Barabudur, Mendut and Pawon and Their Mutual Relationship
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Barabudur, Mendut and Pawon and their mutual relationship By J. L. MOENS Mark Long, translator English-language translation © 2007 www.borobudur.tv1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 2 SECTION II: THE NAME BARABUDUR 8 SECTION III: THE FORM OF BARABUDUR 17 SECTION IV: THE BUDDHISM OF BARABUDUR 27 a. The Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan 27 b. The main image. 32 c. Ashrayaparavrtti. 35 d. Transcendental preachings. 39 e. The Nisyanda-Buddha. 47 f. Resumé (Summary) 57 SECTION V: THE STUPA-TYPE 58 SECTION VI: THE MAIN IMAGES OF MENDUT AND PAWON AND THE DYNASTIC RITUAL 64 a. The Sun Path. 66 b. The reincarnation ritual. 68 c. The consecration ritual. 73 SECTION VII: THE BUDDHISM OF MENDUT, BANON AND PAWON 79 a. The mandala of Shingon-Buddhism 79 Schematic representation of the Vajra- and Garbhadhatu-mandalas 84 b. Tjandi Mendut 88 c. Tjandi Banon. 96 Tabular overview of the pantheon of Shingon-Buddhism, the Siddhanta-Shaivism and the Buddhism of Mendut with Banon 99 1 I would like to extend a special thanks to Roy Jordaan for playing an instrumental role in bringing this project to fruition. Now readers without any Dutch-language capabilities can finally explore the depths of Moens’ original if controversial theories concerning some of Southeast Asia’s more stunning architectural achievements. I would also be grateful for any suggestion to further improve the translation of the text, particularly in view of the complicated subject and the deep but regrettably not always clearly expounded views of Moens. In particular, any assistance from a native French-language speaker in translating the quotations from Paul Mus citied herein would be most welcome! The words that appear in (round brackets) are those of the author, while the words that appears in [square brackets] are my own clarifications. 1 d. Tjandi Pawon 10 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 INDEX 105 Section I: Introduction “La qualitié de Buddha à tendu a se trouver spécifiquement conçue comme une charge royale, transmise dans un espirt de sucession dynastique....”2 That the temple triad of Barabudur, Mendut and Pawon dates from the period of the Shailendra dynasty, which in close cooperation with the kings of the Sanjaya dynasty dominated Central Java for nearly two centuries, is no longer liable to doubt since the explorations of Van Erp and Krom. In his extensive Barabudur-monograph, Van Erp called the three temples “...a triad that according to (their) architecture and ornamentation derive from the same time period.” This observation of course concerns the style of the temples as we are familiar with today, that is to say following the renovations and extensions which must have been executed by the end of the ninth century when Shailendra hegemony in Java came to an end. From the fragment of the Buddhist declaration of faith found above the entrance-doorway of Mendut, Krom established that the Old Javanese script used was identical to the notes inscribed on the now-covered, unfinished (Karmavibhanga) reliefs at the foot of Barabudur.3 He dates this script on paleographic grounds to the second half of the 8th century of our era.4 Furthermore, that a ritual relationship must have existed between the three temples — which must have formed a sacred unity — seems obvious, but just which ritual had formed the tie that bound them together is [yet] unknown. 2 Paul Mus, Barabudur p. 426. Hanoi, 1935. 3 Serial: De Weg Menschheid no. 9, p. 34. 4 Inleiding tot de Hindoe-Javaansche Kunst (Introduction to Hindu-Javanese Art) I, p. 335, second edition, 1923. 2 However, the search for this (ritual) does not seem impossible because the temples, which largely have remained preserved, as Mus did so aptly express: “en même temps que le cadre d’un rite, ainsi dire sa tracé matérielle, son sillage.”5 In general it can be said that under the system of Mahayana Buddhism the religious merit of the royal zealot did increase to a great extent from the building of a stupa. Indeed for every spectator the sacred construction work would be an incentive to join the creed while it would help the initiate in his meditations aiming at the attainment of the Bodhi. Furthermore, the “accumulation of religious merit” which the monarch earned through the construction of a magnificent temple would also benefit his realm — “the thriving State of the Shailendras” as it is designated in the inscriptions of the period. Obviously, the magnitude of such a “punya-sambhara” was in proportion to that of the construction work or of the renovations and extensions of an existing temple. This explains the additions or extensions at Barabudur and Mendut by successive Shailendra rulers, possibly without exception, which have come to light during restoration activities at those temples. That such building renovations — which, only as an exception, had reasons of a technical nature as their source — gradually altered their ritual intentions at the same time, seems obvious. Thus presumably the said triad owes its existence as a sacred unity thanks to the circumstance that in the process of its enlargement and embellishment Barabudur — originally a modest stupa sanctuary on the mount [= hillock] — gradually was given the character of a dynastic temple. For the sake of a grand ritual to secure dynastic continuity — a magical ritual that would have included Mendut’s pre-eminently favorable location — the need would have been felt for adding a third temple to the pair. This temple, Pawon, was, according to Van Erp, both “in ground plan and profiling a reduced copy in many respects”6 of Mendut. The new temple was also situated close to the confluence of two large rivers (the Elo and Progo), a locality that is considered sacred in classical (also in the Central Javanese) literature since “the sacred nature of each river is doubled by means of contact with the other.”7 Our intention is to analyze the dynastic ritual by means of the data that this temple triad yields. On these grounds it will become apparent that this triad of buildings is complete in itself and that one does not need to assume as Poerbatjaraka8 and Stutterheim9 did that the three of them only formed the 5 Paul Mus, Barabudur, p. 233. Hanoi, 1935. 6 Tijdschrift Voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (T.B.G.) 1909, p. 489. 7 E. Washburn Hopkins, Epic Mythology, pp. 4 and 5, Strassberg, 1915; (reprint by Indological Book House, Delhi, 1968). Near the confluence of the Yamuna and Ganges rivers, for instance, Bharadvaja had his famous hermitage built. 8 Bijdragen Koninklijk Instituut, p. 523 and following pages, 1925. 3 eastern arm of an unfinished Greek cross consisting of nine temples, with Barabudur as the central sanctuary.10 Van Erp also opposes this particular hypothesis.11 Moreover, the execution of such a construction plan runs up against insuperable obstacles of terrain. The connection that Stutterheim discerned between Mendut and Barabudur seems incorrect to me.12 He thought the Buddha of Mendut to be the central figure of the Mendut-Pawon-Barabudur triad. The said Buddha is “seated in the preaching attitude representing the moment when the earthly Buddha was in the Deer Park to publicly preach the Doctrine for the very first time” (Tjandi Bara- Boedoer; naam, vorm, beteekenis, p. 18). “The termination of the (Barabudur Lalitavistara-) reliefs ... at the exact moment in which he is portrayed at Mendut, reinforces the relationship of both monuments” (Tjandi Bara-Boedoer; naam, vorm, beteekenis, p. 60). Stutterheim presumably has been mislead, as I was myself13, by the symbol of Shakyamuni’s preaching ― the Wheel of the Doctrine between two gazelles — that, as it later appeared, was wrongfully placed on the throne of the Buddha during the temple’s restoration. There the Buddha displays the dharmachakra-mudra, whereas in the Lalitavistara relief (portraying the Deer Park sermon) the Shakyamuni was granted the vitarka-mudra. Would not the two representations of the Buddha at least have been accorded the same mudra, if the link which Stutterheim tried to establish was really intended?14 The most important argument for the coherence of Barabudur, Mendut and Pawon in my view is the fact — which Van Erp discovered by chance — that the 9 W.F. Stutterheim, Tjandi Bara-Boedoer: naam, vorm, beteekenis, p. 5. G. Kolff & Co., 1929. (An English-language translation is included in Studies in Indonesian Archaeology, The Hague. Martinus Nijhoff. 1956.) 10 As Mendut (east) unmistakably represents the temple of the Dharmachakra- prattana — we will see later that this is not the case — the three others would, in Poerbatjaraka’s opinion, have represented respectively: the temples of the Buddha’s nirvana (south), the Abhisambodhi (north) and birth (west). Pawon is considered by him as a sort of front temple for Barabudur, on the basis of the “explanatory text” of the Divyavadana used by him (Bijdragen Koninklijk Instituut 81. p. 535-6). 11 T. Van Erp, Beschrijving van Barabudur. II: Bouwkundige beschrijving, p. 18, ’s- Gravenhage, 1920. 12 W.F. Stutterheim, Tjandi Bara-Boedoer; naam, vorm, beteekenis, p. 18 and note 10 on p. 60. Paul Mus also does the same (Barabudur, p. 51, Hanoi, 1935). “On n’ignore pas que le temple the Mendut, où trône une image de la Première Prédication, est lié au Barabudur par quelque relation secrète. 13 J.L. Moens, Tjandi Mendoet, p. 569. Tijdschrift Voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (T.B.G.) 1921. 14 Paul Mus (Barabudur, p. 163, Hanoi, 1935) also holds that the Buddha of the Mendut “sans doute” represents Shakyamuni in Benares, because he displays the dharmachakra-mudra,