BARABUDUR : HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF A BUDDHIST MONUMENT by L. Gomez; H. W.WoodwardReview by: Khoo Joo EeJournal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 57, No. 1 (246) (1984), pp.93-94Published by: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41492977 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 15:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 92.63.97.126 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:18:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

BARABUDUR : HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF A BUDDHIST MONUMENT.

eds. Gomez , L. and H. W. Woodward Jr. Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 2, University of California 1981.

The Buddhist monument of Barabudur on Central Java, now fully restored and once again open to the public in its entirety since February 1983, has been the subject of study and speculation for over one and a half centuries.

This volume of essays by art historians and authorities on Buddhist studies reviews the history of the study of the monument up till 1974. At the same time, the studies present hypotheses, adding to previous ones but, on the whole, attempt to narrow down generalisations. Two main types of essays are offered, viz. art historical which apply stylistic comparisons (including palaeography for inscriptions) and textual. The latter approach includes searches into Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese texts in trying to elucidate the significance of the monument. The meanings of Barabudur are also explicitly stated; it is a commemorative monument (of the Central Javanese Sailendra dynasty); while being also a mandala-cum-stupa , it becomes a yantra when being "used" by pilgrims to commune with the Holy. Art historians, supported by epigraphy, concur on the date of Barabudur ranging from the second half of the 8th century to the first half of the 9th century while nobody refutes the designation that the stupa is Mahayanist in character.

Owing to the absence of dated inscriptions on Barabudur itself, dating has had to be on palaeography of inscriptions. Prof. de Casparis reiterates what he argued (in 1950) as a group of Central Javanese inscriptions relating to Barabudur and reaffirms that the monu- ment dates within the first forty years of the 9th century which he asserts coincides with the peak of the Sailendra dynasty. Prof, van Lohuizen-de Leeuw proposes an approximate fifty year span for such a huge monument as Barabudur to be built and dates it from the last, quarter of the 8th century to the first quarter of the 9th century. She arrives at this date by comparing Barabudur's only existing dvarapala (now in Bangkok) with other Central Javanese ones, showing that the image was a guardian of Barabudur's monastery which was built earlier than Barabudur itself for the monks had to settle down in order to perform ceremonies for Barabudur's consecration. Joanna Williams, applying the analyse de motifs method to compare Barabudur with other Central Javanese monuments, pro- poses a late 8th century date. Three architectural motifs, mouldings, dentils and finials are analysed with regard to sequence of style till an obvious shift appears.

A much greater problem of Barabudur, apart form its date and particular signifi- cance, is identification of its narrative reliefs with existing Buddhist texts. To this end, scholars turn to places outside Java. Textual sources from Nepal, Tibet, China and Japan have shown to bear plausible relationships with Barabudur's reliefs and at the same time suggest ideas about actual meanings of the monument. Jan Fontein and Luis Gomez are concerned about detailed observations of how far proposed text identifications really fit the stories depicted at Barabudur, thereby calling for caution on general designations for

93

This content downloaded from 92.63.97.126 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:18:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JMBRAS, VOL. 57

the monument arrived at by similarities with texts. To show that suggested versions of Jatakas and Avadanas do not really tally exactly with that at Barabudur, Fontein points out several discrepencies and calls for much more thorough studies of corpus of existing Buddhist texts. Gomez, making further observations of the role of the Gandavyuha in the design of Barabudur, proposes a new hypothesis of the monument being Maitreya's abode, Kutagara. He, however, also admits that his Kutagara theory is not yet fully proven. Gomez, therefore, has offered a direction for the study of Barabudur because the Gandavyuha reliefs are dominant on the stupa occupying one third of the total narratives.

Apart from the reliefs from which the significance and meanings of Barabudur can be drawn, the design of the structure also suggests its intention. That Barabudur is a stupa , a prasada and a mandala have been proposed by earlier scholars like Krom, Mus and Stutterheim. Woodward, drawing from Chinese Hua-yen Buddhism, in discussing stupa symbolism, analyses Barabudur's internal relationships as of mirrored images and planes. Similarly, Lancaster calls for further study of the wealth of Chinese translations and commentaries of the Tantric Buddhism as expounded at Barabudur. In selecting a few possibilities, he points out for example, stupa cult in Chinese Tantric texts of 8th- 9th century. That Barabudur is a special type of stupa , that is, a stupa-prasada as expressed by two earlier scholars, Paul Mus and W. Stutterheim, is further analysed by de Casparis in his theory of the dual nature of Barabudur.

Barabudur's ground plan showing concentric circles within a square leads scholars to reflect on it as a mandala. Wayman, in his reflections on Barabudur as a mandata, recalls earlier studies by Zimmer and Mus who then did not have at their disposal materials on Tibetan mandala cult. He also draws on Japanese Shingon traditions, together with early Tibetan texts, to elucidate the Yoga-tantra as strongly suggested by Barabudur's design.

Finally, for all the many peculiarities that distinguish Barabudur from other Buddhist monements, Bernet-Kempers reiterates that it is a mystery in stone. Mystery, as expounded by Bernet-Kempers, is in the context of the actual Meeting of Mankind and the Holy which is a universal preoccupation. This mystery that Barabudur is at two levels, viz. major/macro Mystery where the sanctuary is the symbol representing the Meeting, that is, the Mystery in action, and minor/micro Mystery where Barabudur is a spiritual tool for meeting with the Holy as experienced by the believer as he communes with the Holy via Barabudur.

While the studies are by now ten years old and new data would have come to light since then, the attempted co-ordination of separately specialised disciplines, in addition to the comprehensive bibliography, makes the volume a "Barabudur handbook/manual" up to 1974. Khoo Joo Ее Curator Muzium Seni Asia/Museum of Asian Art Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur.

94

This content downloaded from 92.63.97.126 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:18:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions