H. Kern & F.D.K. Bosch

THREE FOURTEEN CENTURY INSCRIPTIONS

BY ĀDITYAWARMAN

Translated and annotated by Uli Kozok & Eric van Reijn

Ādityawarman ranks, according to the Dutch philologist Johannes Gijsbertusde Casparis (1996:42-43), among the most influential personalities in Indone-sia’s ancient history. The King of Malayu1 left us, during his long reign of ap-proximately 30 years, left us some 20 inscriptions that are almost all written inSanskrit and in a script that is distinctively Sumatran. Ādityawarman’s reign (ca. 1347-1376) occurred when Majapahit experienced

its golden age under king Hayam Wuruk (1350–1389) who became the succes-sor of Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi, the daughter of Majapahit’s first kindRaden Wijaya. Ādityawarman emphasises in his first inscription at Candi Jagoin East Java that he was descendent from the same lineage as the empress. TheJavanese chronicle Pararaton confirms that two Sumatran princesses werebrought from Malayu in 1292. The elder, Dara Jingga, became the wife of Ma-japahit’s first king Raden Wijaya. The younger, Dara Pĕṭak, gave birth to TuhanJanaka who later became the king of Malayu.2

From the Candi Jago inscription discussed by Frederik David Kan Bosch in1921 (the first of the three translated articles presented here) we know thatĀdityawarman was a high official at the court of Majapahit. After his return toDharmasraya, the capital of Malayu3, in 1347 he ritually declared independencefrom Java by reconsecrating the Amoghapasa statue, which Kertanagara (RadenWijaya’s father-in-law and predecessor) had presented to the former king ofMalayu Tribhuwanarāja Mauliwarmadewa in 1286. Ādityawarman did notonly reconsecrate the Amoghapasa statue, he also moved it from Padang Roco4

1. We do not know the extent of the Malayu kingdom in Ādityawarman’s time, but thecore region of Malayu was the Batang Hari river basin in the present provinces of Jambiand Sumatra Barat in central Sumatra.located in east central Sumatra, part of thepresent-day provinces of Jambi and Riau2. Tuhan Janaka is often believed to be the same person as Ādityawarman although it ismore likely that he was Ādityawarman’s father.3. The exact location of Dharmasraya is unknown but it can be assumed with a veryhigh probability that it was located near Pulau Punjung, the capital of the DharmasrayaRegency in West Sumatra. The most probable location is the archaeological site ofPadang Roco (Sungai Langsat).4. The archaeological site Padang Roco is located on the upper Batang Hari near the vil-

- 1 -

several kilometres upriver to Padang Candi. The relocation by itself may al-ready have symbolic relevance but even more so the fact that he left the base ofthe statue (containing Kertanagara’s inscription where the supreme title ma-harājādhirāja is reserved for the Javanese ruler!) in Padang Roco. The message isclear: Ādityawarman is not willing to assume the lower title mahārāja of Mauli-warmadewa, Malayu’s king in 1286. Instead he moved the Amoghapasa statueto Padang Candi and had chiselled a long eulogistic inscription on its backsidewhere he used the supreme title maharājādhirāja for himself. The Amoghapasainscription is discussed in detail by Kern (1917b) – the second of the three trans-lated articles.

A few years later Ādityawarman moved the capital of Malayu to Saruaso inTanah Datar. The reasons for his retreat are unknown but Hayam Wuruk’s ex-pansionism may have caused Ādityawarman to look for a save haven inMalayu’s fertile mountainous hinterland. Here he not only fostered agriculturalproduction, but also controlled the gold mines of Tanah Datar. Among themany inscriptions that Ādityawarman produced in the Minangkabau highlandsonly a few have been thoroughly discussed. One of them is the Kubu Rajo in-scription published by Kern (1917c) – the third translated article.

The export of the aristocratic culture of his Dharmasraya kingdom to thetribal Minangkabau highlands was short-lived. Not long after Ādityawarman’sdeath the republican style of government was widely restored, but Ādityawar-man centralised rule left a legacy. The legend of the conflict between the twoancestral heros of the Minangkabau people, Datuk Ketemanggungan andDatuk Perpatih Nan Sebatang, is well remembered by the Minangkabau people.The followers of Datuk Perpatih Nan Sebatang, defending the traditional egali-tarian system of government, formed the laras Bodi Caniago (Lima Kaum). Hisbrother, Datuk Ketemanggungan, who favoured a more aristocratic Javaneseform of government (temenggung is a Javanese title), prevailed in Tanah Datar,the region where Ādityawarman’s centre of government was located. DatukKetemanggungan’s father is said to have descended from the volcano MountMerapi. His name, Suri Maharajo Dirajo, is the same as Ādityawarman’s title śrimaharājādhirāja.

The majority of Ādityawarman’s translated inscriptions is only accessiblethrough the writings of Dutch scholars. More recent translations do exist in afew cases. Chatterji (1933) translated Ādityawarman’s eulogy from the backside of the Amoghapasa statue relying heavily on Kern whose translation stillremains the most authoritative. There are also a number of recent translationsinto the Indonesian language but these too are usually based on the Dutchsources and cannot replace them.

Today it is still paramount for scholars of almost any aspect of Indonesianhistory to have a good reading knowledge in Dutch. When it comes to therather obscure Sanskrit-Malay hodgepodge of Ādityawarman’s inscriptionsrendered in nineteenth century Dutch, then even those with a relative firmgrounding in Dutch are quickly at their wits’ end.

The 2006 workshop “From Distant Tales – Archaeology and Ethnohistory inthe Highlands of Sumatra” at the Freie Universität Berlin has shown that thereis a growing interest in the history of the region. The resulting publication (Bon-

lage Sungai Langsat (Kecamatan Sitiung, Kabupaten Dharmasraya, Sumatra Barat).

- 2 -

atz et al. 2009) is divided into four parts, three of which are dedicated to the re-gions Northern, Central, and Southern Sumatra. Interestingly the vast majorityof the contributions deals with Central Sumatra – a region usually underrepre-sented. The recent re-discovery of the Tanjung Tanah code of law (Kozok 2006),written either at the time of Ādityawarman’s reign or shortly after, is also likelyto further draw attention to the inscriptions of the fourteenth century “SupremeKing of the Great Kings” Ādityawarman.

We are planning to continue this translation series and eventually to trans-late all primary studies relating to Ādityawarman’s inscriptions into English.Here we start with three articles, two of which are concerned with Ādityawar-man’s earliest inscriptions: His 1343 inscription from Candi Jago which he com-posed at a time when he became a high ranking officer at the court of Ma-japahit; his 1347 inscription from Dharmasraya where he ritually declaresindependence from Majapahit upon his return to Sumatra; and an undated in-scription from Kubu Rajo in the Minangkabau highlands after he had relocatedthe capital of his kingdom to Saruaso in the Tanah Datar regency.

The three articles translated below are written by J.H.C. Kern and F.D.K.Bosch.

Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern was born on 6 April 1833 in the central Ja-vanese town Purworejo, but returned with his parents to the Netherlands at agesix. He studies Sanskrit first at the universities of Utrecht and Leiden. After hispromotion in 1855 he moved to Berlin to further his studies in Sanskrit, but alsoin Germanic and Slavonic languages. He taught Sanskrit as a professor at theBrahmana College and the Queen's College in Benares (1863–65), and at LeidenUniversity until his retirement in 1903 when he moved to Utrecht where hestayed until his death in 1916.

Together with Herman Neubronner van der Tuuk he is considered to be oneof the founders of Indonesian studies in the Netherlands. His field of interestwas extremely broad and included a whole range of Indo-European languagesbut also Arabic, Hebrew, and a number of Austronesian languages. Besides lin-guistics he also had a strong interest in cultural studies and in Buddhism.

One of Kern’s many students was C.C. Uhlenbeck who later became one ofF.D.K. Bosch’s most respected professors.

Frederik David Kan Bosch (1887–1967) was born in the South African townof Potchefstroom. He lost his mother when he was two years old, and his fatherbrought him to Amsterdam where he grew up with his aunt. His father re-turned to Africa with his five years old other son. Both later died during theSecond Anglo-Boer War in a British war prison. During his studies at LeidenUniversity, which included the mandatory subject Sanskrit, he developed an in-terest in Indonesian archaeology and philology. In 1914 he graduated cumlaude and at the end of the year, shortly after his marriage, the young couplemoved to the Netherlands Indies where he becomes the director of the newlyestablished Oudheidkundige Dienst (Department of Archaeology). He returnsto the Netherlands in 1936 when the University of Utrecht offered him a profes-sorship in Indonesian Studies. After the war he became the successor of N.J.Krom at the University of Leiden until his retirement in 1957.

- 3 -

F.D.K. Bosch

THE INSCRIPTION ON THE MAÑJUŚRĪ STATUE OF 1265 Śāka5

ĀryyavaṅśādhirājenaMañjuśrīs supratiṣṭhitaḥ /pañcaṣaḍdviśaśāṅkābdedharmmavṛddhyai Jinālaye //

Rājye Śrīvararājapatniwijite[ḥ] tadbaṅśajaḥ suddhadhīḥcakre Jāvamahītale varaguṇair Ādityavarmmāpy asau /mantrī prauḍhataro Jinālayapure prāsādam atyādbhutammātātātasuhṛjjanān samasukhaṃ netum bhavāt tatparaḥ

//i śaka 1265 //

This is the text of the inscription on the front and on the back of the well-known Mañjuśrī statue6, now in Berlin7, which Kern translates:8

«The supreme king, of Ārya lineage, erected (this statue of)Mañjuśrī according to the rules, in the year five, six, two,one (i.e. 1265 Śaka) to foster the Dharma (i.e. the Law andtrue faith in the Buddhist sense) in the Buddha temple.He, Ādityawarman in the realm ruled by Her majesty thesupreme queen, from her lineage, having true intentions (pi-ous), endowed with excellent qualities, the highest rankingservant of the state, on Javanese soil, in the city of the Bud-dha temple, built an amazingly beautiful temple, to guidehis parents and kin from this sublunar existence to the joysof the Nirvana.»

In this passage we should translate Jinālayapura in accordance with themeaning of pura in similar composites in the Nāgarakṛtāgama, the Pararaton andthe Old Javanese inscriptions9 as «the Jinālaya sanctuary» imagining an enclosed

5. This article of the Dutch scholar Frederik David Kan Bosch (1887–1967) was first pub-lished in 1921 in Vol. 77 (p. 194–201) of the Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkundevan Nederlands-Indië under the title De inscriptie op het Manjuçri-beeld van 1265 Çaka.6. Rouffaer has commented recently on this statue in his monograph Candi Singosari,p99 ff. [Editor’s Note: This seems to relate to Rouffaer 1909].7. Editor’s Note: The statue disappeared from the Berlin Museum of Anthropology dur-ing the second world war.8. Notulen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap 1880, p106 ff.9. cf. Tathāgatapura (Nāgarakṛtāgama 80, 2), Wiśeṣapura (69, 2), Wiṣṇubhawanapura(Pararaton 30, 20 and Register, p219), Prapañcasārapura (Oud Javaansche Oorkonden[Old Javanese Charters] LXXXIV).

- 4 -

temple courtyard, similar to the pura-s in Bali in which, beside the main templewe also find all kinds of secondary temples, seats for the gods, bale (assemblyhalls), statues etc.

But this is of secondary importance. In the first place we intend to draw at-tention to the very peculiar form in which the inscription has been rendered.

Why, one asks oneself, is the year 1265, expressed with great clarity in acandrasengkala10 in the first strophe, repeated at the end of the second strophe indigits? And why is the name of the sanctuary, already mentioned in the firststrophe, repeated in the second in much more detail (rājye, etc.)?

And finally, which poet — how defective his knowledge of Sanskrit mayhave been — would have expressed a simple message such as: «The supremeking Ādityawarman erected in the Jinālaya sanctuary a statue and built a tem-ple» as follows, not only in an awkward but also totally incomprehensiblemanner: «A statue has been erected by the supreme king. Ādityawarman or-dered the construction of a temple in the Jinālaya sanctuary», i.e. the first dona-tion in the passive with the king's title as the logical subject and the other dona-tion as the logical subject in the active, grammatically (apart from theconjunction api) totally disconnected from the preceding one, and mentioningthe kingʻs name? Our presumption that something is missing in the usual trans-lation of the lines is corroborated by considerations of a different nature. Thescript of the first strophe in anuṣṭubh metre on the front of the statue is withouta doubt a different hand from the second strophe in śārdūlawikrīḍitā metre onthe back. Of course we do not consider that the sculptor had more space at hisdisposal in front than at the back and consequently the letters of the secondstrophe are almost double the size of the first one. We are looking at obviousdifferences in the shape of the letters. The ulu-s11 on the front are totally closed,while those on the back are wide open underneath; the /e/ on the front have avery small curl right at the end of the vertical part, those on the back look likethe cipher 6; the pada lingsa-s of the first strophe look like the Sanskrit cipher 2,those of the second like the Sanskrit cipher 1, etc.

Also in the spelling we notice a curious difference between the two strophes.In the first one the inscription uses the spelling waṇśa in accordance with San-skrit and Malay idiom, in the second baṇśa, which is a Malayism, like the suddhafor śuddha.

Before we draw conclusions from the aforementioned particularities we willcarry out a closer inspection of the contents of the inscription beginning withthe second strophe.

Here Ādityawarman refers to himself as mantrī prauḍhatara. «Prauḍha»means «ripe, mature», and therefore the comparative prauḍhatara means ap-proximately «at a ripe age», a synonym of wṛddha; so mantrī prauḍhatara is an el-egant paraphrase — metri causa — of wṛddhamantri. Considering that this is theofficial title of a particular category of dignitaries at the Majapahit court, whoare repeatedly mentioned in the lists of public servants of the official edicts andin the Nāgarakṛtāgama12, our first job is to check if Ādityawarman occurs on

10. Editorʻs Note: A chronogram where the numbers in dates are represented by wordshaving a fixed numerical value.11. Editorʻs Note: the diacritic /i/.12. I.e. on the charter of Nglawang (Oud Javaansche Oorkonden LXXXIV), of Bendosari(O.J.O. LXXXV, cf. Nāgarakṛtāgama 72, 1) of Sidoteka (O.J.O. LXXXIII) and of Singosari

- 5 -

one of these lists as a civil servant. Indeed this happens to be the case. In thecharter whose promulgation is closest in time to the date of the Mañjuśrī in-scription, i.e. the stone inscription of Nglawang13 (dated between 1256 and 1272Śaka) we find as the first mantriwṛddha: sang āryya Dewarāja pu Āditya. It is evi-dent that this can only refer to the Ādityawarman of the Mañjuśrī inscription,the later Mahārājādhirāja of the kingdom of Malayu.

The coming to light of this fact has not changed but only a little sharpenedthe outlines drawn by Kern14 and Krom15, indicating the development of theMalay kingdom and its relationship to the Javanese empire. It appears that,when Ādityawarman refers to himself as «mantri», it is not to express in the tra-ditional oriental manner his devotion and submissiveness to the queen as a vas-sal, but for the simple reason that he had indeed been incorporated as mantri inthe corpse of dignitaries.

We know from other historical sources that most of the highest positions atthe Javanese court were honorary sinecures16, by preference filled by the king'srelatives. Also Ādityawarman was of royal lineage (tadbaṇśaja) and this leads usto presume that he owed his high position as a civil servant to thiscircumstance.

Four years after the foundation mentioned on the Mañjuśrī statue,Ādityawarman refers to himself in the text of the inscription of consecration onthe back of the well-known Amoghapāśa statue of Padang Candi17 mahārājād-hirāja, a title which does not reflect any subordination of a civil servant. Thismeans that the stone inscription of Nglawang, in which he is still called wṛd-dhamantri, must have been issued before the Amoghapāśa inscription so thatthe terminus ad quem of this charter can be advanced from 1272 to 1269.

Let us now consider the first strophe of the Mañjuśrī inscription.We have seen that Kern interprets āryyawaṅśādhirājena as an apposition of

the Ādityawarman mentioned in the second strophe and translates literally «bythe supreme monarch of Arya lineage.»

Apart from the aforementioned objections of a logical and syntactical nature,we can bring forward a more serious objection.

We do not know about a single example in the Nāgarakṛtāgama or the in-scriptions where a statue is erected or consecrated (pratiṣṭhita) by a king or asecular lord; but the inscriptions mention repeatedly the construction of a statueon the orders of such a person — usually expressed by the causative of a verbsuch as kṛ or sthā — but the actual ceremonial dedication is always performedby a priest. Considering this, it is curious that according to our inscription theMañjuśrī statue is being consecrated by the supreme king in person, the more

of 1273 (cf. Krom 1919b:19f f. and cf. Nāgarakṛtāgama edition Krom (1919), register p320[Editor’s Note: This seems to refer to Kern 1919]). 13. Re: this charter see Krom 1911:411 and Krom 1914:484 ff..14. Notulen Bataviaasch Genootschap 1880, p106 ff. Kern 1917f:244 ff, 265 ff, Kern1917g:163 and 215 ff.15. Krom 1916:306 ff, especially 383 ff. 16. cf. Krom 1919a:1017. Kern 1917b

- 6 -

so as Ādityawarman in 1269 does indeed use a priest for the consecration of theaforementioned Amoghapāśa statue of Padang Candi.18

The difficulty we referred to and all other previously identified difficultiesare solved if we presume that the inscriptions on the front and on the back ofthe Mañjuśrī statue are not related one to the other but refer to two differentconsecrations by different persons, occurring in the same year and for the sakeof the same sanctuary.

This hypothesis depends on the possibility to prove that āryyawaṅśādhirāja inthe first strophe does not refer to Ādityawarman but to a different person.

Well then, in the aforementioned lists of functionaries in the charters we al-ways find a group of functionaries19with the title pamgĕt (or samgĕt) who, as isevident from the epigraphy and from the Nāgarakṛtāgama, were consecratedpriests and in charge of exercising supervision on maintaining the dharma inthe true sense of the word.

The functionary who is always mentioned first on the list, the pamgĕt i Tir-wan, carries since the Nglawang charter the nickname sang ārryya Wanśādhirā-ja,20 the same name we found in the first strophe of the Mañjuśrī inscription.The full name and title of the ecclesiastical official who officiated at the promul-gation of the Mañjuśrī inscription is: sang ārryya Waṅśādhirāja ḍang ācāryyaŚiwanātha. He is the one who must have erected and consecrated the Mañjuśrīstatue.

Let us follow a bit further the clue we found after identifying the name ofthe consecrating priest.

In the charters after the stone inscription of Nglawang the names of theaforementioned pamgĕt-s are usually followed by epithets that contain valuableinformation on their position and personal identity. In the Bendosari charter21

we are told that the same pamgĕt i Tirwan ḍang ācāryya Śiwanātha is bhairawa-pakṣa nyāyawyākaranasāstraparisamāpta, i.e. belonging to the Bhairawa sect, thor-oughly versed in logics and grammar. The relationship between Waṅśādhirājaand Mañjuśrī now becomes clear to us, for in the lamaistic pantheon Bhairawais the highest manifestation of Mañjuśrī in his dreadful shape (krodha), one ofthe most hideous divinities of tantric Buddhism22, depicted with 16 feet, 34 arms

18. Strophe 3 and 4 in Kern 1917b:170.19. My essay on the inscription of Gondang Lor that is going to be published in Afleverin-gen 5 Deel LIX T.B.G. deals exhaustively with these officials.20. We are unable to recognize a clear title in the word following after sang ārya (Krom1911:424 and Nāgarakṛtāgama edition Krom, p295). Sang ārya Patipati, sang āryaWīrarāja, sang ārya Wangśādhirāja, sang ārya Rājaparākrama and others function in thePararaton and Nāgarakṛtāgama as common personal names. On the other hand, thesenames remain connected with the position — something they have in common with thetitle — so that e.g. the nickname (may be this is best way to describe the term) Wangśād-hirāja is used by all successive Pamgĕt i Tirwan. Also Ādityawarman's nickname De-warāja on the Nglawang stone returns 30 years later (inscription of Sĕkar) used by some-one else. The form Wangśādhirāja is found on the right hand side of the stone (O.J.O. p206), whileelsewhere in the same charter Wangśarāja is used. cf. also Nāgarakṛtāgama 25, 2.21. O.J.O. LXXXV. On this charter see Krom (1911:418) and more recently Krom (1920:422)where the promulgation is fixed between 1272 and 1280.22. «The most complex and most dreadful figure among the Yidam, yes perhaps in theentire mythology of Lamaism, also a manifestation of Mañjuśrī is Vajrabhairava, Vajrab-hayaṇkara or Yamāntaka, Yamāri. In this shape Mañjuśrī overcame Yama, a demonic

- 7 -

and 9 heads (of which the lowest one is a bull's head), trampling underfootgods, men, quadrupeds and birds, having his abode in a cemetery populatedwith corpses, those sentenced to death, phantoms, vultures, dogs and jackals.Waṅśādhirāja did not erect and consecrate in this shape the main god of hissect, but in the gentle shape (śānta) of Mañjuśrī, the god of wisdom, equippedwith a book and a sword.

Let us now recapitulate the aforementioned information and at the sametime reconstruct the way the two Mañjuśrī inscriptions have developed.

In 1265 Śaka the pamgĕt i Tirwan, called Ārya Waṅśādhirāja ḍang ācāryya Śi-wanātha, dedicates (consecrates) a statue of Bhairawa, the highest god of hissect, in the shape of Mañjuśrī, something he was fully qualified to do as a priest.We cannot see from the inscription whether this consecration was carried outon his own initiative or on behalf of his co-religionists, or of the BuddhistĀdityawarman, or of the Buddhist queen in whose service he stood. The conse-cration is carried out dharmawṛddhyai «to foster the Law», of course, becausemaintaining the dharma is under the special care of the pamgĕt.

In the same year 1265 Ādityawarman, on his part (Ādityawarmāpi) orders tobuild an «amazingly beautiful temple» on the same temple area. It remains ob-scure if this temple was meant to house the Mañjuśrī statue and if there wasany connection between the statue and the aforementioned donation. As wehave commented earlier, the year and name of the sanctuary are repeated in thesecond strophe; both verses are logically and grammatically — but for the con-junction api — totally disconnected one from the other. So we have the impres-sion to be looking at two totally independent foundations that only have incommon the year, the place and the back of the Mañjuśrī statue. Also the factthat the goal envisaged by Ādityawarman with his donation is different fromthe one envisaged by Waṅśādhirāja. If the priest strives to foster the Law, theking orders the building of the «amazingly beautiful temple» in order to «guidehis parents and kin from this sublunar existence to the enjoyment of the Nirwā-na.» One of this kin was the queen in whose service he stood. Ādityawarmanshows here to be both a pious and a skillful politician!

Finally we draw the reader's attention to the fact that, rather oddly,Ādityawarman repeats four years later the use of an existing statue to im-mortalize his own religious foundation: and then again glorifies a pious deed(of himself) in Sanskrit verse on the back of a statue donated by someone else —the Amoghapāśa of Padang Candi we have referred to several times.23

Weltevreden, November 1920.

——————

king of the realm of death, who depopulated Tibet.» (Grünwedel 1900:101). An extensiveiconographic description follows on p102. Cf. also Waddell, (1895:363, 62 and 131).23. Krom 1916:331.

- 8 -

Hendrik Kern

The Inscription Commemorating the Consecration of the Amoghapāśa Statue of Padang Candi24

On the back side of the statue25 is an extensive inscription in a script that is notvery different from Old Javanese.

The language of the text is a kind of corrupt Sanskrit of the same quality asthe inscription of Batu Bĕragung.26 The poet – the inscription is in meters –shows no understanding of the significance of case endings nor does he knowthe most basic rules of grammar and is very confused in his spelling so that hispoem although it is metrically faultless is not much more than gibberish. Who-ever inscribed this text has also made mistakes. In consequence, the reading ofthe text is uncertain in many places and a full translation is impossible. Becausewe cannot discover any grammatical structure we can only guess what the poetis trying to say, and there still remain many places so unintelligible that onewould not even dare to indulge in guessing.

Fortunately the main focus of the text is clear enough. The inscription isabout the consecration, i.e. pratiṣṭa, of a statue of Amoghapāśa by the Ācārya(reverend teacher) Dharmaśekara on the orders of Ādityawarman who is alsoknown under the names Ādityawarmodaya and Udayādityawarman, and whono doubt is the same as the Sumatran ruler referred to in the inscriptions ofBatu Bĕragung and Pagarruyung and the same ruler who donated the statue of

24. This article of the Dutch Sanskritist Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern (1833–1917) was firstpublished in 1907 in Vol. 49 of the Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land-, enVolkenkunde under the title De wij-inscriptie op het Amoghapāça-beeld van PadangCandi (Batang Hari-districten); 1269 Çaka and reprinted in 1917 in Vol. 7 of the Versprei-de Geschriften (‘collection of essays’) under the slightly different title De wij-inscriptieop het Amoghapāça-beeld van Padang Candi (Midden Sumatra); 1269 Çaka and with afew additional footnotes. The following is a translation of the 1917 edition. The inscrip-tion was also translated by B.R. Chatterji in Chapter 6 of India and Java (1933:80-89). Wehave included his translation in footnotes because Chatterji’s interpretation occasionallydiffers slightly from the one given by Kern, but we excluded most of the accompanyingfootnotes except in the few cases where they contain information that is not already pro-vided by Kern.25. The statue referred to is located in Rambahan near Lubuk Bulang in the Batang Haridistrict of the Padangsche Bovenlanden. See Krom (1912:48 No. 46) [The former provincePadangsche Bovenlanden (Minangkabau Highlands) is the present province of SumatraBarat (West Sumatra). Rambahan is now part of the district (kecamatan) Sitiung in theregency (kabupaten) Dharmasraya]. On the front side Amoghapāśa is shown with histhirteen male as well as female followers and on the back side is the inscription read byProfessor Kern (1907) and here reprinted. The statue itself has been described with aphotograph by Pleyte (1907) immediately after Prof. Kern’s essay. The possible origin ofthis statue is discussed further by Krom (1916:329-32). The facsimile printed below hasbeen made based on the photograph of the district head (controleur) of the Dutch CivilAdministration (Binnenlandsch Bestuur) Ch. L. J. Palmer van den Broek in ca. 1904 whichalso Professor Kern used to decipher the inscription (Footnote added in 1917). 26. Cf. Kern 1917d (Footnote added in 1917).

- 9 -

Mañjuśri in Java, and which is now in a Museum in Berlin.27 Most likely ourpoet and the one of the Batu Bĕragung inscription are one and the same personbecause we find on both monuments the same kind of ridiculous Sanskrit andother oddities.28

To alleviate the task of those who after me wish to occupy themselves withthe deciphering of the whole inscription, I offer here my reading of the text fol-lowing the order of lines in the original, and after that I will present the text di-vided in stanzas. The smaller and bigger separation marks that with one excep-tion have been used correctly I kept as much as possible in the form they haveon the stone.

Inscription on the back side of the Amoghapāśa statue of Padang Candi(Central Sumatra); Śaka 1269

1. subhamastu + śaddharmaśca suvarddhanātmamahimāsobhāgyavān sīlāvan +29

27. Editor’s Note: The Mañjuśri statue was taken from Candi Jago to the Museum fürVölkerkunde Berlin in 1861 and disappeared at the end of World War II.28. Cf. Kern 1872, 1873, 1877 [= Kern 1917d]; Brandes 1897:123, 127.29. The signs + and + o + are approximate representations of the punctuation marks used

- 10 -

2. sāstrajñā suvisuddhayogalaharīśobhāpravṛddhāsate+saundaryyegirika3. ndarānvitagaje sandohavāṇīpra + mā (?)yāvairitimiśradhikkṛtamahā 30

4. nādityavarmmodayaḥ + o + tadanuguṇasamṛddhiḥ ssastrasāstra pravṛḍdhiḥ +

5. jinasamayaguṇābdhiḥ kāryyasaṃrambha31 buddiḥ + tanumadanavisuddhiḥ atyatā6. sarvvasiddhiḥ + dhanakanakasamāptiḥ +32 devatūhan prapātiḥ + o + pratisthoyaṃ7. sugātānaṃ +33 ācāryyandharmma sekaraḥ + nāmnā gagaṇa34 gañjasya + Mañju

8. śrīriva sauhṛdi + o + pratisthoyaṃ hitātvāya + sarvvasa9. tvāsukāśraya + devairamoghapāsesaḥ + śrīmadādityavarmmaṇaḥ + o +10. mūladvauśaraṇe pataṅgacaraṇenardāntasāke suge + bhāsmat karkkaṭakedinai11. rapitayāpūrṇṇenduyogāyate + tārairuttara siddhiyogaghaṭikākāruṇyamūrttasvarā12. t + jīrṇairuddharitā samāhita lasatsambodha mārggārtthibhiḥ + o + svasti samastabhuvanā13. dhārahāṭaka bhāvāśramagṛhābiśārada + o + apāramahāyānayogavijñā-navinoda + o + apicadha

14. rādhipapratirājabikaṭa saṃkaṭa kirīṭakoṭi saṅha nitaka maṇidvayanāṭaka kāraṇa + o + śrīmat 15. śrī udayādityavarmma pratāpaparākrama rājendramauli māli varrmmade-vamaharājādhirāja + sa bijñeyā16. mājñāṅ karoti + o + bihaṅamātāṅgabilāṣasobhite + kāntāra saugandhī35 su-rudramākule + surāṅanā17. lākhitakāñcanālaye + mātaṅginīsāsuradīrghikāgate +36 Mātāṅginīsāanubhavadhibiśeṣonmādasandohahāhā +18. akiladitisutānāndeva bidyādharesaḥ + apimadhukaragītairnnarttyab-hogāsitīnām + acalaticalati

to separate lines and verses. See the illustration.30. This is followed by an erroneous line breaking mark + instead of the intended hy-phenation mark.31. The characters look like km, but should doubtlessly read mbh.32. There is a caesura in the text but the separation mark is placed incorrectly. 33. Should read: sugātānaṃ; gā is used metri causa instead of ga; the poet needed a syllablewith a long vowel.34. The original reads kagaṇa which clearly is a mistake.35. Read: Saugandhi36. A different separation mark should have been used here.

- 11 -

19. rttassobhamātāṅginīso + o + hāhāhūhū37 kaṇena38 sambhramalasatlokārt-thabhūmyāgataḥ + saundaryyesasi20. pūrṇṇavat kusalabhe hṛtsobhatālaṅkṛte + nāmnā uddhayavarmmagup-tasakalakṣoṇīpatināyakaḥ + saḥtyaktvājinarū21. pasambhramagato mātaṅginīsūnyahā + o + rakṣannaḥ kṣayatā vasunda-haramidammātaṅginīpātraya + bhakṣetsattriyavairimārggaca

22. ritāsarvvasva saṃhārakṛt + sakṣet kṣāntibalābilāsidamane saṃbhrān-takūlossada + patiḥ pratyada lānane prakaṭi

23. takrūrai palāśannati + bajraprakāramaddhyasthā + pratimāyaṃ jinālayaḥ + śrīmānnamoghapāsesaḥ + ha39

24. riḥ40 udayasundaraḥ + o + surutaruditapāṇissatyasaṅgītavāṇiḥ ripunṛpaji-takīrttiḥ + puṣpadhanvāstramūrtiḥ + ma25. layapurahitārtthaḥ sarvvakāryyassamartthaḥ + guṇaraśilavibhātiḥ de-vatūhannapātiḥ + o + udayaparvvata26. sobhitarūpatiḥ + udayabhti41 naresvaranāyakaḥ + udayavairibalon-natamṛ42ddhyate + udayasundarakī27. ṛttimahī tale + o +43

The stanzas of the inscription I print below as we normally print stanzas inpoetry. The first stanza in the meter Śārdūlavikriḍita, is preceded by subham astuwhich means ‘Hail, Ave!’. The same formula is found at the beginning of theBatu Bĕragung, or more correctly Suruasŏ inscription with the same misspellingof subham instead of śubham. So even in detail the genetic link between the in-scriptions is obvious.

Śaddharmaśca suvarddhanātmamahimā sobhāgyavān sīlāvan ǀ sāstrajñā suvisuddhayogalaharī śobhā pravṛddhāsate ǀsaundaryye girikandarānvita gaje sandohavāṇī pra- ǀāyāvairi timiśradhikkṛta mahān Ādityavarmmodayaḥ ǁ1ǁ

The meaning of this gibberish can perhaps be rendered approximately asfollows:

«You, who foster very much the true faith, you, who possess a great soul,you, who are generally loved, virtuous, you, who know the sacred scriptures,you, who have excelled increasingly in very pure religious and philosophicalexercises, and you who in your noble character are similar to the elephant of theforest cave (i.e. the wild elephants), you, who are all these things because ofyour sandoha44 and your voice, you who are an enemy of illusion based on the

37. The meter requires hūhu.38. Read: gaṇena39. After ha there is a hyphenation mark. 40. The syllable riḥ is considered to be long.41. This clearly reads bhti or gti, but the meter shows that this is a mistake.42. The reading of this vowel is unclear.43. This is followed by kṣma preceded by a vague sū.44. Sandoha ‘plentiful harvest’ is here used instead of dāna, which also means ‘generosity’

- 12 -

senses45, you who abhor darkness46 (i.e. aberration) (or: who causes his enemyto go astray by blurring their senses), you who are great, youĀdityavarmodaya.»47

The second stanza is in the Mālinī meter:

tadanuguṇasamṛddhiḥ ssastrasāstra pravṛḍdhiḥ ǀJinasamayaguṇābdhiḥ kāryyasaṃrambhabuddiḥ ǀ tanumadanavisuddhiḥ atyatāsarvvasiddiḥ ǀ dhanakanakasamāptiḥ Deva-Tūhan prapātiḥ ǁ2ǁ

«You who are endowed with those virtues, you who are very experienced inthe trade of arms, and well versed in the sciences, you who are an ocean ofvirtues as practiced by the Buddhists, you who know how to handle thingswisely, you who are pure of all that fills the body with physical lust, you who[...] achieves anything48, you who have acquired wealth and gold, you are DewaTūhan, the Patih.»49

Deva is a title given to Kṣatriya-s and still in use in Bali today. Tūhan is Malaytúhan50. Patih is the well-known Javanese and Malay title. I assume that pra isthe same prefix as Javanese para as in paragusti, parañahi etc. In the penultimatestanza one finds Deva Tuhan Apātih with the Old Javanese prefix a- which equalsma-.

Regarding the next stanza I can regard as certain that the Patih who ispraised here after the ruler, is the person who is, at the order of Ādityavarman,responsible to administer the ritual of the consecration of the Amoghapāśa statuewhile the Ācārya, to be mentioned below, i.e. a kind of suffragan bishop, is incharge of the ritual aspect of the ceremony. This is obvious from the next twostanzas in the Anuṣṭhub meter.

pratisthoyaṃ Sugātānaṃ, ācāryyan Dharmmasekaraḥ ǀ nāmnā Gagaṇagañjasya, Mañjuśrīr iva sauhṛdi ǁ3ǁ pratisthoyaṃ hitātvāya, sarvvasatvāsukāśraya ǀDevair Āmoghapāsesaḥ, śrīmad Ādityavarmmaṇaḥ ǁ4ǁ

as well as ’fluid that elephants secrete in the mating season’.45. Assuming that this is supposed to be māyāvairi.46. This should read tamisra. The ti is probably caused by a confusion with timira.47. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 1): “Let there be prosperity! Great is the rise of (king)Adityavarman which has set at naught the enemy which is darkness in shape of attach-ment (māyā)—Adityavarman, who is versed in true faith, who possesses the increasingglory of his own self, who is fortunate, virtuous and acquainted with the scriptures, who by a series of very pure yoga exercises exists in increased splendour, whoin beauty...”.48. Atyatā is unknown, and may be an error for satyatā which could be translated: “hewho is truly perfect in everything”.49. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 2): “Endowed with an abundance of virtues, versed inthe use of weapons and sciences, an ocean of the laws proclaimed by Jina (i.e. Buddha),knowing how to begin a work, with body free from sensual pleasures, reaching perfec-tion [FN I have taken atyatā in the sense of atyanta] in universal success and acquiring anabundance of gold and wealth —is the minister (patih) Deve Tuhan.”50. Editor’s Note: In contemporary Malay-Indonesian tuhan means ‘God’, but it originallyhad the same meaning as tuan ‘Sir’.

- 13 -

«This consecration of a Buddhist statue51 of the name Gagaṇagañja has beenconducted by the Ācārya (reverend teacher) Dharmaśekhara, who is likeMañjuśrī so to say in his generosity. This statue of King Amoghapāśa donatedby His Majesty Ādityawarmman, has been consecrated by Dewa for the benefitor salvation of all and the source of bliss or happiness of all creatures.»52

Gagaṇagañja is presumably an epithet for Amoghapāśa. But this is not com-patible with the information in the dictionaries Mahāvyutpatti and in Kāraṇḍa-vyūha (cf. Petersburg Dictionary) where Gagaṇagañja is the name of a Bod-hisattwa not of a Jina, i.e. Dhyānibuddha. In the word Amoghapāśeśa is ofcourse īśa ‘Lord’ which means the same as īśvara. And the tile īśvara, especiallyin the word lokeśvara, is used for both Jina-s and Boddhisattwa-s; for instancevery common is the title Lokeśwara for Awalokiteśwara. Only better knowl-edge of Tantric Buddhism—because Amoghapāśa is a Tantric form ofAmoghasiddhi53—could throw more light on this matter. As far as I can see thecomparison with Mañjuśrī can only refer to the Ācārya (reverend teacher) whoalso needs to be praised.

The following stanza, again in the meter Śārdūlavikriḍita, contains the date ofthe inscription. Unfortunately this stanza is written in such corrupt languagethat I am not all sure if I have been successful in my efforts to produce a satis-factory translation.

Mūla dvau śaraṇe pataṅga caraṇe nardānta sāke suge ǀ bhāsmat karkkaṭake dinair api tayā pūrṇṇenduyogāyate ǀtārair uttara siddhiyoga ghaṭikā kāruṇya mūrtta svarāt ǀ jīrṇair uddharitā samāhita lasatsambodhamārggārttibhiḥ ǁ5ǁ

A direct translation of this is impossible. In my opinion Mula is the wellknown stellar constellation.54 This is followed by dvau ‘two’, śaraṇe ‘at home’,pataṅga ‘sun’, caraṇe ‘orbit’. Maybe the poet means in the second lunar mansionthe sun stands in its orbit. But then he uses pataṅga and caraṇe in a double func-tion because these two words are necessary as parts of the chronogram. Like allwords for ‘sun’ pataṅga has the numerical value 12, caraṇa refers to a school ofthe Veda and is described as such in the Indian Koṣa-s as vedaṃśa, literally ‘partof the Veda’. This could easily have been interpreted as a synonym of vedāṅa‘secondary discipline for the study of the Veda’, literally ‘member, or part of theVeda’, which has the numerical value 6. Also in the script vedāṅśa could easilybe mistaken for vedāṅa. Nardānta makes no sense, and also the r is suspect be-cause one would expect narddānta. I assume therefore that nandānta was meant,which means ‘having nanda as its end’; nanda has the numerical value 9. If myassumption is correct the date would be in the Śaka year 1269, i.e. 1347 AD. The

51. Sugatanam (correctly spelled) is, I assume, a honorific plural.52. Chatterji’s translation (Verses 3 and 4): “This consecration of the (statue of) Buddhaunder the name of Gaganaganja is performed by the Ācārya Dharmaśekhara, who is, asit were, a Mañjuśrī in friendliness. This statue of Amoghapāśa which is conducive to the welfare of all beings has been con-secrated by the deva-s for the well being of Adityavarman.“53. Cf. Waddell 1895.54. Editor’s Note: Mula ‘the root’ is the 19th nakshatra or lunar mansion.

- 14 -

less common order of the digits is also found on the inscription of Batu Bĕra-gung [or more correct: Suroasŏ]: bhukarṇṇenavadarśśane, 1297. Another date onthe same inscription55 is 1269, which is the same year in which we assume theconsecration of the Amoghapāśa statue took place. The date of the inscription ofPagarruyung is 1278, and the date of the Mañjuśrī statue is 1265.

The meaning of the second line of the stanza can be rendered approximatelyas follows:

«The sun56 in Cancer, and on that day (Sunday), associated with the fullmoon57.» The third line says «the position of the stars is to the North; the yoga isSiddhi, and the half hour is Kāruṇya58; muhūrta (hour) svarāt.59»

The fourth line is a bizarre concoction. With jīrṇair uddharitā he probablymeant, ignoring the most basic rules of grammar, jīrṇam uddhṛtam, which means‘restoring the previous situation’ this restoration perhaps metaphorically usedfor a new foundation (of a spiritual center) happened on a the day mentionedbefore carried out by pious men striving for the path of spiritual enlighten-ment.60 If the plural refers to all who participated in the ritual, or to the kingalone, is not clarified.61

And now a few lines in prose:

Svasti samastabhuvanādhāra hāṭaka bhāvāśramagṛhā biśārada + o + apāra Mahāyānayogavijñāna vinoda + apica dharādhipapratirāja bikaṭasaṃkaṭa karajakoṭiratnasaṅhanitaka maṇidvayanāṭakakāraṇa + o + śrīmat śrī-Udayādityavarmma pratāpaparākrama rājendra maulimāli varrmmadeva maharājādhirāja + sa bijñeyām ājñāṅ karoti + o +

«Hail (to you), support of the entire world, golden one, who knows (all) lev-els of ascetic and social live, you who enjoy thorough knowledge of the reli-gious/philosophical exercises of the infinite Mahāyāna, and who under thegreatest danger has collected jewels by the millions, taken from the fingers of

55. It later turned out that both inscriptions of the so called monument of Batu Bĕragungare really written on two totally separate stones, and have nothing to do with each other.Cf. VG, Vol. Vi, 1917:251 (Note of 1917).56. Bhāsmat is incorrect for bhāsmāt, without the case ending.57. Dinair instead of dine betrays a thorough ignorance of Sanskrit grammar; tayā is totallymisplaced. It is hard to say what the poet could have meant by this. 58. Seems to be the name of one of the sixty half-hour of the 24 hours of the days.59. Written is mūrtta which makes no sense at all to me unless it is a corrupt pronuncia-tion of muhūrta. Svarāj is, among other things, another name for Brahma and one of the30 muhūrta is under Brahma (in the astrological chart). 60. Editor’s Note: Schnitger (1936:5) reports about the main temple in Sungai Langsat:“Highly remarkable is that there is another profile 85 cm behind the outer profile. Ap-parently an older building was enlarged by adding another layer of bricks.” In Footnote7 Schnitger (ibid.) speculates that the wording ‘restoring the previous situation’ (jīrṇamuddhṛtam) may well be related to the new profile given to the temple in Sungai Langsat(Dharmasraya).61. Chatterji’s translation (of the first part of Verse 5): “In the auspicious Saka year 1269[FN This verse is bewildering. I have taken Nanda=9, pataṅga (bee) caraṇa=6, dvau=2,and mūla (source ?) =1.], when the sun was in the Karkata (rāśi), on a full-moon daywhen the position of the stars was towards the north, in Siddhi yoga, Kāruṇya ghatikāand Svarāṭ muhūrta (?)—repairs were made by people who wanted the path ofenlightenment (?).”

- 15 -

your enemies among the rulers of this earth, you who offer it as a stage play,you divine majesty Udayādityawarman, of immense power, an Indra amongstkings, crowned, protected by heavily beings, king of kings! He orders whatshould be known to all.»62

The next stanza is in Jagatī meter, alternating between Vaṃśasthā and In-dravaṃśā; and further on there is a stanza in the Mālinī meter:

bihaṅamātāṅgabilāṣasobhite ǀkāntāra saugandhī surudram ākule ǀ surāṅanā lākhita kāñcanālaye ǀ Mātaṅginīsāsuradīrghikāgate ǁ6ǁ anubhavadhibiśeṣonmādasandoha hāhā ǀakila Ditisutānān devabidyādharesaḥ ǀ api madhukaragītair narttyabhogāsitīnām ǀ acalati calatirttas sobha Mātāṅginīso ǁ7ǁ

We can deduce from these partly unintelligible verses at least that they givea description of the glory of Mātaṅginiśa’s heavenly abode, which name mustrefer to Amoghapāśa in one of his many functions. Mātaṅgini ‘female elephant’is coined on the word nāginī, ‘female serpent’, which so far has not been foundin any Sanskrit manuscript but is very common in Old Javanese. Because Mā-taṅginiśa means ‘Lord of Mātaṅgini’, Mātaṅgini must be the female counterpart,the Śakti, of Amoghapāśa. We cannot decide with our limited knowledge ofTantra literature whether Mātaṅgi may be a variant of Durgā in Tantric Bud-dhism. Deeper knowledge of that literature could shed more light on the ob-scure parts of these and following stanzas.

The translation as far as possible is:«In the golden abode of beautiful appearance because of birds and elephants

and penetrated by the pleasant fragrance of the forest and decorated by heaven-ly nymphs, there are the ponds are visited by Mātaṅginiśa and the Asura-s. Thelord of all Daitya-s, Gods and Widyādhara-s63 enjoys64 an exceedingly abundantjollity, haha! Mātaṅginiśa continuously moves himself in an elegant manner......65 who are induced to dancing by the song of the bees.»66

62. Chatterji’s translation (of the second part of Verse 5): “Hail! He who is the gold (fillingup) the space of the entire earth, who is expert in social and ascetic life, who takes de-light in thoroughly understanding the yoga of the boundless Mahayana (philosophy)—Again, who is the source of a dramatic rendering of two jewels (?) gained by the collec-tion of a million jewels trom the large mass of diadems of the enemy kings—the illustri-ous Udayadityavarman, the gem in the crowns of the best of kings, a maharajadhiraja. Hegives this order to be known.”63. Editor’s Note: Widyādhara ‘celestial nymphs’ 64. Anubhavadhi makes no sense. I assume it should be anubhavati.65. Narttya bhogāsitīnām is untranslatable.66. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 6 and 7): “In the golden residence adorned (lakhita) bythe heavenly damsels, in the midst of devadaru trees having the scent of lotus (kantara),rendered beautiful with the pastimes of birds and elephants, while Matanginisa was(sporting) in the divine lake. Matanginisa, who is the lord of all the sons of Diti (i. e. Daitya-s) gods and Vidyadhara-sand also that of the heavenly damsels [FN Asitā is the name of an asparas] enjoying

- 16 -

We are induced to believe based on the preceding passage that Mātaṅginiśais the demonic form of Amoghapāśa.67

The two following stanzas are again in the meter Śārdūlavikriḍita:

hāhāhūhūgaṇena sambhrama lasat lokārttha bhūmyāgataḥ ǀ saundaryye sasi pūrṇṇavat kusalabhe hṛtsobhatālaṅkṛte ǀnāmnā Uddhayavarmmagupta sakalakṣoṇīpatināyakaḥ ǀ saḥ tyaktvā Jinarūpa sambhramagato Mātaṅginīsūnyahā ǁ8ǁrakṣan68 naḥ kṣayatā vasundaharam idam Mātaṅginīpātraya ǀ bhakṣet sattriyavairimārggacaritā sarvvasva saṃhārakṛt ǀ sakṣet kṣāntibalā bilāsi damane saṃbhrāntakūlossada ǀ patiḥ pratyada lānane prakaṭitakrūrai palāśannati ǁ9ǁ

«He, who deletes the feeling of emptiness in Mātaṅgini (queen), he who en-joys himself with the throng of Hāhā and Hūhū (the Gandharwa-s69), he afterhurriedly taken off his Jina form has come to earth to help the world, beautifulas the moon in a good stellar constellation, adorned by the goodness of hisheart, and under the name of Udayawarmmagupta, leader of all rulers of theworld70. May the ...71 of Mātaṅgini protect this earth from decay, may he enjoythe treasures which he has collected because of his achievements as a warrior,may he possess the power of generosity/forgiveness, may he be patient72, mayhe enjoy self-control, may he be humble of an excellent lineage, he, the Patih ....who has shown his superiority in punishing the wicked73.»74

From the first two stanzas it is evident that the king is presented here as areincarnation of Mātaṅginiśa, i.e. Amoghapāśa. Examples of the deification ofkings were not uncommon in Java and Cambodia. For instance in the beginning

dancing to the to the accompaniment of the humming of bees, is in the enjoyment of par-ticular exerberance of spirits (?) and moves gracefully.”67. Tantric Buddhism has several demonic Buddha-s. See Waddell 1895:353.68. Read: rakṣen.69. Editor’s Note: A Gandharva is one of the lowest-ranking deva-s in Buddhist theology.They can fly through the air, and are known for their skill as musicians. They areconnected with trees and flowers, and are described as dwelling in the scents of bark,sap, and blossom. 70. The spelling uddhaya and uddaya instead of udaya is required by the meter.71. I don’t know what is meant by pātraya; maybe it is patra ‘minister, servant’.72. The root word sakṣ is apparently used here in the meaning of the root word sah.73. The translation is based on the assumption that the craftsman who incised the inscrip-tion erroneously wrote palāśannati instead of palaśonnati. I don’t know what to do withthe ‘monstrosity’ of pratyadalānane.74. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 8 and 9): “He, who removes the loneliness of Matangini,who keeps the company of (gandharva-s like) Haha, Huhu, who in beauty, prosperityand goodness of heart is like full-moon, has, after putting off the form of Jina, comedown on this earth for (the benefit of) the world under the name of Udayavarmagupta,the leader of all the rulers on this earth. May the protector (? pātra) [FN pātra may also mean ‘Minister’] of Matangini preserve usand the earth from ruin, may he enjoy the treasures which he collected for those who fol-lowed the conduct of an enemy kshatriya (?), may he, who is born of a noble lineage andis radiant [in force of forbearance, show his superiority in restraining those who havedisplayed wickedness and in protecting the good (?)—he is the Pati (Prime minister).”

- 17 -

of the Nāgarakrĕtāgama. Hayam Wuruk is introduced as a reincarnation of Gir-inātha, i.e. Śiwa, and also as identical with Śiwa-Buddha and in general identi-cal with the highest being of various sects.75

The second stanza praises the viceroy, but it seems to be also an Awatāra(reincarnation) of somebody who has a connection with Mātaṅgini but we don’tknow who, as long as the meaning of pātraya remains unclear.

The tenth stanza is in the Anuṣṭhub meter:

bajraprakāramaddhyasthā, pratimāyaṃ Jinālayaḥ ǀ śrīmānn Amoghapāsesaḥ, hariḥ udayasundaraḥ ǁ10ǁ

«This statue standing in the middle of the so called diamond enclosure76 ofthe Buddha sanctionary is the glorious Lord Amoghapāśeśa beautiful as the ris-ing sun.»77

Jinālaya, the same expression also used on the Mañjuśri statue could eithermean a Buddhist temple or a temple of a Jina, i.e. a Dhyāni Buddha. The nextstanza is in Mālinī:

surutaruditapāṇis satyasaṅgītavāṇiḥ ǀ ripunṛpajitakīrttiḥ Puṣpadhanvāstramūrtiḥ ǀ Malayapurahitārtthaḥ sarvvakāryyassamartthaḥ ǀguṇaraśila78 vibhātiḥ Deva Tūhannapātiḥ ǁ11ǁ

The meaning of this partly unintelligible stanza is approximately as follows:«Whose hand....79, whose speech agrees with truth, who achieves fame by van-quishing the royal enemies, who has the appearance, who looks like the arrowsof the God of Love, who has his mind set on the supreme victory/benefit ofMalayapura80, who is well-versed in all things and who excels by being en-dowed with many virtues, he is deva-tuhan, the viceroy.»81

The last stanza is in the Drutavilambita meter:

Udayaparvvatasobhitarūpatiḥ ǀ Udayabhakti (?) naresvaranāyakaḥ ǀ Udayavairibalonnata mṛddhyate ǀ

75. Cf. Kern (1909:395-398) [Editor’s Note: The year was erroneously given as 1908] andKern (1917a). 76. Assuming that what is meant is prākāra. Cf. vajrāsana ‘diamond throne’ of the Buddha.77. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 10): “The charming statue established inside the dia-mond wall of the abode of Jina(?) is (that of) the lord Amoghapasa Udayasundara.”78. I actually read here lṛ, which is just as obscure as la.79. The combination of suruta ‘beautiful screeming’ and rudita ‘weeping, and pāṇi ‘Hand;’is obviously a nonsense. 80. Supposedly we have to read this Malayupura because Malayu is the name of thisSumatran kingdom. 81. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 11): “He, who puts his hand on the heavenly tree, whosespeech is verily like music, who has acquired fame (by conquering) the enemy kings,whose form is like that of the god of love, who is able to perform all deeds, who is benton the welfare of Malayupura and who excels in a great number of virtues (?)—is theminister Deva Tuhan.”

- 18 -

Udaya sundarakīṛtti mahītale ǁ12ǁ

«Shining on the mountain of sunrise...82, a leader of obedient rulers is Udaya(sun rise). Udaya humiliates (?) the arrogant army of the enemies and gloriousis Udayas’s fame on earth.»83

It is to be hoped that other scholars will contribute their knowledge to solvethe many remaining riddles.

——————

82. Tarūpati does not make sense, neither does rupati. One should expect a word meaning‘sun’.83. Chatterji’s translation (Verse 12): “Whose beauty adorns the Udaya mountain, who isthe leader (minister?) of the prosperous ruler (?), who disdains the prosperity of the ris-ing enemy (?)—fine is the glory of Udaya on this earth. “

- 19 -

Hendrik Kern

The Sanskrit-Inscription of King Ādityawarman at Kubu Rajo84

The monument at Kubur Raja, Lima Kaum, Sumatra’s West Coast85, is thetomb stone of the well-known king Ādityawarman86 whose name has becomefamous because of his many inscriptions; some of them have already been pub-lished, others are not yet published.87 Thanks to Mr. Rouffaer I have receivedfor my study a photograph and two rubbings of the inscription on this funeralmonument. In consequence I was able to interpret the contents of the inscrip-tion and to publish the result of my research in this article.

The inscription in barbaric Sanskrit consists of a row of Sanskrit words, onefollowing after the other without any grammatical structure, and probablymeant to be vocatives. Regarding the meaning of the words it is obvious thatthey sing the praise of Ādityawarman by describing his great virtues. The writ-ing of the stone is damaged here and there and as a result entire character havebeen erased or cannot be recognised. This, combined with the mutilated lan-guage, causes the text to be partially unintelligible. But there is enough left toget an idea of the general contents. What follows is my rendering of the inscrip-tions based on my research.88

84. This article of the Dutch Sanskritist Johan Hendrik Caspar Kern (1833–1917) was firstpublished in 1913 in Vol. 67 (p. 401–404) of the Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- enVolkenkunde van Nederlands-Indië under the title Grafsteenopschrift van KoeboerRadja and reprinted in 1917 in Vol. 7 of the Verspreide Geschriften (‘collection of essays’)under the title Het Sanskrit-inschrift op den grafsteen van Vorst Ādityawarman teKubur Raja (Mĕnangkabau; 1300 Çāka) and with a few additional footnotes. The follow-ing is a translation of the 1917 edition.85. Editor’s Note: Lima Kaum is a district (kecamatan) in the regency (kabupaten) TanahDatar of the province West Sumatra. 86. Editor’s Note: Krom (1931:413) finds it “incomprehensible” how Kern could havecome to the conclusion that the inscription is Ādityawarman’s tomb stone. ApparentlyKern with misled by the toponym Kubur Raja ‘king’s grave’. Bosch (1930:150) pointedout that the name of the place is not Kubur Raja but Kubu Rajo ‘king’s fortress’.87. Cf. Krom 1912:41 No. 20; Kern 1917b and Kern 1917e.88. A facsimile of the same inscription was made by the professional photographer C.Nieuwenhuis at Padang in May 1912 which has also been used Prof. Kern. (Footnoteadded in 1917)

- 20 -

1. Oṃ māṃla virāgara89 —2. Ādvayavarmma3. mputra Kaṇaka +90

4. medinīndra — ǀ o ǀ5. śukṛtā ā vila91

6. bdhakusalaprasa —7. ǁ dhru ǁ maitrī karu8. ṇā ā mudīta u +92

9. pekṣā ā ǁ93 yācakka10. jaṇakalpatarurupa11. mmadāna ǁ ā ǁ Ādi12. tyavarmma mbhūpa kulisa13. dharavaṅśa ǀ o ǀ pra14. tīkṣa avatāra15. śrīlokeśvara16. deva ǁ mai —94

The spelling is as defective as the language. In particular the person whomade the inscription continuously confuses the various sibilants and nasals, e.g.compare kaṇaka and jaṇa and also śukṛtā and kusala or kulisa. Not correct is alsoyācakka instead of yācaka. Very odd is empu for pu in line three, and mbhū for bhūin line 12. Equally odd is the long vowel ā which occurs several times withoutany connection with the preceding or the following word. I can only interpretthis as an interjection. In Sanskrit the long ā is used, among other things, to ex-press pity and therefore corresponds with our “oh my”. Because the inscriptiondoes not have any complete sentences but only words, either single or compos-ite, I will deal with them one by one. The sacred syllable Oṃ is in no need ofany explanation. The following word māṃla makes no sense. What the personwho made the inscription was thinking of writing down this word I cannoteven guess. Virāga means both ‘devoid of emotion’ and ‘the lack of emotion’.Because of the illegibility of the next two letters I cannot decide which of thetwo meanings is meant here. Neither is it clear whether the word is applicableto Adwayawarman , Ādityawarman’s father, or for the latter himself.

89. The ra is not entirely clear.90. The diacritic for the vowel e that belongs to the following character is placed here.91. Vila is rather blurred.92. The diacritic for the vowel e that belongs to the following character is placed here.93. Could perhaps be āḥ94. A preliminary transliteration of this inscription was provided by Prof. Kern in early1880, published in the Notulen Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Weten-schappen XVIII (1880), p. 125–126. (Footnote added in 1917)

- 21 -

Inscription on the tomb stone of King Ādityawarman at Kubu Rajo(Minangkabau); ± Śakā 1300

- 22 -

Ādvayavarmamputra is ‘son of Adwayawarman ’. Kaṇakamedinindra means ‘Lord of the Golden Earth’. I assume that

Kanakamedinī is a synonym of Suvarṇadvīpa ‘gold island’ i.e. Sumatra. —The let-ter that follows is blurred, if it were ja ‘sun’ it would make sense, but I cannotrecognise ja in the blurred contours of this letter. Śukṛtā instead of sukṛtā. May be it is meant to mean ‘by good deeds’ which in

grammatical Sanskrit would be sukṛtāiḥ. —The following long ā is, as I said be-fore, probably an interjection.

Kuśalaprasava means ‘fruit of virtue’ or ‘fruit of merit’. Kuśalam prasavati isbasically the same as puṇyam prasavati95, a typical Buddhist phrase. The readingvila is not totally certain. The normal meaning of vilabdha is ‘given, granted’, butthat doesn’t fit here, but considering labdha which means ‘received, participat-ing in’, it wouldn’t be too strange that the maker of the funeral inscription haswritten vilabdha in the meaning of labdha ‘received’. If this assumption is correct,I dare to give the following translation: “Oh you who have received the fruits ofmerit”.

Dhru is the root of dhruvati of which is deduced dhruvant ‘knowing’, but inthe Dhāthupāṭha the meaning dhru is given as the same as sthairya ‘consistence,firmness, tenacity’. Probably the root means here ‘consistent’ or ‘tenacious’ inspiritual exercises and this is made more probable looking at the next fourwords that could very well be related to dhru. i.e. maitrī ‘amiability’, karuṇā‘compassion’, muditā ‘joyful anticipation’, and upekṣā ‘indifference, equanimity’.As we see we are looking here at the list of the four Bhāwāna-s, i.e. spiritual ex-ercises that intend to foster the aforementioned characteristics, with which thesage should be saturated. The Bhāwāna-s are an important part of Yoga but areimportant also for Buddhist monks.96 Although there is a seizure mark afterdhru I consider it certain that in its meaning it is linked to the following fourwords so that I translate: “tenacious in the fostering of friendliness, compassion,joyful participation, and equanimity.” Wether we can deduce from the praisegiven to Ādityawarman as well-versed in the Bhāwāna-s, that he in the last partof his life lived the life of a monk, we have to leave undecided.

Yācakkajaṇa (a misspelling for yācakajana) kalpataru (so and not -rur) is “akalpataru (tree that fulfills all wishes) for people in need.” The next word is diffi-cult to explain, especially because of the unintelligible mma of line 11. I cannotimagine any word ending in mma97 except dramma. It is certain that this is notthe preceding word in this text here. I assume that mma is here some kind offoolish spelling like mputra instead of putra so that what is really meant is justma with the preceding upa. We have to assume here that the maker of the in-scription thought that the nominative tarur was the root. If this assumption iscorrect then yācakajanakalpataru(r) + upamadānā could be translated as ‘he whosegenerosity is comparable to a kalpataru for people in need’.

Ādityavarmma mbhūpa98 kulisa (read: kuliśa) dharavaṃśa ǀ o ǀ which means‘Ādityawarman, king, of Indra’s lineage’.

95. Editor’s Note: Kuśala and puṇya have the same meaning ‘virtue, merit’.96. Bhāvāna has the synonyms in Pāli appamaññā and brahmavihāra.97. Here I don’t refer to rmma. 98. Possibly the m is the result of the wrong use of sandhi for n so the reading should beĀdityavarman, a vocative.

- 23 -

Pratīkṣa avatāra śrī Lokeśvara. Pratīkṣa is ‘expecting, waiting for’ but thismeaning does not fit here. That is why I believe that it has been used here bymistake for pratyakṣa ‘evidently’. So the translation would then be ‘evidently theincarnation of Lokeśwara (alias Awalokiteśwara) or ‘the evident incarnation ofLokeśwara.’

At the end of the text we find deva ǁ mai —. A part of the character after namai has broken off so that we cannot tell what the character had been originally,possibly tra or tri. Deva maitra is ‘the god full of love, the merciful God’, an ex-pression that goes very well with the character of Lokeśwara. Deva maitrī ‘Godof compassion’ means basically the same.

——————

References

Bonatz, Dominik, John Miksic, J. David Neidel, and Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz. From Distant Tales; Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the Highlands of Sumatra. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009.

Bosch, F.D.K. “Verslag van een reis door Sumatra.” Oudheidkundige Verslag (1930): 133-57.

Brandes, J.L.A. Pararaton (Ken Arok) of Het Boek Der Koningen Van Tumapěl En Van Majapahit. Verhandelingen Van Het Bataviaasch Genootschap Van Kunsten En Wetenschappen, Vol. 49.1 Batavia, 's Hage: Albrecht, Nijhoff, 1897.

Casparis, J. G. de. “Beberapa tokoh besar dalam sejarah Asia Tenggara dari kira-kira 1000-1400M.” Amerta, Berkala Arkeologi 16 (1996): 38-46.

Chatterjee, Bijan. India and Java. Greater India Society Bulletin, Vol. 5 Calcutta, 1933.

Grünwedel, Albert. Mythologie Des Buddhismus. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1900.Kern, H. “'T opschrift van Batoe Beragong op Sumatra.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-,

Land en Volkenkunde 3e Volgreeks, Deel VII (1872): 289-97.Kern, H. “Nog iets over 't opschrift van Pagger Roejong.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-,

Land en Volkenkunde 3e Volgreeks, Deel VIII (1873): 188-96.Kern, H. “Het opschrift van Batoe Beragong op nieuw onderzocht.” Bijdragen

tot de Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 4e Volgreeks Deel I (1877): 159-64.Kern, H. “De wij-inscriptie op het Amoghapāça-beeld van Padang Candi

(Batang Hari-districten); 1269 Çaka.” Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land enVolkenkunde 49 (1907): 159-70.

Kern, H. “De Nāgarakṛtāgama. Oudjavaansch Lofdicht Op Koning Hayam Wuruk Van Majapahit. Door Prapañca. 1287 Çāka = 1365 A.D.” VerspreideGeschriften Vii. Inscripties Van Den Indischen Archipel, Slot. De Nāgarakṛtāgama, Eerste Gedeelte. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917. 227-320.

Kern, H. “De Wij-Inscriptie Op Het Amoghapāça-Beeld Van Padang Candi (Midden Sumatra); 1269 Çaka.” Verspreide Geschriften 7. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917. 163-75.

Kern, H. “Het Sanskrit-Inschrift Op Den Grafsteen Van Vorst Adityavarman Te Kubur Raja (Menangkabau ± 1300 Çaka.” Verspreide Geschriften 7. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917. 215-21.

Kern, H. “Het Zoogenaamde Rotsinschrift Van "Batu Beragung" in Menangkabau (1269 En 1297 Caka).” Verspreide Geschriften 6. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917. 251-63.

Kern, H. “Nog Iets Over 'T Opschrift Van Pagarruyung in Menangkabau (1278

- 24 -

Caka).” Verspreide Geschriften 6. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1917. 267-75.

Kern, H. Verspreide Geschriften 6. 's-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1917.Kern, H. Verspreide Geschriften 7. 's-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1917.Kern, H. Het Oud-Javaansche Lofdicht Nagarakrtagama Van Prapanca (1365), Met

Aanteekeningen Van Dr. N. J. Krom. s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1919.Kozok, Uli. Kitab Undang-Undang Tanjung Tanah : Naskah Melayu Yang Tertua.

Jakarta: Yayasan Naskah Nusantara, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 2006.Krom, N. J. “De Inscriptie van Nglawang.” Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land en

Volkenkunde 53 (1911)Krom, N. J. “Inventaris der oudheden in de Padangsche Bovenlanden.”

Oudheidkundig Verslag Bijlage G (1912): 33-50.Krom, N. J. “Epigraphische Aantekeningen IX. De Inscriptie van

Prapañcasārapura.” Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 56 (1914)

Krom, N. J. “Een Sumatraansche inscriptie van Koning Kṛtanagara.” Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, 5e reeks, dl. 2 (1916): 306-39.

Krom, N. J. Epigrafische Bijdragen I. Een Koperplaat Van 848 Çaka? Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde, Vol. 75 Weltevreden: Albrecht, 1919.

Krom, N. J. “Epigrafische bijdragen III. De. Singosari-inscriptie van 1273.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indie 75 (1919): 8-24.

Krom, N. J. “Epigraphische Aantekeningen XV, De Dateering de Koperplaten van Bendosari.” Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 59 (1920)

Krom, N. J. Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis. 's-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1931.Pleyte, C.M. “Over een paar Hindoebeelden van Padang-tjandi.” Tijdschrift voor

Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 3-4 (1907): 171-77.Rouffaer, G.P. Beschrijving Van Tjandi Singasari En De Wolkentooneelen Van

Panataran / [Edited By] Jan Laurens Andries Brandes, Samengesteld Naar De Gegevens Verstrekt Door H.L. Leydie Melville En J. Knebel ; Benevens Eene Herdenking Van J.L.A. Brandes. 's Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1909.

Schnitger, F. M. Hindoe-Oudheden Aan De Batang Hari. Leiden: Brill, 1936.Waddell, L. Austine. The Buddhism of Tibet Or Lamaism. London: WH Allen &

Co, 1895.

- 25 -