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."