The problems of ‘ŚRĪ Parwatarājadewa’
As we have mentioned in Section 1.1, Balinese tradition as reported by Friederich (1959: 25) maintains that Tantular was a Buddhist. Van der Tuuk (KBW 1: 121) goes even further by galling the Arj. a Buddhist kakawin. Tantular himself, however, did not explicitly mention his religious persuasion in either of his kakawin. In itself this is not unusual. The Nag. is, in fact, the only kakawin known to us in which a kawi takes the opportunity to mention his religion. Tantular’s silence about his religion, as opposed to his repeated statements of his being a poet, therefore, does not necessarily disprove the Balinese tradition. Nevertheless, we should not take it for granted that he was a Buddhist, especially when we remember that the Balinese tradition has only a vague memory of Tantular, a point which we discussed briefly in Section 1.1.
KeywordsTemple Complex Buddhist Text Agreat Forest Indian Influence Asiatic Religion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 40.In Siw. 31,4b Um¨¤ is called Aailendraduhit¨¤ (cf. SED: 1090). The name .ailendra also appears in the Waringin-pitu inscription (Yamin 1962: 185), referring to the same Lord of the Mountains mentioned several times in this inscription, and probably to the same Deity mentioned repeatedly in the Nag. Google Scholar
- 41.The reading of the Buddha Hymn given here is in accordance with Zoetmulder’s unpublished text. Soewito-Santoso gives a different reading, and a more interesting one, as follows: yan tin dlâha bhatara Nâthagiri natha nin. sabhuwana. Nâthagiri is of course rather forced (in Sanskrit!), but it could be justified by the accepted reading of Rapajarwata (see note 42). Nâtha nin sabhuwana is a better reading than Girinatha rin sabhuwana, and it should not be too much to expect that Tantular’s contemporaries would be able to recognise it as a wansalan for Rajasanagara, via raja (= natha) sanagara (more or less the equivalent of sabhuwana; cf. Berg 1962: 76; 1965: 100).Google Scholar
- 42.The name Râjaparwata appears no less than nine times in the Kor. (Swellengrebel 1936: 322), all of them referring to this King of Mountains. The names Parwataraja for Mandara and Parwatarâjakanya for Una are also used in the Mahâbhârata (Sörensen 1963: 544).Google Scholar
- 43.The text says: baryan mâsa ri sampun in sisirakâla ... (Nag. 17,4a). Kern translates baryan mâsa by: every month; Pigeaud by: every time; and Berg (1969: 490), emending mâsa with warca, translates by: every year. For sisirakala all translate: cold season; and Pigeaud adds: it refers to season of rains (JFC 4:42). This is almost certainly wrong. To the Javanese the cold season (mana, i.e. masa,bédidin) coincides with the dry season, when there is a sharp chill in the night and early morning. The month after the dry season (Javanese: kétiga) is the labuh kapat, that is the fourth month, which is the best season for andon kalanwan (see Subsection 5.2.1) .Google Scholar
- 44.The year 1275 A.D. given in JFC 4: 164 is a curious mistake. Pigeaud seems to have added 78 years to an already Romanised aka year of 1119 (see Brandes 1913: 177; Krom 1923: 245; 1931: 301) .Google Scholar
- 45.The interpretation of Nag. 1,1c-d given here is a tentative one. In the light of Zoetmulder’s suggestion that nirâsraya could mean the Absolute (see Teeuw and others 1969: 316), anâtha could also mean the Absolute, literally: he who needs no protection; to the Buddhist Prapanca this could mean: Buddha. In Old Javanese Jagatpati seems to be an epithet of Siwa (see Teeuw and others 1969: 322). For hyan inisti as a Javanese rendering of istadewatd,see Berg (1962: 200) Pigeaud (JFC 4: 5).Google Scholar
- 46.It is perhaps noteworthy that in present day Bali the so-called Giripati hymns are used by both the Buddhist and iwaite priests (see Hooykaas 1964: 228–34).Google Scholar
- 47.It is generally accepted that the temple of Panataran is a Siwaite temple (see e.g. Krom 1923: 245–8; Bernet Kempers 1959: 90–4; Berg 1969: 496–7). This is however far from certain. The fact is that the only statue of a deity found in this temple complex is that of Brahma (Krom 1923: 281). Probably, as Krom has suggested, the other statues have disappeared, but we will probably never know whether the disappearance was an act of man or of God (such as: struck by thunderbolt as the temple of Jajawa was? See Nag. 57,4, and the interesting interpretation of this event offered by Berg (1953: 146–50)) ; nor will we ever know whether the disappearance of those statues took place a few years or centuries before Horsfield visited the temple in 1815. But even if Krom’s conjecture that the other deities were also represented by their statues is correct, one may still argue that their presence in a temple dedicated to the Lord of the Mountains is not at variance with our finding: the deities were there to pay homage to the Lord of the Mountains, in compliance with the command of the god Guru (see p. 75). We may, perhaps, also interpret this fact as follows: according to Kor 66,12–68,28, the person who was responsible for the removal of Mount R¨¤japarwata from Jambudwipa to Java was mpu Palyat. This mpu Palyat was the bodily form of a deity named Sikhi (Kor 68,7), and according to Kor 44,5 ikhi was none other than the god Brahma. It is appropriate, therefore, that only the statue of this deity was represented in the State sanctuary dedicated to the Lord of the Mountains.Google Scholar