compiled using the Bali Kapara,40 which is not actually the lowest level of Balinese, but a kind of “everyday” or “general” Balinese used for both honorific and deprecatory levels of the language (Balinese: munggah tedun).41 Djelantik (1947:1) confirms that the language of the text was chosen in order “to enable the common people to understand more easily” (Balinese) mangda molah katampén antuk sareng katah. This means, on the one hand, that Djelantik had broken the restrictions on the access to the sacred knowledge that the traditional palm-leaf manuscripts (lontar) contained, as asserted by Picard (2011:122). A very common term for this in Bali is ajawéra or haywa werah “do not divulge.” Regarding this restriction, Djelantik tries to be the hermeneutic agent for the renewal of Balinese Hinduism through his eclecticism. As explained by Gadamer (2004:22), the hermeneutic understanding is for the sake of reaching the common sense or sensus communis, and a humanistic idea of fluency.