Abstract
Śiwarātrikalpa belongs to the genre of Old Javanese poetry which is generally dubbed kakawin. Kawi means “poet”, and kakawin is a noun regularly derived from the root kawi by affixation of the prefix ka- and the suffix -(ĕ)n. 1 Actually the word kakawin is simply an Old Javanese transposition of the Sanskrit kāvya, and means “poetry”, in particular poetry of a special type, and also “poem” written in a particular kind of metre. In most formal characteristics, and also to a certain extent in content, the Old Javanese kakawin correspond with the Indian kāvya.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Next to ka- -ĕn one also finds nouns formed with ka--an; the latter has become the regular formation in later Javanese. See Zoetmulder, 1950, p. 73.
There remain, nevertheless, interesting differences between various kakawin, e.g. in the relative length of the cantos (i.e. number of stanzas per canto); see Hooykaas, 1955, pp. 35-38.
Ed. Kern, 1900.
Hooykaas, 1955; see Conclusions, pp. 34-35.
Poerbatjaraka, 1932.
Hooykaas, 1958.
De Casparis, 1956, published an inscription which shows many characteristics of a kakawin and which is dated A.D. 856 (see pp. 280-330).
Ed. Poerbatjaraka, 1926b.
Ed. Gunning, 1903; Dutch transi, by Poerbatjaraka and Hooykaas, 1934.
Of these the following have been edited and published: Bhomakāwya (ed. Friederich V.B.G. 24, 1852; Dutch transi, by Teeuw, 1946); HariwanŚa (ed. and Dutch transi. by Teeuw, 1950); and Smaradahana (ed. and Dutch transl. by Poerbatjaraka, 1931). No copy of the edition, with Indonesian translation, of GhatotkacāŚraya by Soetjipto was available. For further information on these texts see Pigeaud, 1967.
Latest ed. by Pigeaud, 1960–63. The title is found twice in Canto 94: 2c and 4c
Zoetmulder, 1957.
Van Stein Callenfels, 1925, esp. p. 173ff.
Ensink, 1967, p. 2. See also Wayan Bhadra, 1937, p. 15 of the offprint.
Van der Tuuk, 1881, p. 49.
See Hooykaas, 1964, pt. V, and this Introduction, Section 12.
See Geertz, 1960, pp. 280-281.
See Juynboll, 1907, pp. 231 and 233.
Wayan Bhadra, 1937.
E.g.: AWj 37, 1 lagyâṅudaṅ-hudaṅ susu sirâniduṅ akakawin aṅharas pipi (While caressing her breasts he sang kiduṅ and kakawin, kissing her cheeks); Sut 146,15 len têkaṅ maṅiduṅ hana-n pakakawin (There were others singing kiduṅ, and still others reciting kakawin).
Ed. Kern, 1875.
Cod. Or. 10.130; see Pigeaud, 1967, p. 189.
Cod. Or. CB 153; see Pigeaud, 1967, p. 193.
On Nirartha see below.
See, for example, RY 24,16: dṛdha tan tular aṅĕn-aṅĕnya tan cala, “firm, constant was his mind, unbending”; see also RY 21, 183 and 8, 101.
Berg, 1927, pp. 18-28; Poerbatjaraka, 1951, p. 202-206, assigns him to the previous century.
Damais, 1952, p. 81.
Ibid.
Parar. ed. Brandes, 1920, p. 40 & 197.
Jaarboek, 1938, pp. 117-19.
Schrieke, 1957; Van Naerssen has also repeatedly pointed to this feature, most recently in a paper read at the Congress of Orientalists in Ann Arbor, Mich., 1967.
See, for example, Babad Tanah Djawi, ed. Olthof, 1941 (Jav. text), p. 99ff.
Parar. p. 38 11. 8-14, p. 159.
Parar. p. 40 11. 13-15, p. 199.
Parar. p. 40 1. 16, p. 199.
Parar. p. 40 11. 17-18, p. 199.
Krom, 1931, p. 448.
Parar. p. 40 11. 23-24, p. 200.
O.V., 1922, p. 25, Transcriptie, side 1a.
O.V., 1922, pp. 22-23; see also Noorduyn, 1968, pp. 460-481.
Krom, 1931, p. 448.
Parar. p. 40 11. 23-24, p. 200.
Damais, 1952, p. 81.
Krom, 1931, p. 444.
K. A. Nilakantha Sastri, 1955, p. 258ff.
Robert Sewell, 1924, p. 302. See also Krishna Sastri, 1907-08.
See The Oxford History of India, 1958, p. 316; The Delhi Sultanate, 1960, p. 464ff., 726ff.
Sewell, 1924, p. 81-96.
Sewell, 1924, p. 72ff.
The Delhi Sultanate, 1960, p, 556
Saletore, 1934, vol. II, pp. 404 and 255.
Saletore, II, p. 405 (A.D. 1548), p. 21 (A.D. 1590), p. 275 (A.D. 1529), p. 372 (A.D. 1495). To avoid misunderstanding we wish to point out that references to the Śiwarātri ritual are found in other, earlier inscriptions as well, such as those issued under the Cola kings, e.g. Vikrama Chola ± 1125 (Rangacharya, 1919, I p. 573, no. 490), and later; and in Gujarat under king Sārangadeva, A.D. 1287 (Epigraphia Indica I, 1892, p. 279).
Epigraphia Indica, 21, 1931-32, p. 271.
The dating of the inscription mentioned in the previous note, i.e. Śaka 1257 = A.D. 1335, does not tally with the data supplied here. Peda Komati Vema, the king who had the inscription issued, ruled in the beginning of the 15th century. (The Delhi Sultanate, 1960, p. 286).
Chenchiah — R.B. Rao, 1928, pp. 59-62.
Epigraphia Indica, 21, 1931–32, p. 271.
The Delhi Sultanate, 1960, p. 527.
Chenchiah — R.B. Rao, 1928, p. 25.
The Delhi Sultanate, 1960, p. 527.
On this work see Teeuw, 1960.
T 3, 223.
Hooykaas, 1964, pp. 191-236.
H. H. Wilson, 1862, pp. 210-221.
Brandes, 1903, p. 127.
Hooykaas, 1964, p. 207.
Kane, 1958, pp. 225-276. One interesting detail in which some Indian prescriptions agree with the Balinese texts is the number of 108 bael leaves to be dropped in the holy water. This number is not mentioned in the kakawin. It is, however, so common in rituals of this kind that in isolation it cannot be taken as proof of a direct link.
A detailed survey of the ritual as prescribed by Śiwa himself at the end of the kakawin will be given below (pp. 54-57).
Van Stein Callenfels, 1925, pp. 153-155.
Teeuw, 1946, p. 4.
Zoetmulder, 1950, p. 151 and Kern V.G. 8, p. 323.
For more details see Section 8, below.
Zoetmulder, 1957.
See ŚR 1,2a.
See ŚR 3,2d & 3, 10d.
Van Stein Callenfels, 1925, pp. 168 & 170.
See footnote to 2, 1b.
See p. 46 below.
It occurs, e.g., in the kakawin Smaradahana and various Indian purāṇa.
Tanakun says that he is interpreting the Piṅgalaśāstra.
Hooykaas, 1958.
Zoetmulder, 1957.
On Saraswatī in Balinese religion see Hooykaas, 1964, pp. 19-39.
hyaṅ niṅ hyaṅ pwa sirâtapâpa ta kunaṅ sādhyan muwah de nira (“He is the god of gods, practising asceticism; what more, then, must he strive for?”).
See, for example, Goris, 1926, pp. 63-64; Pott, 1966, pp. 139-140 and especially Hooykaas, 1964 and 1966, Glossary under hṛdaya(padma,-puṇḍarīka).
See, e.g., BY 1,3d; Aichele, 1967, p. 230.
See Zoetmulder, 1950, pp. 29-30, and sR 37, 3c & 5c.
See also Aichele, 1967, p. 227, whose interpretation of tikĕl does not seem correct.
See Glossary nirāśraya.
The expression also occurs in HW 54, 1b, where it has been mistranslated by Teeuw.
Or was the śiwarātri not, in fact, intended to be performed by the common man? See also p. 57.
See above, p. 16.
For an illustration of this see Krom, 1923, vol. 3, pl. 67.
A sketch of the ground-plan of a similar complex is seen in Galestin, 1936, p. 108.
See, for example, Moojen, 1926, plate XXI.
In Nāg. 32, 5a we find bwat rāntĕn atulis; Pigeaud, 1960, takes this as equivalent to bwat rawi…, and translates it as a ‘constructed pond’ (Vol. III, p. 36).
See Van Naerssen, 1941, p. 35 note 10.
See Galestin, 1936, Ch. II.
Kunst, 1968, p. 58.
For an illustration, see Publicaties O.D. I, (1925) pl. 15 a & b.
For illustrations see Publicaties O.D., pl. 37 (Tjaṅḍi Soerawana, panelen 6 & 7).
A box in the shape of a puḍak is seen in Bernet Kempers, 1959, pl. 196.
We do not agree with Hooykaas’ translation (1964) p. 198 of abalik (37, 9c) as “reborn”.
Ed. Poerbatjaraka (1926a), pp. 129-130.
Hooykaas, 1964, pp. 206-236.
See Damais, 1951, esp. p. 11.
Monier-Williams, 1956, p. 451.
Hooykaas, 1964, p. 200.
See Juynboll (1907) pp. 157-159 (under Lubdhaka).
For a description of these MSS., see Pigeaud, 1968 (Vol. II), pp. 134, 254, 119, 209, 209 and 209 resp.
This is an abridged translation of a paper given by Professor P. J. Zoetmulder entitled Djaman Mpu Tanakung on the occasion of the Konggres Ilmu Pengetahuan Nasional II (Second National Scientific Congress), 21–28th October, 1962, in Jogjakarta, Indonesia.
Poerbatjaraka, 1926c and 1932.
Juynboll, 1911, p. 287 (see now also Pigeaud, 1968, p. 239).
Poerbatjaraka, 1952, pp. 34-35: “It is perhaps not necessary for me to discuss them at length, as this piece of information is pure nonsense. The reason for this is, in the first place, that the kraton of Kadiri was never transferred to Pengging and, in the second place, that among the kings of Java in the Kadiri period there was none called Kusumawitjitra. Could it be simply because we have yet to discover him?”
Krom, 1931, pp. 298-299.
Poerbatjaraka, 1952, p. 37.
Poerbatjaraka, 1952, p. 37: “at the beginning of this book Lubdhaka, mpu Tanakung does mention the name of the king, prabhu Girīndrawangśaja. This was a predicate of Ken Angrok’s.”
Poerbatjaraka, 1952, pp. 37-38: “to please Ken Angrok.”
Berg, 1938a.
Moens, 1950–1951.
Berg, 1938b, pp. 62-63.
Poerbatjaraka, 1952, p. 38: “to seek praise from Ken Angrok.”
Krom, 1931, p. 298.
See Oudhcidkundig Verslag, 1922–1923.
Krom, 1931, p. 450.
“pure nonsense.”
See Krom, 1931, pp. 450-451.
basa-basita may be a blending of bhāṣa-bhāṣita and waśa-waśitwa.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1969 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Teeuw, A., Galestin, T.P., Robson, S.O., Worsley, P.J., Zoetmulder, P.J. (1969). Introduction. In: Śiwarātrikalpa of MPU Tanakuṅ. Bibliotheca Indonesica, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9429-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9429-7_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8643-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9429-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive