7
Thus it will be seen that if we take Javanese epigraphy, monuments and literature together with Chinese notices, they to some extent confirm one another and enable us to form an outline picture, though with many gaps, of the history of thought and religion in the island. Fa-Hsien tells us that in 418 A.D. Brahmanism flourished (as is testified by the inscriptions of Pûrṇavarman) but that the Buddhists were not worth mentioning. Immediately afterwards, probably in 423, Guṇavarman is said to have converted Shê-po, if that be Java, to Buddhism, and as he came from Kashmir he was probably a Sarvâstivâdin. Other monks are mentioned as having visited the southern seas[439]. About 690 I-Ching says that Buddhism of the Mûlasarvâstivâdin school was flourishing in Sumatra, which he visited, and in the other islands of the Archipelago. The remarkable series of Buddhist monuments in mid Java extending from about 779 to 900 A.D. confirms his statement. But two questions arise. Firstly, is there any explanation of this sudden efflorescence of Buddhism in the Archipelago, and next, what was its doctrinal character? If, as Târanâtha says, the disciples of Vasubandhu evangelized the countries of the East, their influence might well have been productive about the time of I-Ching's visit. But in any case during the sixth and seventh centuries religious travellers must have been continually journeying between India and China, in both directions, and some of them must have landed in the Archipelago. At the beginning of the sixth century Buddhism was not yet decadent in India and was all the fashion in China. It is not therefore surprising if it was planted in the islands lying on the route. It may be, as indicated above, that some specially powerful body of Hindus coming from the region of Gujarat and professing Buddhism founded in Java a new state.
As to the character of this early Javanese Buddhism we have the testimony of I-Ching that it was of the Mûlasarvâstivâdin school and Hinayanist. He wrote of what he had seen in Sumatra but of what he knew only by hearsay in Java and his statement offers some difficulties. Probably Hinayanism was introduced by Guṇavarman but was superseded by other teachings which were imported from time to time after they had won for themselves a position in India. For the temple of Kalasan (A.D. 779) is dedicated to Târâ and the inscription found there speaks of the Mahayana with veneration. The later Buddhism of Java has literary records which, so far as I know, are unreservedly Mahayanist but probably the sculptures of Boroboedoer are the most definite expression which we shall ever have of its earlier phases. Since they contain images of the five superhuman Buddhas and of numerous Bodhisattvas, they can hardly be called anything but Mahayanist. But on the other hand the personality of Śâkyamuni is emphasized; his life and previous births are pictured in a long series of sculptures and Maitreya is duly honoured. Similar collections of pictures and images may be seen in Burma which differ doctrinally from those in Java chiefly by substituting the four human Buddhas[440] and Maitreya for the superhuman Buddhas. But Mahayanist teaching declares that these human Buddhas are reflexes of counterparts of the superhuman Buddhas so that the difference is not great.
Mahayanist Buddhism in Camboja and at a later period in Java itself was inextricably combined with Hinduism, Buddha being either directly identified with Śiva or regarded as the primordial spirit from which Śiva and all gods spring. But the sculptures of Boroboedoer do not indicate that the artists knew of any such amalgamation nor have inscriptions been found there, as in Camboja, which explain this compound theology. It would seem that Buddhism and Brahmanism co-existed in the same districts but had not yet begun to fuse doctrinally. The same condition seems to have prevailed in western India during the seventh and eighth centuries, for the Buddhist caves of Ellora, though situated in the neighbourhood of Brahmanic buildings and approximating to them in style, contain sculptures which indicate a purely Buddhist cultus and not a mixed pantheon.
Our meagre knowledge of Javanese history makes it difficult to estimate the spheres and relative strength of the two religions. In the plains the Buddhist monuments are more numerous and also more ancient and we might suppose that the temples of Prambanan indicate the beginning of some change in belief. But the temples on the Dieng plateau seem to be of about the same age as the oldest Buddhist monuments. Thus nothing refutes the supposition that Brahmanism existed in Java from the time of the first Hindu colonists and that Buddhism was introduced after 400 A.D. It may be that Boroboedoer and the Dieng plateau represent the religious centres of two different kingdoms. But this supposition is not necessary for in India, whence the Javanese received their ideas, groups of temples are found of the same age but belonging to different sects. Thus in the Khajraho group[441] some shrines are Jain and of the rest some are dedicated to Śiva and some to Vishṇu.
The earliest records of Javanese Brahmanism, the inscriptions of Pûrnavarman, are Vishnuite but the Brahmanism which prevailed in the eighth and ninth centuries was in the main Śivaite, though not of a strongly sectarian type. Brahmâ, Vishṇu and Śiva were all worshipped both at Prambanan and on the Dieng but Śiva together with Ganeśa, Durgâ, and Nandi is evidently the chief deity. An image of Śiva in the form of Bhaṭâra Guru or Mahâguru is installed in one of the shrines at Prambanan. This deity is characteristic of Javanese Hinduism and apparently peculiar to it. He is represented as an elderly bearded man wearing a richly ornamented costume. There is something in the pose and drapery which recalls Chinese art and I think the figure is due to Chinese influence, for at the present day many of the images found in the temples of Bali are clearly imitated from Chinese models (or perhaps made by Chinese artists) and this may have happened in earlier times. The Chinese annals record several instances of religious objects being presented by the Emperors to Javanese princes. Though Bhaṭâra Guru is only an aspect of Śiva he is a sufficiently distinct personality to have a shrine of his own like Ganeśa and Durgâ, in temples where the principal image of Śiva is of another kind.
The same type of Brahmanism lasted at least until the erection of Panataran (c. 1150). The temple appears to have been dedicated to Śiva but like Prambanan it is ornamented with scenes from the Ramayana and from Vishnuite Purânas[442]. The literature which can be definitely assigned to the reigns of Djajabaja and Erlangga is Brahmanic in tone but both literature and monuments indicate that somewhat later there was a revival of Buddhism. Something similar appears to have happened in other countries. In Camboja the inscriptions of Jayavarman VII (c. 1185 A.D.) are more definitely Buddhist than those of his predecessors and in 1296 Chou Ta-kuan regarded the country as mainly Buddhist. Parakrama Bahu of Ceylon (1153-1186) was zealous for the faith and so were several kings of Siam. I am inclined to think that this movement was a consequence of the flourishing condition of Buddhism at Pagan in Burma from 1050 to 1250. Pagan certainly stimulated religion in both Siam and Ceylon and Siam reacted strongly on Camboja[443]. It is true that the later Buddhism of Java was by no means of the Siamese type, but probably the idea was current that the great kings of the world were pious Buddhists and consequently in most countries the local form of Buddhism, whatever it was, began to be held in esteem. Java had constant communication with Camboja and Champa and a king of Madjapahit married a princess of the latter country. It is also possible that a direct stimulus may have been received from India, for the statement of Târanâtha[444] that when Bihar was sacked by the Mohammedans the Buddhist teachers fled to other regions and that some of them went to Camboja is not improbable.
But though the prestige of Buddhism increased in the thirteenth century, no rupture with Brahmanism took place and Pali Buddhism does not appear to have entered Java. The unity of the two religions is proclaimed: Buddha and Siva are one. But the Kamahâyânikan while admitting the Trimûrti makes it a derivative, and not even a primary derivative, of the original Buddha spirit. It has been stated that the religion of Java in the Madjapahit epoch was Sivaism with a little Buddhism thrown in, on the understanding that it was merely another method of formulating the same doctrine. It is very likely that the bulk of the population worshipped Hindu deities, for they are the gods of this world and dispense its good things. Yet the natives still speak of the old religion as Buddhâgama; the old times are "Buddha times" and even the flights of stairs leading up to the Dieng plateau are called Buddha steps. This would hardly be so if in the Madjapahit epoch Buddha had not seemed to be the most striking figure in the non-Mohammedan religion. Also, the majority of religious works which have survived from this period are Buddhist. It is true that we have the Ramayana, the Bhârata Yuddha and many other specimens of Brahmanic literature. But these, especially in their Javanese dress, are belles lettres rather than theology, whereas Kamahâyânikan and Kuñjarakarna are dogmatic treatises. Hence it would appear that the religious life of Madjapahit was rooted in Buddhism, but a most tolerant Buddhism which had no desire to repudiate Brahmanism.
I have already briefly analysed the Sang Hyang Kamahâyânikan which seems to be the most authoritative exposition of this creed. The learned editor has collected many parallels from Tibetan and Nepalese works and similar parallels between Javanese and Tibetan iconography have been indicated by Pleyte[445] and others. The explanation must be that the late forms of Buddhist art and doctrine which nourished in Magadha spread to Tibet and Nepal but were also introduced into Java. The Kamahâyânikan appears to be a paraphrase of a Sanskrit original, perhaps distorted and mutilated. This original has not been identified with any work known to exist in India but might well be a Mahayanist catechism composed there about the eleventh century. The terminology of the treatise is peculiar, particularly in calling the ultimate principle Advaya and the more personal manifestation of it Divarûpa. The former term may be paralleled in Hemacandra and the Amarakosha, which give respectively as synonyms for Buddha, advaya (in whom is no duality) and advayavâdin (who preaches no duality), but Divarûpa has not been found in any other work[446]. It is also remarkable that the Kamahâyânikan does not teach the doctrine of the three bodies of Buddha[447]. It clearly states[448] that the Divarûpa is identical with the highest being worshipped by various sects: with Paramaśûnya, Paramaśiva, the Purusha of the followers of Kapila, the Nirguṇa of the Vishnuites, etc. Many names of sects and doctrines are mentioned which remain obscure, but the desire to represent them all as essentially identical is obvious.
The Kamahâyânikan recognizes the theoretical identity of the highest principles in Buddhism and Vishnuism[449] but it does not appear that Vishṇu-Buddha was ever a popular conception like Śiva-Buddha or that the compound deity called Śiva-Vishṇu, Hari-Hara, Śaṇkara-Narâyaṇa, etc., so well known in Camboja, enjoyed much honour in Java, Vishṇu is relegated to a distinctly secondary position and the Javanese version of the Mahabharata is more distinctly Śivaite than the Sanskrit text. Still he has a shrine at Prambanan, the story of the Ramayana is depicted there and at Panataran, and various unedited manuscripts contain allusions to his worship, more especially to his incarnation as Narasimha and to the Garuḍa on which he rides[450].