Reading section 20

5

The architectural monuments of Java are remarkable for their size, their number and their beauty. Geographically they fall into two chief groups, the central (Boroboedoer, Prambanan, Dieng plateau, etc.) in or near the kingdom of Mataram and the eastern (Tjandi Djago, Singasari, Panataran, etc.) lying not at the extremity of the island but chiefly to the south of Soerabaja. No relic of antiquity deserving to be called a monument has been found in western Java for the records left by Pûrnavarman (_c_. 400 A.D.) are merely rocks bearing inscriptions and two footprints, as a sign that the monarch's triumphal progress is compared to the three steps of Vishṇu.

The earliest dated (779 A.D.) monument in mid Java, Tjandi Kalasan, is Buddhist and lies in the plain of Prambanan. It is dedicated to Târâ and is of a type common both in Java and Champa, namely a chapel surmounted by a tower. In connection with it was erected the neighbouring building called Tjandi Sari, a two-storied monastery for Mahayanist monks. Not far distant is Tjandi Sevu, which superficially resembles the 450 Pagodas of Mandalay, for it consists of a central cruciform shrine surrounded by about 240 smaller separate chapels, everyone of which, apparently, contained the statue of a Dhyâni Buddha. Other Buddhist buildings in the same region are Tjandi Plaosan, and the beautiful chapel known as Tjandi Mendut in which are gigantic seated images of the Buddha, Manjuśrî and Avalokita. The face of the last named is perhaps the most exquisite piece of work ever wrought by the chisel of a Buddhist artist.

It is not far from Mendut to Boroboedoer, which deserves to be included in any list of the wonders of the world. This celebrated stûpa--for in essence it is a highly ornamented stûpa with galleries of sculpture rising one above the other on its sides--has been often described and can be described intelligibly only at considerable length. I will therefore not attempt to detail or criticize its beauties but will merely state some points which are important for our purpose.

It is generally agreed that it must have been built about 850 A.D., but obviously the construction lasted a considerable time and there are indications that the architects altered their original plan. The unknown founder must have been a powerful and prosperous king for no one else could have commanded the necessary labour. The stûpa shows no sign of Brahmanic influence. It is purely Buddhist and built for purposes of edification. The worshippers performed pradakshiṇâ by walking round the galleries, one after the other, and as they did so had an opportunity of inspecting some 2000 reliefs depicting the previous births of Śakyamuni, his life on earth and finally the mysteries of Mahayanist theology. As in Indian pilgrim cities, temple guides were probably ready to explain the pictures.

The selection of reliefs is not due to the artists' fancy but aims at illustrating certain works. Thus the scenes of the Buddha's life reproduce in stone the story of the Lalita Vistara[410] and the Jâtaka pictures are based on the Divyâvadâna. It is interesting to find that both these works are connected with the school of the Mûlasarvâstivâdins, which according to I-Ching was the form of Buddhism prevalent in the archipelago. In the third gallery the figure of Maitreya is prominent and often seems to be explaining something to a personage who accompanies him. As Maitreya is said to have revealed five important scriptures to Asaṇga, and as there is a tradition that the east of Asia was evangelized by the disciples of Asaṇga or Vasubandhu, it is possible that the delivery and progress of Maitreya's revelation is here depicted. The fourth gallery seems to deal with the five superhuman Buddhas[411], their paradises and other supra-mundane matters, but the key to this series of sculptures has not yet been found. It is probable that the highest storey proved to be too heavy in its original form and that the central dagoba had to be reduced lest it should break the substructure. But it is not known what image or relic was preserved in this dagoba. Possibly it was dedicated to Vairocana who was regarded as the Supreme Being and All-God by some Javanese Buddhists[412].

The creed here depicted in stone seems to be a form of Mahayanism. Śâkyamuni is abundantly honoured but there is no representation of his death. This may be because the Lalita Vistara treats only of his early career, but still the omission is noteworthy. In spite of the importance of Śâkyamuni, a considerable if mysterious part is played by the five superhuman Buddhas, and several Bodhisattvas, especially Maitreya, Avalokita and Manjuśrî. In the celestial scenes we find numerous Bodhisattvas both male and female, yet the figures are hardly Tantric and there is no sign that any of the personages are Brahmanic deities.

Yet the region was not wholly Buddhist. Not far from Boroboedoer and apparently of about the same age is the Sivaite temple of Banon, and the great temple group of Prambanam is close to Kalasan and to the other Buddhist shrines mentioned above. It consists of eight temples of which four are dedicated to Brahmâ, Śiva, Vishṇu and Nandi respectively, the purpose of the others being uncertain. The largest and most decorated is that dedicated to Śiva, containing four shrines in which are images of the god as Mahâdeva and as Guru, of Ganeśa and of Durgâ. The balustrade is ornamented with a series of reliefs illustrating the Ramayana. These temples, which appear to be entirely Brahmanic, approach in style the architecture of eastern Java and probably date from the tenth century, that is about a century later than the Buddhist monuments. But there is no tradition or other evidence of a religious revolution.

The temples on the Dieng plateau are also purely Brahmanic and probably older, for though we have no record of their foundation, an inscribed stone dated 800 A.D. has been found in this district. The plateau which is 6500 feet high was approached by paved roads or flights of stairs on one of which about 4000 steps still remain. Originally there seem to have been about 40 buildings on the plateau but of these only eight now exist besides several stone foundations which supported wooden structures. The place may have been a temple city analogous to Girnar or Śatrunjaya, but it appears to have been deserted in the thirteenth century, perhaps in consequence of volcanic activity. The Dieng temples are named after the heroes of the Mahabharata (Tjandi Ardjuno, Tjandi Bimo, etc.), but these appear to be late designations. They are rectangular towerlike shrines with porches and a single cellule within. Figures of Brahma, Śiva and Vishṇu have been discovered, as well as spouts to carry off the libation water.

Before leaving mid Java I should perhaps mention the relatively modern (1435-1440 A.D.) temples of Suku. I have not seen these buildings, but they are said to be coarse in execution and to indicate that they were used by a debased sect of Vishṇuites. Their interest lies in the extraordinary resemblance which they bear to the temples of Mexico and Yucatan, a resemblance "which no one can fail to observe, though no one has yet suggested any hypothesis to account for it[413]."

The best known and probably the most important monuments of eastern Java are Panataran, Tjandi Djago and Tjandi Singasari[414].

The first is considered to date from about 1150 A.D. It is practically a three-storied pyramid with a flat top. The sides of the lowest storey are ornamented with a series of reliefs illustrating portions of the Ramayana, local legends and perhaps the exploits of Krishna, but this last point is doubtful[415]. This temple seems to indicate the same stage of belief as Prambanam. It shows no trace of Buddhism and though Śiva was probably the principal deity, the scenes represented in its sculptures are chiefly Vishṇuite.

Tjandi Djago is in the province of Pasoeroean. According to the Pararaton and the Nâgarakrĕtâgama[416], Vishṇuvardhana, king of Toemapĕl, was buried there. As he died in 1272 or 1273 A.D. and the temple was already in existence, we may infer that it dates from at least 1250. He was represented there in the form of Sugata (that is the Buddha) and at Waleri in the form of Śiva. Here we have the custom known also in Champa and Camboja of a deceased king being represented by a statue with his own features but the attributes of his tutelary deity. It is strange that a king named after Vishṇu should be portrayed in the guise of Śiva and Buddha. But in spite of this impartiality, the cult practised at Tjandi Djago seems to have been not a mixture but Buddhism of a late Mahayanist type. It was doubtless held that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are identical with Brahmanic deities, but the fairly numerous pantheon discovered in or near the ruins consists of superhuman Buddhas and Bodhisattvas with their spouses[417].

In form Tjandi Djago has somewhat the appearance of a three-storied pyramid but the steps leading up to the top platform are at one end only and the shrine instead of standing in the centre of the platform is at the end opposite to the stairs. The figures in the reliefs are curiously square and clumsy and recall those of Central America.

Tjandi Singasari, also in the province of Pasoeroean, is of a different form. It is erected on a single low platform and consists of a plain rectangular building surmounted by five towers such as are also found in Cambojan temples. There is every reason to believe that it was erected in 1278 A.D. in the reign of Krĕtanâgara, the last king of Toemapĕl, and that it is the temple known as Śiva-buddhâlaya in which he was commemorated under the name of Śiva-buddha. An inscription found close by relates that in 1351 A.D. a shrine was erected on behalf of the royal family in memory of those who died with the king[418].

The Nâgarakrĕtagama represents this king as a devout Buddhist but his very title Śivabuddha shows how completely Sivaism and Buddhism were fused in his religion. The same work mentions a temple in which the lower storey was dedicated to Śiva and the upper to Akshobhya: it also leads us to suppose that the king was honoured as an incarnation of Akshobhya even during his life and was consecrated as a Jina under the name of Śrîjnânabajreśvara[419]. The Singasari temple is less ornamented with reliefs than the others described but has furnished numerous statues of excellent workmanship which illustrate the fusion of the Buddhist and Sivaite pantheons. On the one side we have Prajnâpâramitâ, Manjuśrî and Târâ, on the other Ganeśa, the Linga, Śiva in various forms (Guru, Nandîsvara, Mahâkâla, etc.), Durgâ and Brahmâ. Not only is the Sivaite element predominant but the Buddhist figures are concerned less with the veneration of the Buddha than with accessory mythology.

Javanese architecture and sculpture are no doubt derived from India, but the imported style, whatever it may have been, was modified by local influences and it seems impossible at present to determine whether its origin should be sought on the eastern or western side of India. The theory that the temples on the Dieng plateau are Chalukyan buildings appears to be abandoned but they and many others in Java show a striking resemblance to the shrines found in Champa. Javanese architecture is remarkable for the complete absence not only of radiating arches but of pillars, and consequently of large halls. This feature is no doubt due to the ever present danger of earthquakes. Many reliefs, particularly those of Panataran, show the influence of a style which is not Indian and may be termed, though not very correctly, Polynesian. The great merit of Javanese sculpture lies in the refinement and beauty of the faces. Among figures executed in India it would be hard to find anything equal in purity and delicacy to the Avalokita of Mendut, the Manjuśri now in the Berlin Museum or the Prajñâpâramitâ now at Leyden.

6

From the eleventh century until the end of the Hindu period Java can show a considerable body of literature, which is in part theological. It is unfortunate that no books dating from an earlier epoch should be extant. The sculptures of Prambanam and Boroboedoer clearly presuppose an acquaintance with the Ramayana, the Lalita Vistara and other Buddhist works but, as in Camboja, this literature was probably known only in the original Sanskrit and only to the learned. But it is not unlikely that the Javanese adaptations of the Indian epics which have come down to us were preceded by earlier attempts which have disappeared.

The old literary language of Java is commonly known as Båså Kawi or Kawi, that is the language of poetry[420]. It is however simply the predecessor of modern Javanese and many authorities prefer to describe the language of the island as Old Javanese before the Madjapahit period, Middle-Javanese during that period and New Javanese after the fall of Madjapahit. The greater part of this literature consists of free versions of Sanskrit works or of a substratum in Sanskrit accompanied by a Javanese explanation. Only a few Javanese works are original, that is to say not obviously inspired by an Indian prototype, but on the other hand nearly all of them handle their materials with freedom and adapt rather than translate what they borrow.

One of the earliest works preserved appears to be the Tantoe Panggĕlaran, a treatise on cosmology in which Indian and native ideas are combined. It is supposed to have been written about 1000 A.D. Before the foundation of Madjapahit Javanese literature flourished especially in the reigns of Erlangga and Djajabaja, that is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries respectively. About the time of Erlangga were produced the old prose version of the Mahabharata, in which certain episodes of that poem are rendered with great freedom and the poem called Arjuna-vivâha, or the marriage of Arjuna.

The Bhâratayuddha[421], which states that it was composed by Mpoe Sedah in 1157 by order of Djajabaja, prince of Kediri, is, even more than the prose version mentioned above, a free rendering of parts of the Mahabharata. It is perhaps based on an older translation preserved in Bali[422]. The Kawi Ramayana was in the opinion of Kern composed about 1200 A.D. It follows in essentials the story of the Ramayana, but it was apparently composed by a poet unacquainted with Sanskrit who drew his knowledge from some native source now unknown[423]. He appears to have been a Sivaite. To the eleventh century are also referred the Smaradahana and the treatise on prosody called Vrittasañcaya. All this literature is based upon classical Sanskrit models and is not distinctly Buddhist although the prose version of the Mahabharata states that it was written for Brahmans, Sivaites and Buddhists[424]. Many other translations or adaptations of Sanskrit work are mentioned, such as the Nîtiśâstra, the Sârasamuccaya, the Tantri (in several editions), a prose translation of the Brahmândapurâṇa, together with grammars and dictionaries. The absence of dates makes it difficult to use these works for the history of Javanese thought. But it seems clear that during the Madjapahit epoch, or perhaps even before it, a strong current of Buddhism permeated Javanese literature, somewhat in contrast with the tone of the works hitherto cited. Brandes states that the Sutasoma, Vighnotsava, Kuñjarakarna, Sang Hyang Kamahâyânikan, and Buddhapamutus are purely Buddhist works and that the Tjantakaparva, Arjunavijaya, Nâgarakrĕtagama, Wariga and Bubukshah show striking traces of Buddhism[425]. Some of these works are inaccessible to me but two of them deserve examination, the Sang Hyang Kamahâyânikan[426] and the story of Kuñjarakarṇa[427]. The first is tentatively assigned to the Madjapahit epoch or earlier, the second with the same caution to the eleventh century. I do not presume to criticize these dates which depend partly on linguistic considerations. The Kamahâyânikan is a treatise (or perhaps extracts from treatises) on Mahayanism as understood in Java and presumably on the normal form of Mahayanism. The other work is an edifying legend including an exposition of the faith by no one less than the Buddha Vairocana. In essentials it agrees with the Kamahâyânikan but in details it shows either sectarian influence or the idiosyncrasies of the author.

The Kamahâyânikan consists of Sanskrit verses explained by a commentary in old Javanese and is partly in the form of questions and answers. The only authority whom it cites is Dignâga. It professes to teach the Mahâyâna and Mantrâyana, which is apparently a misspelling for Mantrayâna. The emphasis laid on Bajra (that is vajra or dorje), ghantâ, mudrâ, maṇḍala, mystic syllables, and Devîs marks it as an offshoot of Tantrism and it offers many parallels to Nepalese literature. On the other hand it is curious that it uses the form Nibâṇa not Nirvâṇa[428]. Its object is to teach a neophyte, who has to receive initiation, how to become a Buddha[429]. In the second part the pupil is addressed as Jinaputra, that is son of the Buddha or one of the household of faith. He is to be moderate but not ascetic in food and clothing: he is not to cleave to the Purâṇas and Tantras but to practise the Pâramitâs. These are defined first as six[430] and then four others are added[431]. Under Prajñâpâramitâ is given a somewhat obscure account of the doctrine of Śûnyatâ. Then follows the exposition of Paramaguhya (the highest secret) and Mahâguhya (the great secret). The latter is defined as being Yoga, the bhâvanâs, the four noble truths and the ten pâramitâs. The former explains the embodiment of Bhaṭâra Viśesha, that is to say the way in which Buddhas, gods and the world of phenomena are evolved from a primordial principle, called Advaya and apparently equivalent to the Nepalese Adibuddha[432]. Advaya is the father of Buddha and Advayajñâna, also called Bharâlî Prajñâpâramitâ, is his mother, but the Buddha principle at this stage is also called Divarûpa. In the next stage this Divarûpa takes form as Śâkyamuni, who is regarded as a superhuman form of Buddhahood rather than as a human teacher, for he produces from his right and left side respectively Lokeśvara and Bajrapâni. These beings produce, the first Akshobhya and Ratnasambhava, the second Amitâbha and Amoghasiddhi, but Vairocana springs directly from the face of Śâkyamuni. The five superhuman Buddhas are thus accounted for. From Vairocana spring Iśvara (Śiva), Brahmâ, and Vishṇu: from them the elements, the human body and the whole world. A considerable part of the treatise is occupied with connecting these various emanations of the Advaya with mystic syllables and in showing how the five Buddhas correspond to the different skandas, elements, senses, etc. Finally we are told that there are five Devîs, or female counterparts corresponding in the same order to the Buddhas named above and called Locanâ, Mâmakî, Pâṇḍaravâsinî, Târâ and Dhâtvîśvarî. But it is declared that the first and last of these are the same and therefore there are really only four Devîs.

The legend of Kuñjarakarṇa relates how a devout Yaksha of that name went to Bodhicitta[433] and asked of Vairocana instruction in the holy law and more especially as to the mysteries of rebirth. Vairocana did not refuse but bade his would-be pupil first visit the realms of Yama, god of the dead. Kuñjarakarṇa did so, saw the punishments of the underworld, including the torments prepared for a friend of his, whom he was able to warn on his return. Yama gave him some explanations respecting the alternation of life and death and he was subsequently privileged to receive a brief but more general exposition of doctrine from Vairocana himself.

This doctrine is essentially a variety of Indian pantheism but peculiar in its terminology inasmuch as Vairocana, like Kṛishṇa in the Bhagavad-gîtâ, proclaims himself to be the All-God and not merely the chief of the five Buddhas. He quotes with approval the saying "you are I: I am you" and affirms the identity of Buddhism and Śivaism. Among the monks[434] there are no _muktas_ (_i.e._ none who have attained liberation) because they all consider as two what is really one. "The Buddhists say, we are Bauddhas, for the Lord Buddha is our highest deity: we are not the same as the Śivaites, for the Lord Śiva is for them the highest deity." The Śivaites are represented as saying that the five Kuśikas are a development or incarnations of the five Buddhas. "Well, my son" is the conclusion, "These are all one: we are Śiva, we are Buddha."

In this curious exposition the author seems to imply that his doctrine is different from that of ordinary Buddhists, and to reprimand them more decidedly than Śivaites. He several times uses the phrase _Namo Bhaṭâra, namaḥ Śivâya_ (Hail, Lord: hail to Śiva) yet he can hardly be said to favour the Śivaites on the whole, for his All-God is Vairocana who once (but only once) receives the title of Buddha. The doctrine attributed to the Śivaites that the five Kusikas are identical with the superhuman Buddhas remains obscure[435]. These five personages are said to be often mentioned in old Javanese literature but to be variously enumerated[436]. They are identified with the five Indras, but these again are said to be the five senses (indriyas). Hence we can find a parallel to this doctrine in the teaching of the Kamahâyânikan that the five Buddhas correspond to the five senses.

Two other special theses are enounced in the story of Kuñjarakarṇa. The first is Vairocana's analysis of a human being, which makes it consist of five Atmans or souls, called respectively Atman, Cetanâtman, Parâtman, Nirâtman and Antarâtman, which somehow correspond to the five elements, five senses and five Skandhas. The singular list suggests that the author was imperfectly acquainted with the meaning of the Sanskrit words employed and the whole terminology is strange in a Buddhist writer. Still in the later Upanishads[437] the epithet pancâtmaka is applied to the human body, especially in the Garbha Upanishad which, like the passage here under consideration, gives a psychophysiological explanation of the development of an embryo into a human being.

The second thesis is put in the mouth of Yama. He states that when a being has finished his term in purgatory he returns to life in this world first as a worm or insect, then successively as a higher animal and a human being, first diseased or maimed and finally perfect. No parallel has yet been quoted to this account of metempsychosis.

Thus the Kuñjarakarṇa contains peculiar views which are probably sectarian or individual. On the other hand their apparent singularity may be due to our small knowledge of old Javanese literature. Though other writings are not known to extol Vairocana as being Śiva and Buddha in one, yet they have no scruple in identifying Buddhist and Brahmanic deities or connecting them by some system of emanations, as we have already seen in the Kamahâyânikan. Such an identity is still more definitely proclaimed in the old Javanese version of the Sutasoma Jâtaka[438]. It is called Purushâda-Śânta and was composed by Tantular who lived at Madjapahit in the reign of Râjasanagara (1350-1389 A.D.). In the Indian original Sutasoma is one of the previous births of Gotama. But the Javanese writer describes him as an Avatâra of the Buddha who is Brahmâ, Vishṇu and Iśvara, and he states that "The Lord Buddha is not different from Śiva the king of the gods.... They are distinct and they are one. In the Law is no dualism." The superhuman Buddhas are identified with various Hindu gods and also with the five senses. Thus Amitâbha is Mahâdeva and Amoghasiddhi is Vishṇu. This is only a slight variation of the teaching in the Kamahâyânikan. There Brahmanic deities emanate from Śâkyamuni through various Bodhisattvas and Buddhas: here the Buddha spirit is regarded as equivalent to the Hindu Trimûrti and the various aspects of this spirit can be described in either Brahmanic or Buddhistic terminology though in reality all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and gods are one. But like the other authors quoted, Tantular appears to lean to the Buddhist side of these equations, especially for didactic purposes. For instance he says that meditation should be guided "by Lokeśvara's word and Śâkyamuni's spirit."