J.

van Lohuizen-de Leeuw

The Dhyani-Buddhas of Barabudur

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 121 (1965), no: 4, Leiden, 389-416

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR

\ yV / ithout exaggeration it can be stated that more has been

^/ ^/ written on Barabudur than about any other ancient
monument in Java. However, in spite of the great amount of attention
devoted to this important building, certain aspects have not yet been
solved satisfactorily.1 Some of these problems are taken up in the
following article.2

Fig. 1.
1
For the most recent and in our opinion most successful survey of the impor-
tance of Barabudur as an architectural monument and its significance as a
religious symbol, see A. J. Bernet Kempers, Borobudur, Mysteriegebeuren in
Steen, Den Haag, [I960].
2
The material in this article was first used for a paper read at the International
Conference on Asian Archaeology held on the occasion of the centenary
celebration of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 14-20 Dec. 1961.
The summary distributed at the conference was subsequently published in Thai
by M. C. Subhadradis Diskul, Botkwam giaw kab Buroputtho (An Article
concerning Barabudur), Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn Uni-
versity, vol. 2, 1963, pp. 81-83.
Dl. 121 26
 •v\

390 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

Roughly speaking Barabudur shows four more or less square ter-

races lower down, three circular platforms higher up and finally a large
stiipa in the centre on top (Fig. 2). The main wall of each square terrace
serves simultaneously as balustrade of the gallery above so that there
is a total of five main walls (Fig. 1). Going round the monument in
pradaksina on the four lower terraces one always has a balustrade
on the left and a main wall on the right, both decorated with nar-
rative reliefs.

' I
Fig. 2.

Although each and every one of the 1460 panels has not yet been iden-
tified accurately, the texts illustrated in these reliefs have gradually

A
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUE. 391

been traced in the course of time.3 Thus the 160 representations on

the hidden base show incidents in the Karmavibhanga, while the
Lalitavistara is depicted in the upper row of reliefs on the main wall
of the first terrace, i.e. on the second main wall. The bottom row on
this wall illustrates jatakas and avadanas and these stories, including
the Jatakarnala by Aryasura, are continued in the top and bottom row
of reliefs on the balustrade of the first terrace and on that of the second
gallery. The panels on the main wall of this second terrace (i.e. on the
third main wall) as well as those on the balustrades and main walls
of the terraces higher up are all devoted to the Gandavyuha, a text
to which the Bhadracari has been added at the end.4
On all four sides of the building the five terrace walls are crowned
by a large number of niches sheltering seated Buddha figures and on
the three round platforms higher up small perforated stupas, each
containing a similar image, are arranged concentrically around the
main stupa at the top.
The Buddhas in the niches on the first four main walls hold their
hands in a different attitude on each of the four sides of the monument.
Thus the images on the east side display the bhumisparsamudra, those
on the south side show the varamudra, those on the west the dhyana-
mudra and finally the Buddhas on the north side hold their right
hands in abhayamudra. Already von Humboldt recognized in this
arrangement the Nepalese system of the Dhyani-Buddhas, each of
whom has his own mudra and presides over one of the four quarters
of the sky.5 Circumambulating the monument in pradaksina we there-
fore find in all eastern niches the Dhyani-Buddha Aksobhya, in the
niches facing south Ratnasambhava, in those on the west Amitabha
and finally in all northern niches Amoghasiddha. As we shall see
further on, Stutterheim suggested a minor correction with regard to
the images in the niches on the first main wall, but otherwise von
Humboldt's identification has been generally accepted.
3
See N. J. Krom, Beschrijving van Barabudur, vol. I, Archaeologische Be-
schrijving, 's-Gravenhage, 1920; F. D. K. Bosch, De Beteekenis der Reliefs
van de derde en vierde Gaanderij van Baraboedoer, Oudheidkundig Verslag
1929, 1930, pp. 179-243; F. D. K. Bosch, De Bhadracari afgebeeld op den
Hoofdmuur der vierde Gaanderij van den Baraboedoer, Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde van Ned.-Indie, vol. 97, 1938, pp. 241-293.
* See the two articles by Bosch mentioned in note 3.
B
W. von Humboldt, Vber die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java, vol. I, Berlin,
1836, pp. 127-139. In Buddhist texts the Dhyani-Buddhas are actually indicated
as Jinas, but we prefer to use the word Dhyani-Buddha, which was introduced
by Hodgson, as it has acquired general acceptance in western publications.
392 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

In contrast to the iconographical differences among the Buddhas

on the first four main walls, those on the fifth display the same attitude
of the right hand on all four sides of the building, viz. the vitarkamudra
(PL 1). Finally the images within the small perforated stupas on the
three circular terraces hold their hands in dharmacakramudra (PL 2).
Whereas the identification of the figures in the niches on the first
four main walls was generally accepted, great differences of opinion
arose in the course of time with regard to the identification of the
images on the fifth main wall and of those within the small stupas on the
three circular platforms higher up. In addition, the unfinished image
found in the central stupa by Hartmann was the cause of a certain
amount of controversy (PL 3). In the following section we shall discuss
in chronological order the most important theories put forward as
solutions to these problems.

II

In 1873 Leemans accepted von Humboldt's suggestion that, on

account of their mudra, the Buddha figures on the circular terraces
should be regarded as Vairocana, the fifth Dhyani-Buddha in the
Nepalese system, who presides over the centre. The images on the
fifth main wall were identified by Leemans as Amoghasiddha, for he
believed that there is so little difference between the abhayamudra and
the vitarkamudra that they can be exchanged.6 In his monograph on
Barabudur Krom refuted this second part of Leemans' hypothesis with
sound arguments for which we refer our readers to this important
publication.7
In 1887 IJzerman also accepted von Humboldt's suggestion with
regard to the Buddhas on the circular platforms, but in his opinion
the images with vitarkamudra on the fifth main wall should be con-
sidered as Manusi-Buddhas.8 Once again Krom disagreed, more in
particular with the latter part of IJzerman's views, his main argument
being that it is utterly impossible to accept a theory in which the
Manusi-Buddhas interfere with the clear and systematic arrangement
8
C. Leemans, Boro-boedoer op het Eiland Java, afgebeeld door en onder toesigt
van F. C. Wilsen, etc., Leiden, 1873, pp. 452-469.
7
Krom, op. cit., p. 641.
8
J. W. IJzerman, Communication about the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas on
Barabudur in Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, 3rd Series, vol. 4, 1887, pp. 209-215, esp.
pp. 210-211.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 393

of Barabudur's Dhyani-Buddhas which works up towards a hierarchical

climax.9 As we shall see presently, this argument carries even more
weight in the case of the solution which Foucher suggested in 1909
for part of the problem of Barabudur's Buddha figures.
According to this scholar the link between the four Dhyani-Buddhas
on the first four main walls and the images on the fifth main wall is
so obvious, that one cannot avoid the conclusion that the latter represent
the fifth Dhyani-Buddha, Vairocana.10 In his monograph Krom ex-
pressed "complete agreement" with this part of Foucher's views,11
in spite of the fact that the Buddha figures in question display the
vitarkamudra, whereas Vairocana should hold his hands in dharma-
cakramudra.
Having exhausted the list of five Dhyani-Buddhas for the first part
of his theory, Foucher proceeded to suggest that the images on the
circular terraces represent sakyamuni, but he omitted to adduce any
arguments supporting his point of view.12 Krom took exception to this
last part of Foucher's hypothesis and argued in a most convincing and
authoritative way that the whole plan of Barabudur is clearly a sym-
bolical representation of consecutive phases of spiritual development.
Following on the five Dhyani-Buddhas, the images of the Manusi-
Buddha Sakyamuni on the three higher platforms would constitute a
completely unacceptable anti-climax. Krom therefore concluded that we
have to search for a solution in another direction, basing ourselves on
the conviction that the images on the three circular terraces must
represent a figure occupying a hierarchically higher position than that
of the five Dhyani-Buddhas.13
Krom tried to solve this problem in 1920 by pointing out that, next
to the set of five Dhyani-Buddhas, there also exists a system in Nepal
and Tibet in which a sixth Dhyani-Buddha is superimposed on the
set of five, who is considered to be their lord and master. This supreme
Dhyani-Buddha or Adi-Buddha is called Vajrasattva and it is this
Arch-Buddha whom Krom believed to be represented on the three
round platforms. According to him there would be only one point
militating against this identification, viz. the fact that Vajrasattva is
8
Krotn, op. cit., p. 641.
10
A. Foucher, Notes d'archeologie bouddhigue, III. L'iconographie bouddhique
a Java, Bulletin de l'ficole franchise d'Extreme-Orient, vol. 9, 1909, pp. 43-50,
esp. pp. 43-45.
11
Krom, op. cit., p. 641.
12
Foucher, op. cit., p. 45.
13
Krom, op. cit., pp. 641-642.
394 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

always depicted in the array of a Bodhisattva. This argument he tried

to refute by pointing out that the Dhyani-Buddha Vairocana is some-
times represented as Bodhisattva,14 on the basis of which he assumed
that, conversely, Vajrasattva might on occasion have been depicted as
Buddha.i5
It seems to us that his counter-argument does not really carry much
weight and that the difficulty arising from the fact that Vajrasattva
is always shown in royal garb and never in a monk's robe, retains most
of its value. In addition there are several other — and this time really
serious — objections against Krom's identification of the Buddhas on
the circular terraces as Vajrasattva and Foucher's suggestion, adopted
by Krom, that the figures on the fifth main wall represent Vairocana.
First of all Vajrasattva is never depicted with his hands in dharma-
cakramudra, but ought to raise a vajra in front of his chest with his
right hand and hold a ghanta against his thigh with his left hand.
Secondly, Vairocana never displays the vitarkamudra but always the
dharmacakramudra or bodhyagrlmudra, two closely related attitudes.16
In adopting Foucher's view that the images on the fifth main wall
should be identified as Vairocana, Krom stated that the fact that these
figures display the wrong mudra did not seem to him to present a
serious objection as the dharmacakramudra and vitarkamudra express
respectively instruction and argumentation, two notions which are so
closely linked that an exchange between the two attitudes is acceptable.17
This reasoning about the supposed interchange at Barabudur, which
would constitute a unique exception to the rule, seems all the more
astonishing coming as it does from Krom, who had himself previously
'rightly objected to Leemans' suggestion of a similar exchange of mudras.
In order to support his view that by way of exception Vajrasattva

14
Krom seems to have mixed up two different things: the Bodhisattva and the
Dhyani-Buddha in Sambhogakaya are both depicted in royal garb. Consequently
garments worn by Bodhisattvas and therefore called Bodhisattva attire by
Krom, do not necessarily indicate Bodhisattva status. In view of the ensuing
misunderstandings the expression "Bodhisattva attire" should be avoided.
15
Krom, op. cit., pp. 643-644.
16
In some cases he is shown balancing a dharmacakra on his hands which lie
folded in his lap in dhyanamudra, see A. Getty, The Gods of Northern
Buddhism, Oxford, 1928, p. 34; for Vairocana's mudra see also K. W. Lim,
Studies in later Buddhist Iconography, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde, vol. 120, 1964, pp. 327-341, note 22 on p. 337.
17
Krom, op. cit., p. 641. In this connection he drew attention to the fact that in
one of the Lalitavistara reliefs the Buddha is represented with vitarkamudra
where one would have expected the dharmacakramudra.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 395

could display the most unusual dharmacakramudra on Barabudur,

Krom cited a passage in the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan in which the
disciple is admonished to turn the wheel of law of Vajradhara.18
According to Krom Vajradhara in this passage is clearly meant to be
the same as Vajrasattva19 and so he concluded: "The obvious,
the only possible, attitude of the hands is therefore the dharmacakra-
mudra. The representation of the Buddha Vajrasattva (with dharma-
cakramudra) meant that Vairocana's usual mudra had to be replaced
by another, related attitude."20
It seems obvious that a passage in the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan,
in which the dharmacakra of Vajradfoara is mentioned, but which in no
way refers to the mudra of ~Va.]rasattva, cannot be accepted as an
explanation for the supposed change in Vajrasattva's mudra. on Bara-
budur. This all the more so, if we have to assume in addition that, in
consequence of this change, the Vairocana images also had to be shown
with a mudra different from the customary one. It is all too far-fetched
and distorted and it seems to us therefore, that it would be preferable
to drop the preconceived assumption that the iconographical rules were
twice violated on purpose without any obvious reason. Krom started
out from the Dhyani-Buddha system of Nepal and Tibet and tried
to force the iconography of the Dhyani-Buddhas on Barabudur into
this frame by tampering with the mudras. We, on the contrary, would
rather prefer to start at the other end and try to explain the system
of Barabudur by accepting the iconography as a given fact.
In 1929 Stutterheim published an important study in which he took
up several of the problems connected with Barabudur.21 He based
himself on the preconception that the Buddhist system of Barabudur
was exactly the same as that expounded in the Sang hyang Kama-
hayanikan. In this respect he therefore made the same mistake as
Krom, taking a given system as his starting-point and trying to fit the
iconography of Barabudur into it. However, when adhering less strictly
to the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan he put forward certain improvements
in the explanation of Barabudur's iconography, such as his suggestion
that the images on the first main wall do not represent four Dhyani-

18
Sang hyang Kamahayanikan, edited by J. Kats, 's-Gravenhage, 1910, 16 b,
pp. 23 and 77.
19
Krom, op. cit., p. 645.
20
Krom, op. cit., p. 646.
21
W . F. Stutterheim, Tjandi Bara-Boedoer, Noam, Vorm, Beteekenis, Welte-
vreden, 1929.
396 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

Buddhas, but either four Manusi-Buddhas or four forms of Gautama.22

With regard to the Buddhas on the fifth main wall holding their
right hands in vitarkamudra, he accepted, like Krorn, Foucher's idea
that these depict Vairocana, "for according to Buddhist literature this
figure can have two mudras".23 This statement is obviously erroneous
and we have already pointed out that the vitarkamudra is never men-
tioned in connection with Vairocana.24
Vajrasattva does not occur in the earlier 25 version A of the Sang
hyang Kamahayanikan and is mentioned only twice in the later
version C (once in the inferior position of substitute of Aksobhya, the
Dhyani-Buddha of the east). Moreover, the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan
never refers to a series of six Dhyani-Buddhas and so Stutterheim
rejected Krom's identification of the images on the circular terraces
as Vajrasattva.26 In his opinion the system given in the Sang hyang
Kamahayanikan indicates that the Buddhas on the two lower circular
platforms should be regarded as representations of Bhatara Sakyamuni
and those on the highest round terrace as images of Bhatara Divarupa.
Finally, he brought forward a number of arguments in favour of the
genuineness of the unfinished sculpture discovered in the central stupa
by Hartmann in 1842, the authenticity of which had been doubted by
Krom, and suggested that it should be identified as Bhatara Buddha.27
Three years after the publication of Stutterheim's book the first part
of Mus' superb istudy on Barabudur appeared.28 He, too, agreed with
Foucher's theory that the fifth Dhyani-Buddha represents Vairocana.29
In addition he accepted Stutterheim's correction with regard to the
images on the first main wall,30 but he totally rejected his assumption
that the Buddhist system of the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan is identical
with that of Barabudur. In an exhaustive discussion he proved by
way of numerous examples that this theory is untenable and that both

22
Stutterheim, op. cit, p. 47.
23
Ibidem.
24
See also note 16.
25
R. Goris, Bijdrage tot de Kennis der Oud-J'avaansche en Balineesche Theologie,
Leiden, 1926, p. 156.
26
Stutterheim, op. cit., pp. SO-S1.
2T
Stutterheim, op. cit., pp. SS-S7.
28
P . Mus, Barabudur, les origines du stupa et la transmigration, essai d'archeo-
logie religieuse comparee, Bulletin de l'ficole franchise d'Extreme-Orient,
vol. 32, 1932, pp. 269-439; vol. 33, 1933, pp. 577-980; vol. 34, 1934, pp. 175-400.
28
Mus, op. cit., 1932, pp. 430-435.
30
Mus, op. cit, 1932, p. 342.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 397

systems disagree in many respects,31 concluding that "On ne saurait

dire que le systeme n'a rien de commun avec celui dont on retrouve
les traces dans 1'economic du Barabudur".32 Consequently he disagreed
with Stutterheim's identification of the Buddhas on the circular terraces.
At the same time he had his doubts about Krom's idea that these images
represent Vajrasattva33 and he concluded that the solution of this
problem is fraught with "difficultes in solubles".34
In our chronological review of the most important opinions expressed
with regard to the identification of the Dhyani-Buddhas on Barabudur,
we finally come to an article by Bosch published in 1947. In it he
draws our attention to the fact that the Bhlmastava equates Vajrasattva
with Bhima.35 As a particular Buddha image on one of the round
terraces is still worshipped today as "Sang Bima", Bosch wonders
whether perhaps this custom goes back to the Indo-Javanese period
"when the Buddhist believers were still aware of the fact that there
was a higher set of Dhyanibuddhas called Vajrasattva, and that the
other name of that Vajrasattva was Bhima." If so, this "piece of
information may settle the question in favour of the solution
proposed by Prof. Krom." 36
Provided the name of the image in question as "Sang Bima" indeed
goes back to Indo-Javanese times — a fact which of course cannot
be proved — this could indicate that the images on the three round
terraces were regarded at that time as the sixth Dhyani-Buddha. How-
ever, in view of the weighty arguments against Krom's hypothesis we
would not be prepared to go further than this. For, as we shall see
further on, it is only among the younger Mahayana sects that the sixth
Dhyani-Buddha is called Vajrasattva,37 so that the original name of the
sixth Dhyani-Buddha in the Buddhist system of Barabudur may well

81
Mus, op. cit., 1932, pp. 338-344.
32
Mus, op. cit., 1932, p. 341.
33
Mus, op. cit., 1932, p. 350.
34
Mus, op. cit., 1932, p. 351.
35
F . D. K. Bosch, The Bhlmastava, India Antiqua, Leyden, 1947, pp. 57-62. In
a recent article Lim has suggested a minor correction to Bosch's hypothesis
that this equation between Vajrasattva and Bhima was effected by way of
Indra, see Lim, op. cit., pp. 339—341.
36
Bosch, op. cit., 1947, p. 62.
37
Getty, op. cit., p. 3 ; B. Bhattacharyya, The Indian Buddhist Iconography,
Oxford Univ. Press, 1924, p. X X V I I I ; 2nd ed. Calcutta, 1958, p. 4 3 ; L. A.
Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet, London, 1895, pp. 15, 130-131 and 349;
A. Griinwedel, Mythologie du Buddhisme au Tibet et en Mongolie, Leipzig,
1900, p. 98, German ed. p. 96.
398 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

have been replaced by that of Vajrasattva in later times, i.e. in the

East-Javanese period, which is about the earliest one could possibly
date the Bhimastava.
Going over the main theories put forward so> far with regard to the
identification of the Buddhist system of Barabudur, it is interesting
to note how the work of each scholar offers a contribution to the final
solution of the problem. Whereas von Humboldt identified the Dhyani-
Buddhas of the four quarters of the sky on the main walls of the square
terraces, Stutterheim suggested an improvement with regard to the
images on the first main wall. Foucher's view that the clear link
between the four Dhyani-Buddhas and the images on the fifth main
wall indicates that the latter must be identified as the fifth Dhyani-
Buddha, was another important step forward, though we do not agree
with his suggestion that this is Vairocana. Again, Krom's theory that
the images in the perforated stupas on the round terraces must represent
a sixth Dhyani-Buddha occupying a higher position than that of the
other five, is an obvious improvement, though we cannot accept his
identification of this figure as Vajrasattva. Finally, Stutterheim tackled
the problem of the mysterious, unfinished image which was found by
Hartmann in the central stiipa in 1842. Before taking up the identifi-
cation of the fifth and sixth Dhyani-Buddhas, we propose to discuss the
controversial, unfinished sculpture in the next section.

Ill
Krom had his doubts as to whether the unfinished Buddha with
bhumisparsamudra was really originally situated at the top and he
rather believed that some person had placed it there in 1842 in order
to provide Hartmann with "an interesting discovery".38 Moens 39 and
Foucher,40 however, put forward arguments which made them think
that the sculpture was genuine, the latter pointing out that the famous
Buddha figure of Bodh Gaya, which was the holiest image in the
whole Buddhist world, was also an unfinished Buddha with bhumi-
sparsamudra.
In his review of the Barabudur monograph Bosch expressed uneasi-
ness with regard to Krom's idea and he drew attention to a few facts
38
Krom, op. a t , pp. 646-650.
38
J. L. Moens, De Tjandi Mendut, Tijdschr. Bat. Gen., vol. LIX, 1919-1921,
pp. 529-600, note 2 on p. 547.
40
A. Foucher, Le Buddha inacheve de Boro-Budur, Bulletin de l'ficole frangaise
d'Extreme^Orient, vol. 3, 1903, pp. 78-80; Foucher, op. cit., 1909, p. 45.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 399

which would seem to militate against it.41 One of these is the point
that it is incomprehensible why the person, who supposedly placed the
image in the top stupa as a surprise for Hartmann, took the trouble
to drag it all the way up, instead of simply taking one of the Buddhas
seated in the perforated stupas which were near at hand.
We have already mentioned that Stutterheim advanced a number
of Weighty arguments against Krom's views and in favour of the
authenticity of the image in question, though he could not furnish
definite proofs that it had really always stood in the central stupa.
Mus was inclined to accept Stutterheim's arguments, but rejected his
identification of the figure as Bhatara Buddha.42 More recently de
Casparis, on the basis of his own considerations, joined the group of
scholars who believed in the genuineness of the image.43
Finally, we should like to state that we entirely agree with Mus'
remark that Stutterheim believed in the authenticity of the sculpture
because it nicely suited the Buddhist system which he tried to apply
to Barabudur. In the same way Krom refused to accept its genuineness
because it did not agree with the system into which he tried to fit the
iconography of Barabudur. Once more it would seem to us that the
safest thing to do is to let the facts speak for themselves and that it
would be preferable to try to establish the Buddhist system of Bara-
budur from its iconography, rather than to identify its iconography
from a particular given system.
Meanwhile new facts have come to light since Krom and Stutterheim
disagreed about the authenticity of the image in question. One of these
can be found in the manuscript for a book which was never published,
written by Sieburgh during his stay in Java.44 In his discussion of
Barabudur, which he visited some time between 20 November 1837 and
2 April 1839, he reports that there was an unfinished image in the main
stupa at the top.45 On page 35 of the preliminary notes made before he
wrote down the final version of his manuscript, Sieburgh jotted down
that he could not see the image because the stiipa "was still filled with

41
Bosch's review appeared in Tijdschr. Bat. Gen., vol. LXI, 1922, pp. 223-303,
esp. pp. 241-244.
43
Mus, op. cit., 1932, p. 351.
43
J. G. de Casparis, Inscripties uit de Qailendra-tijd, Prasasti Indonesia, vol. I,
Bandung, 1950, pp. 172-175.
** Sieburgh's manuscript is deposited in the Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde,
Leiden; see also J. V. de Bruijn, H. N. Sieburgh en zijn Beteekenis voor de
Javaansche Oudheidkunde, Leiden, 1937.
46
Sieburgh's manuscript, p. 77.
400 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

earth and stones" (italics ours). But he spent three months at Bara-
budur and so he probably discovered the image at a later stage. Now
it could be suggested that Sieburgh added the remark about the
unfinished image in the top stupa in his final manuscript just before
his death in 1842 after he had heard about the results of Hartmann's
excavation in the same year. However, this seems most unlikely, for
Sieburgh sailed from Batavia for Cheribon at the end of January where
he arrived on the 8th of February. From there he left for the interior
where he died on the 2nd of March in the hamlet of Rajagaluh.46
Even if Hartmann had found the disputed image before the middle
of February — the date is completely unknown — it is really most
improbable that Sieburgh had heard about this before the end of January
when he left Batavia, or during his short stay at Cheribon.
Careful scrutiny of Sieburgh's manuscript settles the matter defini-
tely. The remark about the unfinished Buddha image appears on page 77
and was clearly not added later on. The only line which could possibly
have been added, is a note in the margin which tells us that the sculpture
in question is "the only unfinished one on this temple". The manuscript
which contains 294 pages in all, was obviottsly finished before Sieburgh
sailed from Batavia and page 77 must have been written down before
Hartmann saw the unfinished image some time in the course of 1842.
Another important point in this connection is van Erp's conclusion
that the big hole in the main stupa must have been made only after
the end of Hartmann's term of office. In addition van Erp states
that the sculpture in question could not have been brought into> the
stupa through the small hole which existed previously. For van Erp's
further arguments in favour of the authenticity of the unfinished image
we refer our readers to the Barabudur monograph.4?
Finally, it might be of some interest to draw attention to two reliefs
on the fifth main wall illustrating certain passages in the Bhadracari.
In one a Dhyani-Buddha holding his hands in dharmacakramudra
is shown seated within a stupa (see PI. 4). Studying this relief we
cannot help being reminded of the dispute as to whether or not the
main stupa of Barabudur originally contained a Buddha image.47" At
48
De Bruijn, op. cit., p. 26.
*7 T. van Erp, Beschrijving van Barabudur, vol. II, Bomvkundige Beschrijving,
VGravenhage, 1931, pp. 240-244.
4IJ
* After finishing this article we came across a remark by van Erp about this
relief. He is convinced that the artist did indeed intend to show us a Buddha
inside a stupa and he adduces arguments to prove this view, see van Erp,
op. cit, pp. 292-293.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 401

the same time we are reminded of such stupas as those in cave XXVI
at Ajanta or cave X at Elura,48 from which Buddhas seated in dharma-
cakramudra seem to emerge. Again another relief in the Bhadracari
series illustrates, according to Bosch, a miracle mentioned in the text.49
The upper half of this panel shows a row of six Dhyani-Buddhas with
in their midst, as seventh, the "miracle" symbolically represented by
a stupa.
It may well be that these reliefs really convey nothing and that we
should not try to "read between the lines", but the remarks made by
van Erp and Sieburgh are hard facts which cannot be entirely ignored.
Krom's reasoning against the genuineness of the unfinished image
had already been impaired seriously by Bosch and Stutterheim, and
the new facts which have emerged since then seem to add considerable
strength to the various arguments in favour of the authenticity of the
disputed figure. Moreover, Krom's masterly analysis of the symbolism
of Barabudur's architectural plan inevitably leads to the acceptance of
a climax in its Buddhist system corresponding with the apex of the
building in the central stupa at the top. First, four Dhyani-Buddhas
are distributed equally over the four quarters of the sky; next, a fifth
on a higher terrace faces all four directions and consequently occupies
a central position with respect to the lower four. Then a sixth Dhyani-
Buddha is partly visible inside the perforated stupas on the three round
terraces, which represent the Arupadhatu where no material forms
exist. Finally, this sphere has its climax in the central stupa at the top
and logical reasoning would lead one to believe that this part of the
building represents the entirely invisible or unmanifested principal
Source, which one would expect as a final step after the partly invisible
figures in the perforated stupas.
In principle it would seem to us rather immaterial whether the
culminating principle in the Buddhist system of Barabudur was
represented by an image seated invisibly within the top stupa, or by
that stupa itself, in view of the profound metaphysical significance
of the symbol of the stupa throughout the Buddhist world. However,
the above-mentioned facts seem to indicate that we should seriously
reckon with the possibility that the first way of representing the
unmanifested Principle was applied at Barabudur.
48
H. Zimmer, The Art of Indian Asia, its Mythology and Transformations,
New York, 19SS, vol. II, PI. 183 and 197.
48
Bosch, op. cit, 1938, p. 285. Compare Krom, op. dt., PI. XXXV of series IV,
no. 69.
402 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

If this is so, the facts presented at Barabudur by way of its different

images would seem to show that the Buddhist sect to which it
belonged believed in a hierarchical system containing seven different
"entities". Apart from the fact that a sevenfold system makes more
sense from the metaphysical and philosophical point of view, such a
system is actually known in other parts of the Buddhist world. Certain
sects in Tibet believe in a hierarchy in which two esoteric Buddhas,
called in this case Vajradhara and Vajrasattva, occupy the position of
president and vice-president of the five Dhyani-Buddhas.50 It is
therefore not at all impossible that a sevenfold system was known in
ancient Java and the fact that the two highest figures in the system
of Barabudur are respectively partly and completely invisible, would
agree with the esoteric character of the two highest Buddhas in the
sevenfold system of Tibet mentioned above.
A final interesting point is the fact that among some Mahayana
sects Vajrasattva is looked upon as the spiritual son of Aksobhya, and
at the same time as the Tsobo or chief of the five Dhyani-Buddhas.51
Moreover, many Tibetan bronzes depict him wearing an Aksobhya
figure in his head-dress.52 This means that in this particular sevenfold
system the Adi-Buddha 53 or unmanifested Principle is thought to be
an esoteric form of Aksobhya. As the unfinished image of Barabudur
is a Buddha with bhumisparsamudra, the possibility exists that this
particular Mahayana system might in some way be related to that
of Barabudur.

IV

We must now turn to the problem involved in the identification of

the Buddha images in the perforated stupas on the three round terraces.
In view of the symbolical and hierarchical plan of Barabudur, it seems
50
Waddell, op.cit., p. 352; E. Pander, Das Pantheon des Tschangtscha Hutuktu,
Veroffentlichungen aus dem Kgl. Museum fur Volkerkunde in Berlin, vol. I,
1890, p. 59.
51
Waddell, ibidem; Getty, op.cit., p. 5.
52
Getty, op. cit., p. 6; for a similar image from Indonesia see N. J. Krom,
De Buddhistische Bronzen in het Museum te Batavia, Rapporten der Commissie
in Ned.-Indie voor Oudheidk. Onderzoek op Java en Madoera 1912, 1913,
pp. 1-83, esp. no. 602 f on pp. 43-44.
83
The name Adi-Buddha for the Primordial or Arch-Buddha indicates the
highest principle in the Buddhist hierarchy. If the particular system recognizes
only six "entities", then the sixth Dhyani-Buddha is called the Adi-Buddha;
in a sevenfold system this name is given to the seventh "entity".
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 403

obvious that Krom was completely right when he rejected the system
of five Dhyani-Buddhas as the basic frame of Barabudur's iconography.
However, as we have already indicated, we cannot subscribe to his
identification of the sixth figure as Vajrasattva, for he does not hold the
vajra and ghanta but is shown with his hands in dharmacakramudra.
Nowhere in the Buddhist world is Vajrasattva depicted with dharma-
cakramudra, but always with the two attributes mentioned above. This
applies equally to ancient Java, where a number of bronzes representing
him have turned up.54 It is therefore most unlikely that an exception
to this rule would have been made on Barabudur.
In addition there is the interesting fact that the first tract of the
Sang hyang Kamahayanikan mentions the vajra and ghanta in the
closest possible relationship with Vajrasattva.55 Krom's summary of
the passage in question runs: "You should not impart (knowledge about)
the holy vajra, ghanta and mudra to those who are ignorant of the
magic circle (mandala). The vow that you have taken has vajra-
power and is called "Vajrasattva"; may the Highest Wisdom, called
vajrajfiana, enter you through it. Vajrasattva, the All-seeing, will him-
self open the vajra-eye for you".56 Curiously enough, Krom himself
draws attention in a note to this close relationship in the Sang hyang
Kamahayanikan between Vajrasattva and his two attributes with the
following words: "In plastic art too, vajra and ghanta are exactly Vajra-
sattva's attributes".57 Why Krom, in spite of this correct remark, iden-
tifies the Dhyani-Buddha image with dharmacakramudra as Vajrasattva
remains a mystery to us, for we have already explained why we cannot
accept a passage in the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan mentioning the
dharmacakra of Va.jra.dhara as a valid argument in favour of the view
that Va.]r2sattva could for once be depicted with dharmacakramwtfra.
So far for the attributes and mudra. Krom himself felt uneasy about
the fact that Vajrasattva ought to be depicted in royal garb and we have
already pointed out the weakness of his argument that, because Vairo-
54
Krom, op. cit., 1913, pp. 42-44; H . H . Juynboll, Catalogus van 's Rijks Ethno-
graphisch Museum, vol. V, Javaansche Oudheden, Leiden, 1909, p. 86, no. 2858
(the nos. 1630/35 and 1652/2 are forgeries); A. C. Tobi, De Buddhistische
Bronzen in het Museum te Leiden, Oudheidkundig Verslag 1930, 1931, pp. 158-
201, esp. pp. 184-185 (the nos. of the two forgeries are both wrong). In my copy
of Foucher's Etude sur I'iconographie bouddhique de Vlnde, which originally
belonged to Krom, the latter has added on p. 123 a note in the margin to the
effect that no. 116 in the Museum at Modjokerto is also a Vajrasattva image.
55
Sang hyang Kamahayanikan, op. cit., 13 a-14 a, pp. 21 and 75.
56
Krom, op. cit., 1920, p. 750.
57
Ibidem, note 3.
404 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

cana is sometimes represented with a crown and jewelry, we may asstime

conversely that Vajrasattva can occasionally appear in a monk's robe.
The fact is, that Vajrasattva is always shown in royal garb. The only
exception we have been able to trace is a unique temple drawing
reproduced by Schlagintweit, but in this instance Vajrasattva embraces
his sakti, a representation which is unthinkable in the period of
Barabudur.58 So, for the time being this counter-argument by Krom
should be considered with great caution.
Finally, Bhattacharyya states that the conception of Vajrasattva took
shape only in the course of the first half of the 10th century.59 This
would tally with the development in the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan, in
which Vajradhara and Vajrasattva also occur only in the later version.
In his monograph on Barabudur Krom devoted a whole chapter to
a discussion of the type of Buddhism to which this monument might
have belonged.60 It turned out that several important Buddhist texts
in Old-Javanese such as the Sutasoma,61 the story of Kunjarakarna 62
and the second tract of the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan 63 all refer
to Vairocana as the most important Dhyani-Buddha, whereas Vajra-
sattva is not mentioned. Krom summarizes the position as follows:
"Although, on the whole, we consider an identification as the five usual Dhyani-
Buddhas and Vajrasattva, the most likely explanation for the six types of free
standing Buddha images of Barabudur, we do not ignore the fact that the figure
of Vajrasattva seems to have been unable to maintain himself in Java in the long
run and had to surrender his important position to Vairocana. Although we meet
him on this monument — the Buddhism of which goes back directly to Indian
sources as appears from the recognized texts — and also in the Sang hyang
Kamahayanikan, which was partly written as a commentary on Sanskrit mantras,
yet Vajrasattva has left no trace in a popular text such as the legend of
Kunjarakarna; there Vairocana is once again the great Preceptor residing in
a palace with the significant name of Bodhicitta and the same view seems to force
its way into the second tract of the Sang hyang Kamahayanikan, which is less
directly linked with a Sanskrit original than the first." 64
58
Moreover, Schlagintweit's identification of the figure as Vajrasattva is doubtful,
see E. de Schlagintweit, Le Bouddhisme au Tibet, Annales du Musee Guimet,
vol. I l l , Paris, 1881, PL II.
59
Bhattacharyya, op. cit., p. X X V I I I , 2nd ed. p. 43.
80
Krom, op. cit, 1920, pp. 732-766.
61
Krom, op. cit., 1920, pp. 744-745.
82
Krom, op. cit, 1920, pp. 745-747.
63
Krom, op. cit, 1920, pp. 751-752.
84
Krom, op. cit., 1920, p. 646. Although we agree with Krom's conclusion that
these three texts mention only Vairocana and not Vajrasattva as the most
important Dhyani-Buddha, we feel the possibility should be left open that
these texts may belong to a branch of Buddhism in which only five and not
six or seven Dhyani-Buddhas were worshipped, so that Vajrasattva was
naturally not mentioned.
Plate 1. Plate 2.

i,

V
(1
ml
l

if 1
r* •

:
I j

Plate 3. Plate 4.
i «*. ' " '-'•'.' ^ ^ "• •' V . Git \ ' ;' .

5II

Plate S.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 405

Now it appears that Vairocana occupied a very important position

not only in Java, but also elsewhere in the Buddhist world. When the
group of five Dhyani-Buddhas was extended into a sixfold system
some Mahayana sects raised Vairocana, originally the Dhyani-Buddha
of the centre, to the higher position, giving him the name of Mahavairo-
cana. This system is not only found in Tibet and Nepal 65 but in Japan
also, where the Hosso, Tendai, Kegon and Shingon sects regard
Vairocana or Dai-nichi Nyorai as "the Supreme Buddha".66 In view
of the fact that the sixth Dhyani-Buddha on Barabudur displays the
dharmacakramudra, which is normal for Vairocana, and in view of
the highly important position of this figure in the Buddhist literature
of ancient Java, as well as the large number of bronze images of
Vairocana which have turned up in Java,67 it seems more plausible
to identify the sixth figure on Barabudur as Vairocana in his capacity
of Lord of the five Dhyani-Buddhas, than as Vajrasattva.68
If this is so, the Buddhist sect to which Barabudur belonged would
have worshipped Mahavairocana as sixth Dhyani-Buddha, as in Tibet,
Nepal and the Far East, and the Buddhism of Barabudur would in
that case agree more with the data as expressed in the contemporary
iconography and literature of ancient Java.69 Moreover, this would
mean that we could drop the rather involved reasoning according to
which Vajrasattva — whom Krom believed to occupy such an exalted
place on Barabudur — "seems to have been unable to maintain himself
in Java in the long run and had to surrender his important position
to Vairocana", a reasoning which, in addition, runs counter to the
development elsewhere in the Buddhist world.

V
Our next problem is the identification of the Buddha images in the
65
Waddell, op.cit, pp. 130 and 347; Getty, op. dt., p. 31.
68
Getty, op. tit., p. 2, note 3.
8T
Krom, op. cit., 1913, pp. 6-10 and 46 (no. 657 identified by Krom as Samanta-
bhadra, is actually a Vairocana in Sambhogakaya); Juynboll, op. cit., pp. 77-80
and 92 (nos. 2853 and 3006 identified by Juynboll as Samantabhadra, represent
Vairocana in Sambhogakaya); Tobi, op. cit., pp. 164-168 and pp. 186-187
(no. 3006 is actually Vairocana, not Samantabhadra).
68
This identification differs from that of von Humboldt, Leemans and IJzerman
in so far that these scholars believed that the Buddhas in the perforated stflpas
represent Vairocana as Dhyani-Buddha of the centre.
68
Even during the Muslim period Vairocana's important position was still
remembered, see Th. Pigeaud, Erucakra - Vairocana, India Antiqua, Leyden,
1947, pp. 270-273.
Dl. 121 27
406 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

niches on the fifth main wall, i.e. the main wall of the fourth gallery.
We have already indicated that we cannot agree with Foucher's sug-
gestion that the fifth Dhyani-Buddha represents Vairocana, nor with
Krom's idea that the architect of Barabudur depicted him by way of
exception with vitarkamudra, as his normal attitude, the dharmacakra-
mudra, had supposedly been allotted already to Vajrasattva, contrary
to all iconographical rules. Throughout the Buddhist world Vairocana's
hands are shown in dharmacakramudra or in bodhyagrimudra, two
attitudes closely related. In Japan he is sometimes represented, in
dhyanarnudra with a dharmacakra placed on his hands. The numerous
Vairocana images found in Java, some of which bear an inscription
with his name, all hold their hands in dharmacakramudra or bodhyagrl-
miudra and so there is no good reason to assume that the architect of
Barabudur made an exception and depicted him in vitarkamudra.
Discussing the reliefs on Candi Jago in his monograph on Barabudur
Krom says:
"On the temple of Jajaghu the reliefs are pre-eminently decorative in
character; the idea was to embellish the temple as much as possible and this
aim was achieved among others by illustrating fitting stories — fitting that is,
as suitable ornamentation. The purport of these stories was a matter of secondary
importance and it did not even matter very much whether they were Buddhistic
or not." 70
I n K r o m ' s "Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis" this thesis is expressed
more concisely: " T h e subject of the reliefs was not chosen for its
religious purport, but for its decorative value". 7 1
Regarding this statement we remarked some sixteen years ago that
it is debatable 7 2 because several of the texts illustrated on Candi Jago
exhibit a clear purport centring round the theme of salvation through
the acquisition of spiritual enlightenment, even if this purport is
sometimes disguised in the garb of a metaphorical story, in which the
hero takes possession of a treasure, jewel or (thought-)gem (cintamani).
Illustrations of the subjects narrated in this type of literature, which
could be classified under the general heading of "salvation stories",
were pre-eminently suitable as decoration of funerary temples. 72 * F o r it
was hoped that the soul of the deceased would be liberated from the
70
Krom, op. cit, 1920, p. 742.
71
N. J. Krom, Hindoe-Javaansche Geschiedenis, 2nd ed., 's-Gravenhage, 1931,
p. 327.
72
J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, proposition no. X I I I for the Ph. D.-degree 1949.
7211
After this article went to press I discovered that Stutterheim expressed similar
ideas, see W . F . Stutterheim, Cultuurgeschiedenis van Indonesia, vol. II, Het
Hinduisme in de Archipel, 3rd ed., Djakarta, 1952, pp. 16S and 171.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 407

sarnsara and would merge with the Divine. The illustrations of these
salvation stories on the walls of Candi Jago were therefore, not only
most appropriate, but it was felt that these narrative reliefs would
magically contribute to the desired effect: they were, so to say, mantras
or prayers for the soul of the deceased, carved in stone.
In our opinion the Javanese architects, therefore, certainly did not
select the stories to be illustrated on a building in the first place on
account of the ornamental value of the reliefs illustrating these tales,
but rather on account of the contents and metaphorical significance
of the texts depicted. Barabudur presents a striking example of this
thesis. The hidden base is decorated with 160 panels illustrating the
Karmavibhanga, a text in which the effects of the law of karma are
explained. A more suitable text could hardly have been selected for the
narrative reliefs on this part of the building which, as we know,
represents the Karmadhatu 73 and it is, therefore, only too obvious
that there exists a close relationship between the hidden base of Bara-
budur and the contents of the reliefs depicted on it.
In the sphere of the Rupadhatu, situated above the Karmadhatu,
we find first of all on the main wall of the first gallery a series of
panels illustrating the Lalitavistara, a text which describes the life of
the historical Buddha Sakyamuni. After this the rest of the first and
part of the second terrace show representations of jatakas and avadanas,
containing the former lives of the historical Buddha and other stories
about saints.
There is no doubt that all these texts were selected on purpose by
the architect of Barabudur as subjects for the narrative reliefs and that
the particular place on the monument where each text should be depicted
was determined by him with great care in accordance with the sym-
bolical meaning of the various parts of the building. This rule applies
not only to the above-mentioned series of reliefs on the hidden base
and on the first two terraces, but also to those on the main wall of
the second gallery and on the balustrades and main walls of the terraces
higher up.
73
The view that the architectural form of Barabudur represents symbolically
the three stages of spiritual development, Karmadhatu, Rupadhatu and Arfipa-
dhatu, is nowadays generally accepted, see for instance Bernet Kempers,
op. cit., pp. 95-%; Bernet Kempers and Krom (Aanvulling op de Archaeo-
logische Beschrijving in T. van Erp, op. cit., pp. 62-63) believe that Stutterheim
discovered this symbolism in Barabudur, but it would really be more correct
to say that he rediscovered it, for this idea was already discussed by Sieburgh
in his manuscript and Leemans, op. cit., p. 455 refers to it, see also de Bruijn,
op. cit., pp. 78-79.
408 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

The 460 reliefs on these last-mentioned walls are all illustrations

of the Gandavyuha, a text to which the Bhadracari has been added at
the end. The Gandavyuha describes the pilgrimage of the Bodhisattva
Sudhana, who calls upon a great number of gurus in the course of his
quest for spiritual enlightenment. Among these are Bodhisartvas, gods
and monks, as well as laymen of various trades. "Thus the devotee
circumambulating the galleries of Barabudur followed Sudhana from
stage to stage on his way to spiritual wisdom. Together with him he
would finally find the supreme master, the Great Bodhisattva Samanta-
bhadra, under whose guidance Sudhana enters Absolute Reality." 7 4
The Bhadracari, which was appended to the Gandavyuha in the
8th century, is depicted on the main wall of the fourth gallery of
Barabudur. Like the Gandavyuha it glorifies Samantabhadra, this time
in the form of an oath in which the devotee undertakes to follow the
example of this saviour.
From all this it is obvious that the spiritual development of the
pupil seeking enlightenment is not only expressed symbolically by the
architecture of Barabudur, but also by its sculptural decoration, more
in particular by the Dhyani-Buddha images and the stories illustrated
in the numerous panels. Consequently there is no doubt that a close
relationship exists, as in the case of the hidden base, between each
particular part of the building and the text depicted on it. In addition
it is abundantly clear that Samantabhadra must have occupied a most
important position in the Buddhist system of Barabudur, for, out of
the eleven rows of panels on this monument, no less than five illustrate
a text extolling Samantabhadra as the supreme saviour. Moreover,
these series of reliefs are situated on the three higher terraces, an
arrangement which undoubtedly has a special significance in view of
the generally accepted symbolism of Barabudur's architectural plan.
It is completely impossible that all this could be purely accidental and
we are forced to assume that Samantabhadra occupied a very high
position in the Buddhist system of Barabudur.
In connection with the expansion of the group of five Dhyani-
Buddhas into a sixfold system Waddell says:
"In the more developed theory, tending towards monotheism, a First Great
Cause, tinder the title of the primordial or Adi-Buddha, is placed above these
five celestial Buddhas as their spiritual father and creator. And to this rank was
promoted the first and central one of the metaphysical Buddhas, namely, Vairocana,
"The Omni-present" or his reflex Samantabhadra, "The All Good"." 75
74
Bernet Kempers, op. cit., p. 79.
76
Waddell, op. cit, p. 347.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 409

Elsewhere he defines this as follows:

"It will be seen that the five celestial Jinas are so distributed as to allot one
to each of the four directions, and the fifth is placed in the centre. And the
central position thus given to him, namely, Vairocana, is doubtless associated
with his promotion to the idi-Buddhaship amongst certain northern Buddhists;
though the reformed and unreformed sects of Lamas, differ as regards the specific
name which they give the Adi-Buddha, the former calling him Vajradhara,
doubtless selected as bearing the title of "Vajra" so dear to Tantrik Buddhists,
while the unreformed sects consider him to be Samantabhadra, that is, the celestial
son of Vairocana," 76

Finally Waddell says that this "Primordial Buddha-God" is most

actively worshipped by the old or unreformed school, under the title
of "The all-good religious body" (Dharmakaya Samantabhadra).77
Among students of Buddhist iconography Samantabhadra is gener-
ally known merely as Bodhisattva and in Java, too, we are only ac-
quainted with him in that capacity.78 The fact that he is worshipped
by certain sects as the Lord of the five Dhyani-Buddhas has received
far too little attention. Even Waddell neglects this aspect when he
says of Samantabhadra in his chapter on Bodhisattvas: "He is figured
at page 14, and is the son of the celestial Buddha Vairocana, and
is to be distinguished from the Adi-Buddha of the same name."79
The illustration to which Waddell refers is a reproduction of a Japanese
drawing accompanied by the following caption "Samanta-bhadra (a
Celestial Bodhisat)". However, the illustration (PI. 5) does not show
Samantabhadra as Bodhisattva, but as Adi-Buddha, judging by the
crown in which he carries representations of the five Dhyani-Buddhas,
over whom he presides.8" Other indications that the picture in question
shows Samantabhadra as Adi-Buddha are the four dikpalakas and the
ten pairs of arms, peculiarities which symbolise the totality of the
quarters of the sky and which characterize him as Lord of the Universe,
a position indicated also by his name Samanta(in all directions)-bhadra
(auspicious, good).

M
Waddell, op. cit., pp. 130-131.
" Waddell, op. cit, p. 349.
78
For instance on Candi Mendut and possibly in Candi Plaosan, see N . J. Krom,
Inleiding tot de Hindoe-Javaansche Kunst, 's-Gravenhage, 1923, vol. I, p. 310
and vol. II, p. 10.
79
Waddell, op. cit., p. 358.
80
F o r this crown, which is characteristic of the Lord of the five Dhyani-Buddhas,
see J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, The Ku$tarajagala Image, an Identification,
in Paranavitana Felicitation Volume, Colombo, 1965, pp. 253-261, esp. pp. 256-257.
410 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

De Visser committed the same error as Waddell when describing

a Japanese painting by an unknown master of the 12th century, which
resembles the drawing in PI. 5 in almost every respect.81 Here, too,
all the details indicate that the illustrated figure is not a Bodhisattva
but an Adi-Buddha presiding over the five Dhyani-Buddhas.
In connection with representations of Samantabhadra similar to that
of PL 5 Getty says that in Japan Samantabhadra is often confused
with Kongosatta, the Japanese name of Vajrasattva, because both
have an elephant as their vahana.82 However, it seems to us that this
"confusion" should rather be explained by the fact that both can
occupy the position of Adi-Buddha. This is confirmed by the Himitsu
Jirin, which calls Kongosatta (Vajrasattva) a form of Fugen (Samanta-
bhadra),83 so that they appear to be more or less identical.84
Finally we must record that several Yogacarya sects regard
Samantabhadra as the founder of the Yoga doctrine and as the "Divinity
of Religious Ecstasy". Accordingly, he is the special patron in Japan
of those who practise Hokke sammai, or ecstatic meditation.85
However, not only in the Far East and among the unreformed sects
of Nepal and Tibet was Samantabhadra worshipped as Adi-Buddha,
in India and Ceylon, too, we meet him in this capacity. Thus the
Pancakrama, a treatise on Anuttarayoga, calls him Guhyakendra or
Lord of Mysteries,86 a position and title which other sects confer on
the Adi-Buddha Vajradhara."

81
M. W . de Visser, Buddha's Leer in het Verre Oosten, Amsterdam, 1930,
pp. 49-50 and 80, PL 7, reproduced from Kokka, 252, PI. I (not 251, PI. I
as mentioned on p. 50). See also note 84 below.
82
Getty, op. tit., p. 47.
88
Getty, op.cit, p. 8.
84
A good example of the merging of these two deities is the figure in the
Japanese painting just mentioned, see note 81. H e holds vajra, padma, pasa
and ghanfa in the four main hands. The combination of a vajra in the upper
right and a ghanta in the lower left hand is characteristic of Vajrasattva,
whereas the padma is Samantabhadra's typical attribute. If this deity is not
Kongosatta, then in any case he is at least Fugen-Kongosatta. It is for this
reason that we expressed ourselves very carefully and identified the figure
as an Sdi-Buddha, and not as the Adi-Buddha Samantabhadra. The deity
shown in PI. 5 should probably be identified in the same way.
88
Getty, op. tit., p. 47.
88
Etudes et textes tantriques, Pancakrama par L. de la Vallee Poussin, Recueil
de travaux publies par la Faculte de Philosophic et Lettres de l'Universite
de Gand, 16me fasc, Gand-Louvain, 1896, p. 6, I, 89.
8T
Vajradhara Guhyapati, Waddell, op.cit., p. 352; Griinwedel, op. tit., p. 100,
German ed. p. 98.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 411

One of the indications that Samantabhadra was at one time venerated

in Ceylon as Lord of the Dhyani-Buddhas is the well-known rock-relief
near Valigama, known as the "Kustaraja" or the leper king, which
dates from the 8th or 9th century and which was hitherto considered
to represent Avalokitesvara.88 In a recent article we have, however,
suggested an identification of this sculpture as Adi-Buddha Samanta-
bhadra — i.e. in his Dharmakaya aspect — on account of the mudra,
the attribute and the crown showing representations of the five
Dhyani-Buddhas.89
Among the older Sinhalese sculptures there exist a number of
images which resemble the iconography of the Kustaraja relief in many
respects and which are at present identified as Saman. These sculptures,
as well as the sustained popularity of God Saman in modern days,
clearly indicate that Samantabhadra was highly venerated in ancient
Ceylon. In spite of the fact that Hinayana Buddhism gradually ousted
Mahayanism and deposed Samantabhadra, he has remained — under
the name of Saman — one of the most popular protectors of Sinhalese
Buddhism down to the present day.
In view of Samantabhadra's exalted position in various parts of the
Buddhist world the inevitable question arises to what degree the form
of Mahayana Buddhism as practised in Java conforms with the
situation elsewhere. In this connection we are of course immediately
reminded of the most important role of Samantabhadra in the reliefs
on Barabudur. But before we go into this aspect, it may be interesting
to draw attention to an article recently published by de Casparis.90 In
it he takes up a few important facts recorded in an inscription from
Ratubaka dated in 792/3. As Barabudur is nowadays generally
assigned to the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century,
the inscription in question is more or less contemporary with this
monument. '••
One of the points discussed by de Casparis is the fact that the
inscription mentions the building of a monastery in Java which was
called the Abhayagiri Vihara. In addition, the inscription makes it quite

88
S. Paranavitana, MahdySnism in Ceylon, Ceylon Journal of Science, Section G,
vol. II, pt. 1, Dec. 1928, pp. 35-71; S. Paranavitana, University of Ceylon
History of Ceylon, Colombo, 19S9, vol. I, pt. 1, p. 405.
88
Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, op. cit., PI. 1-4 and Figs. 1-2.
90
J. G. de Casparis, New Evidence on cultural Relations between Java and
Ceylon in ancient Times, Artibus Asiae, vol. XXIV, 1961, pp. 241-248.
412 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

clear that the name of this establishment was not accidentally the same
as that of the famous vihara in Anuradhapura, which was one of the
important centres of Mahayana Buddhism in Ceylon. For, the establish-
ment is specifically indicated as the Abhayagiri Vihara "of the Sinhalese
ascetics (?)". De Casparis hesitates to conclude that the monastery
was built by the ruling Javanese king for a community of Sinhalese
monks and he feels we should also consider the possibility that the
vihara was built by the Sailendra king at the request of Javanese
pilgrims returning from Ceylon, who had visited the famous Sinhalese
centre of Mahayana Buddhism.
In any case, it is obvious that the Ratubaka inscription indicates
close religious ties between Java and Ceylon at the time Barabudur
was built. As we have seen above, it is during this same period that
the Mahayana Buddhists of Ceylon worshipped Samantabhadra as
Lord of the five Dhyani-Buddhas, for the Kustaraja. image should be
dated to the 8th or 9th century. We are not in a position to decide
whether or not this is a pure coincidence, but in any case the contents
of the Ratubaka inscription seem sufficiently important in connection
with our subject to draw attention to it.
It is now time to study Samantabhadra's position on Barabudur
more closely. We have already seen that there is every reason to believe
that the architect selected the texts to be illustrated in the reliefs with
great care and that he allotted specific texts on purpose to particular parts
of the building. By assigning the Gandavyuha and the Bhadracari to
the three highest square terraces he undoubtedly tried to express
Samantabhadra's exalted position. But as we already identified the
Buddha images in the perforated stupas on the three round terraces
higher up as Vairocana in his capacity of Lord of the five Dhyani-
Buddhas, we must assume that Samantabhadra occupied a very high,
though not the highest, position in the Buddhist system of Barabudur.
In view of the apparent relation between the contents of the texts
selected for illustration and the symbolical meaning of the particular
part of the building on which they were depicted, it seems reasonable
to assume that the obvious climax as expressed by the Bhadracari at
the end of the Gandavyuha, is parallelled by a similar, symbolical climax
on the fifth main wall, i.e. the main wall of the fourth terrace on which
the Bhadracari is illustrated. This climax is undoubtedly embodied in
the images of the fifth Dhyani-Buddha in the niches on top of this wall.
He faces all four directions and is situated above the four other
Dhyani-Buddhas so that he clearly occupies the position of Dhyani-
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 413 «

Buddha of the centre. Out of eleven series of reliefs the five highest
rows illustrate a text glorifying Samantabhadra as the supreme pre-
ceptor on the way to spiritual enlightenment and this fact seems to us
an indication that the Dhyani-Buddha of the centre in the Buddhist
system of Barabudur might well be Samantabhadra.
This surmise is vindicated when we realize that the images of this
Dhyani-Buddha are depicted with vitarkamudra. and that it is precisely
this attitude which is the specific mudra of Samantabhadra.91 The
Gandavyuha describes Samantabhadra as the guide and most exalted
guru of the Bodhisattva Sudhana during the latter's long and extensive
search for the final attainment of the Highest Realization. The reliefs
illustrating this text culminate in the Samantabhadra-vow on the
highest square terrace at the end of the Rupadhatu just before one
enters the unmanifested sphere of the mystic Arupadhatu and somehow
we are reminded of Samantabhadra's title Lord of Mysteries, for it is
these mystic doctrines, the so-called Paramaguhya or Rahasya, into
which Samantabhadra initiates the Bodhisattva Sudhana before he can
enter the Arupadhatu. It would really be difficult to imagine a better
attitude for the Great Guru Samantabhadra than the vitarkamudra,
which is especially assumed when teaching and, indeed, the Buddha
images in the niches on the fifth main wall show precisely this gesture.
In addition, the location of these images on the wall separating the
Rupadhatu from the Arupadhatu is the best possible place which could
be conceived for Samantabhadra, who guides Sudhana in his search
through the Rupadhatu and initiates him in the Paramaguhya or
supreme mysteries which lie higher up. The Buddhist sect to which
Barabudur belonged, therefore, seems to have worshipped Samanta-
bhadra as Dhyani-Buddha of the centre. Krom concluded that this
sect was closely related to that of the Yogacaryas92 and we already
noticed that certain Yogacarya sects regard Samantabhadra as the
founder of their doctrine and as their guide and preceptor when
practising the highest form of meditation. All this conforms exactly
to Samantabhadra's role on Barabudur.
In the Candakarana, the nucleus of which goes back to the Sailendra

81
See for instance Getty, op. cit., p. 47; A. K. Gordon, The Iconography of
Tibetan Lamaism, 2nd rev. ed., Rutland, 1959, p. 6 0 ; van Lohuizen-
de Leeuw, op. cit. In addition it is interesting to note that in the Bhadracari
reliefs on Barabudur the vitarkamudra, and to a certain extent also the
dharmacakramudra, is far more often represented than any of the other mudras.
82
Krom, op. cit, 1920, p. 766.
414 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

period, the name of Samantabhadra is listed as a synonym of the word

Buddha, 93 which proves that Barabudur is certainly not the only Java-
nese instance in which Samantabhadra occupies a very high position. Now
that our attention has been drawn to this possibility, further research
will undoubtedly provide more examples. In this connection we wonder
whether the various Indo-Javanese bronze images showing a seated
Buddha with vitarkamudra really represent Sakyamuni, as was hitherto
believed.9* l n view of what has been said above an identification as
the Dhyani-Buddha Samantabhadra would seem to be more likely.
Finally we must ask ourselves why Samantabhadra is depicted as
Buddha in the niches of Barabudur and as Bodhisattva in the Ganda-
vyuha reliefs. Although the Gandavyuha calls Samantabhadra a Bodhi-
sattva, there is every reason to believe that he is not just an ordinary
Bodhisattva in this text, for he acts as the Highest Preceptor and
Initiator of the Bodhisattva Sudhana and he therefore undoubtedly
occupies the position of Dhyani-Bodhisattva. Of this type of exalted
Being Getty says: "He is believed to dwell in the Rupadhatu heaven
in the body of absolute completeness (Sambhoga-kaya) . . . . it is in
this form that the Dharma-kaya (Dhyani-Buddha) reveals himself to
the Bodhisattva or future Buddhas." 9 5 In strict adherence to these
metaphysical theories the sculptors of Barabudur depicted Samanta-
bhadra as Dhyani-Bodhisattva in the reliefs of the Rupadhatu, for in
this sphere he can reveal himself only in his Sambhogakaya aspect.
The fact that the artists of Barabudur kept so scrupulously to religious
doctrines such as the one just mentioned, indicates once more that
everything on Barabudur has a profound and valid reason and that
arbitrary deviations are inconceivable. It is this conviction which led
us to question Krom's theory with regard to the identification of the
various Dhyani-Buddhas. For in view of all the above it is impossible
to believe that the architect of Barabudur deviated twice from the
prescribed mudras.

VI

We have already mentioned the fact that when the system of five
Dhyani-Buddhas was extended to a sixfold system, Vairocana or

83
H. Kern, Un dictionnaire Sanskrit-Kavi, Verspreide Geschriften, vol. 9,
's-Gravenhage, 1920, pp. 273-281, esp. p. 278; Krom, op. cit., 1931, pp. 149-152.
M
Krom, op. cit., 1913, pp. 10-11; Juynboll, op. cit., p. 90; Tobi, op. cit, p. 169.
96
Getty, op. cit, p. 45.
 THE DHYANI-BUDDHAS OF BARABUDUR. 415

Samantabhadra were raised to the higher position. In the course of

time certain younger sects started to call this sixth Dhyani-Buddha
Vajrasattva and in the case of a sevenfold system the Adi-Buddha
was called Vajradhara.96 Other Buddhist systems allotted the position
of Adi-Buddha — whether in a sixfold system or a sevenfold one —
to Amitabha, Aksobhya, Manjusri or Vajrapani, according to their
special preference for any of these figures.97
There obviously exists a close relationship between the two oldest
rivals for the higher position, for in the fivefold system in which
Vairocana occupies the place of Dhyani-Buddha of the centre, Samanta-
bhadra acts as his Dhyani-Bodhisattva and consequently represents his
Sambhogakaya aspect.
According to Waddell the fact that Vairocana acted as Dhyani-
Buddha of the centre in the fivefold system "is doubtless associated
with his promotion to the Adi-Buddhaship amongst certain northern
Buddhists" 98 (i.e. in a sixfold system). However, he nowhere mentions
who took the place of Vairocana as Dhyani-Buddha of the centre, when
Vairocana was elevated to the higher position. In the Shingon sect of
Japan the figure occupying the higher position and the Dhyani-Buddha
of the centre are both called Vairocana, so that we seem to be dealing
here with a higher and a lower aspect of one and the same exalted
Being," but it is just as conceivable that, when Vairocana was elevated
to the higher position, his Sambhogakaya aspect was raised along with
him and consequently became the Dhyani-Buddha of the centre in
other sects.
On the other hand the following course of events is equally con-
ceivable: When the sixfold system was created, Samantabhadra was
raised to the highest position, but after some time Vairocana and
Samantabhadra exchanged places. Such "interchanges" between Dhyani-
Buddhas occur fairly frequently and undoubtedly depend on the above-
mentioned preference of certain sects for a particular Dhyani-Buddha.
Thus Vairocana and Aksobhya are sometimes interchanged, so that
Vairocana becomes the Dhyani-Buddha of the east and Aksobhya
the Dhyani-Buddha of the centre.100 In other cases Vairocana and

96
Griinwedel, op. cit, p. 98, German ed. p. 96; Waddell, op. cit, p. 349.
07
Bhattacharyya, op. cit., p. XXIX.
98
Waddell, op. cit, p. 130.
99
Getty, op. cit., p. 34.
100
For instance in some MSS. of the Nispannayogavall, see M. Th. de Mallmann,
Etude iconographique sur Manjusri, Paris, 1964, pp. 104-105.
416 J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW.

Amitabha are exchanged.101 Again in the Pad-ma-t'an-yig 102 and the

Sang hyang Kamahayanikan, version C, Vajrasattva takes the place of
Aksobhya as Dhyani-Buddha of the east.103
In the same way it is conceivable that the system in which Samanta-
bhadra occupied the higher position developed from that of Barabudur
by an exchange between Samantabhadra, the Dhyani-Buddha of the
centre, and Vairocana, Lord of the five Dhyani-Buddhas. In that case
the Buddhist system of Barabudur would represent an early phase in
Satnantabhadra's way up. However, these various possibilities will
have to remain mere speculations for the time being.
Summing up, the facts at Barabudur seem to indicate that the sect
to which it belonged worshipped Samantabhadra as the Dhyani-Buddha
of the centre. The sixth figure in the Buddhist system of Barabudur
may well be Mahavairocana and the unfinished image with bhumispar-
samudra is probably genuine. If so, the system of Barabudur is
a sevenfold one and might be related to that which at present regards
Vajrasattva and Vajradhara as the sixth and seventh entity. As this
system seems to have developed only in the 10th century, we cannot
expect Barabudur to be identical with it. On the other hand there is
clear evidence that Vajrasattva was worshipped in the East-Javanese
period.104 Moreover, Bosch has pointed out that Barabudur was in-
cluded in the 14th century list of tantric (kabajradharan) Buddhist
shrines enumerated in the Nagarakertagama.105 The possibility, there-
fore, exists that the Buddhist system of Barabudur presents a very
early phase in the development of the Vajradhara, Vajracarya or
Yoga.ca.rya sect of Mahayana Buddhism, a phase of which little or no
material evidence has been preserved elsewhere in the Buddhist world.

J. E. VAN LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW

101
Getty, op. cit., p. 29, note 4.
102
Griinwedel, op. cit., p. 101, German ed. p. 99.
108
Sang hyang KamahSySnikan, 58 b, pp. 66 and 113.
104
Apart from the images mentioned in note 54, a number of which clearly belong
to the East-Javanese period, there is the evidence in the Sang hyang
Kamahayanikan and the Bhimastava.
105 -ph. G. T h . Pigeaud, Java in the 14th Century, a Study in cultural History,
vol. Ill, The Hague, 1960, p. 89, canto 77, stanza 3 ; F. D. K. Bosch, Het
steenen Zuiltje van Kadiloewih, Notulen. Bat. Gen., vol. LVIII, 1920, 1921,
pp. 52-59. Stutterheim fully agreed with Bosch's view, see Ben belangrijke
Oorkonde uit de KHoe, Tijdschr. Bat. Gen., vol. LXVII, 1927, pp. 172-215,
esp. pp. 182-186.