Unity and Disunity in Javanese Political and Religious Thought of the Eighteenth Century Author(s): M. C.

Ricklefs Source: Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 663-678 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/312934 . Accessed: 30/08/2011 08:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Asian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Moder AsianStudies26, 4 (I992), pp. 663-678. Printed in Great Britain.

UnityandDisunityinJavanesePoliticaland of ReligiousThought theEighteenth Century

M. C. RICKLEFS MonashUniversity A central problem in both the political and the intellectual history of Java is the disparity between the ideal of a unified state and the historical reality of fragmented power and authority, between the image and the reality of pre-colonial Javanese political history. An investigation of views held by literati of the kingdom of Mataram before the middle years of the eighteenth century can elucidate this problem. Turning from historical-political to religious literature in Javanese may help to resolve it. The discussion must begin in the religious sphere and in preIslamic times. The Old Javanese phrase bhinneka ika tunggal is familiar to students of Indonesia as the national motto of the Republic. It is known also to Javanists as a passage from the kakawinSutasoma by which Zoetmulder believes to have been written in MajapaTantular, hit between AD 1365 and 1389.1 At one point the text proclaims: It is said that the well-known Buddhaand giwa are different. They are different, how can (that difference) yet quicklybe sharedin oneness? are Jina-realityand giwa-reality one. are different, they are one (bhinneka but They tunggal ika),as thereis no dualityin the (Absolute)Truth of Reality.2 This phrase encapsulates the 'yoga of non-duality' analysed by
Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), p. 342.

P. J. Zoetmulder, Kalangwan:A Surveyof Old JavaneseLiterature (The Hague:

2 See Soewito Santoso A (ed. and transl.), Sutasoma: Studyof JavaneseWajrayana (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, I975), pp. 578-9. I am grateful to Prof. P. J. Zoetmulder for his advice on the English translation of this passage.
oo26-749X/92/$5.oo + .oo
() 1992 Cambridge

University Press

663

664

M. C. RICKLEFS

Ensinck.3 One yet not one, two yet not two, different yet the same: such is the nature of Reality in this Mahayana doctrine. This paper will argue that this doctrine remained important in Javanese thought after Islamization and is central to the issues analysed here. Four centuries after the writing of the Sutasoma, courtiers ofJava the were Muslims whose views of the temporal, rather than the spiritual, order are the first concern in this paper. A central question here is the degree to which legitimate temporal power was seen as centralized or unified in the Mataram state. Regarding this matter there is a rather unhelpful theoretical legacy. From Heine-Geldern4 through Moertono, Selosoemardjan, Anderson and Geertz runs a thread of simplification which may hinder clear analysis. Moertono-far and away the best of these analysts-presents a subtle view of the order of the Mataram state, but also asserts that 'the king's power was understood as unlimited. He could not be regulated by worldly means, but within himself there was a force reflecting, or higher still, identical with the Divine Soul, which checked his individual will.'5 This is not a view which is likely to have much reassured Amangkurat I as he fled his kraton I677, his power in having been well limited-indeed extinguished-by Trunajaya's rebellion. Nor were powerful princes, local leaders and, in particular, Islamic scholars likely to have endorsed Selosoemardjan's view that 'in the kingdom there is no other law than the royal word.'6 Anderson's picture of kings as alusfigures whose power was not military but spiritual, and for whom resort to warfare was a sign of weakness,7 would not have made much sense to Sultan Agung or Sultan Mangkubumi, to name only the most obviously successful warriorkings of Mataram. And Geertz's 'doctrines' of 'the exemplary center', of 'graded spirituality' and of the 'theatre state' in which 'the ritual
life of the court . . . formed not just the trappings of rule but the
3 4

J. Ensinck, 'Sutasoma's teaching to Gajavaktra, the snake and the tigress (TanBKI vol. 130, nos 2-3 (I974), esp. pp. 202-7.

tular, Sutasoma kakavin 38.1-42.4)',

Robert Heine-Geldern, Conceptions Stateand Kingshipin Southeast Asia (Ithaca: of Southeast Asia Program Data Paper no. i8, 1963). 5 Soemarsaid Moertono, Stateand in Statecraft OldJava: A Studyof theLaterMataram Period,i6th to igth Century (Revised edn, Ithaca: Modern Indonesia Project Publication no. 43, 1981), p. 40.
6 Selo Soemardjan, 'The kraton in the Javanese social structure', in Haryati Soebadio and Carine A. du Marchie Sarvaas (eds), Dynamicsof Indonesian History (Amsterdam, etc.: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1978), p. 225. 7 Benedict R. O'G. Anderson, 'The idea of power in Javanese culture', in Claire Holt et al. (eds), Culture Politicsin Indonesia and (Ithaca and London: Cornell Univer-

sity Press, 1972), pp. 1-69; see esp. p. 32.

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

665

substance of it. Spectacle was what the state was for . . . '8 would have seemed odd to the kings and courtiers who thought that the state was for getting rich and powerful while avoiding enemy plots and poisons. This picture of unchallenged, centralized temporal power resting spiritual power is at upon-or at least congruent with-centralized odds with the historical record as preserved in both Dutch and Javanese sources.9 There one repeatedly encounters war and its concomitant contest to gather the fragmented shards of power. The great kings of Mataram (a category with only a few names in it) were great generals, and even their authority was frequently challenged by flight of the populace and rebellion. Within the court, too, the king's authority to take decisions was limited by custom and the centrifugal realities of power.'? Apparently there was even a distinction between the monarch's personal wealth and that of the state, to which he thus appears not to have had free access."1 Above all, it needs to be noted that not infrequently there was more than one king, a circumstance guaranteeing that temporal power could not be centralized. Thus the theories of temporal power presented by scholars such as Moertono conflict with the realities as they emerge from primary sources. Yet the scholarly views quoted above are not complete nonsense, for one can find indigenous Javanese sources which present similar images. So something complicated is going on in this part of the history of Javanese ideas. It seems clear that the latter half of the eighteenth century in Central Java posed difficulties for the Javanese elite in defining a legitimate temporal order in a divided kingdom, where the ideal of a single king confronted the reality of two kings in an almost unprecedented period of peace.'2 The preceding Kartasura period (AD i680-I745) seems a time when the conflict between the ideal--or what might be supposed to be the ideal--and contemporary
8 Clifford Geertz, Islam Observed: Religious Developmentin Moroccoand Indonesia (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, I968), pp. 36-9; quotation from p. 38. 9 It is worth saying that the scholars quoted in the preceding paragraph are largely ignorant of the primary sources for the Mataram period. I do not think that any of them has ever consulted VOC archival sources and doubt that, except for Moertono, they have much familiarity with babad literature. 10 M. C. Ricklefs, Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi, i749-i792: A History of the Division ofJava (London, etc.: Oxford University Press, I974), pp. 23-4, 4I-2. " Babad Kraton (British Library Add. MS I2320), f. 504v., referring to the time of Amangkurat II's death in AD 1703, mentions a sum of Sp.Rl. Iooo which was kaskayan ing Nata pribadi/ dudu wetuningpraja/ reyal muklis waul saking karinget Sang Nata (the private wealth of the king/ not the product of the kingdom:/ this modest amount of Reals/ was from the sweat of the king). 12 See Ricklefs,Jogjakarta, esp. ch. VII.

666

M. C. RICKLEFS

reality was of still greater potency, for it occurred in the midst of civil wars in which one's view of what was right might be a matter not only of theory, but also of life or death. It is to this period which this discussion now turns. The court of Kartasura presided over one of the most turbulent and sanguinary periods ofJavanese history. For nearly half a century from the outbreak of the Trunajaya rebellion in 1675 to the end of the Second Javanese War of Succession in the early I72os, Java saw only brief interludes of peace. In 1740 major war again broke out and lasted until 1755-57. The warfare in Java was both civil and international. Javanese fought other Javanese, often on regional lines. They also sometimes allied with and sometimes fought Madurese, Balinese, Makasarese, Bugis, Ambonese, Chinese, Malays and Europeans. Muslims allied with and fought infidels, they allied with and fought other Muslims, and infidels fought with or against each other. This is the quintessential period of political disunity in modern Javanese history, so one naturally asks how the Javanese themselves saw and recorded this disunity. Javanese accounts of the First Javanese War of Succession ( 704o8) are particularly interesting as evidence for indigenous views of this Kartasuran disorder. This was a contest between Amangkurat III ( 703-08), who came to the throne upon the death of his father, and
Pakubuwana I (1704-19),

VOC.

who usurped it with the support of the

The earliest datable account of the period is in Babading Sangkala, a succinct chronicle account written in AJ 1663 (AD 1738), almost of certainly in the kraton Kartasura.'3 This says that Pangeran Puger, the future Pakubuwana I, 'secretly made off in the night' from Kartasura and sought refuge with the VOC in Semarang. There he succeeded in being named king and gathering pasisirforces to his side. He then marched on Kartasura in 1705. Amangkurat III's commander at Ungaran felt unable to resist Pakubuwana I's army, consisting of 'Dutchmen without number and people from abroad of all kinds', so he switched sides. In the face of this betrayal, Amangkurat III abandoned his kraton,which Pakubuwana I occupied the following day without opposition. Amangkurat III fled to East Java, where he received the support of Surapati, Balinese, Makasarese and the people
13 India Office Library MS IOLJav. 36 (B); the text is published and translated in M. C. Ricklefs, Modern A JavaneseHistoricalTradition: Studyof an OriginalKartasura Chronicle and RelatedMaterials (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1978). On its date and provenance, see pp. 148-51. The passages discussed here are on pp. I00-5.

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

667

of the outer districts (wongma[n]canagari). This much of the tale is told in only eleven stanzas. It is a description of chaos but there are no judgements suggesting that either of the royal contenders was more properly or fully a king than the other. Both are given standard It Javanese terms for monarchs such as Narpati,SangNata and Susunan. is as if the conflict which ought to have existed between Javanese ideals of unitary kingship and the events of 1704-08 in fact presented no problems to the author of Babading Sangkala. apparently had no He in accepting the simultaneous existence of two kings. difficulty It can be objected that, while Babading Sangkala an early account is of the First War of Succession, it is too succinct to offer insights into Javanese judgements of the period. One can instead turn to the lengdated AJ I703-04 (AD 1777thy Yogyakarta court text BabadKraton, Here the period of the First Javanese War of Succession 78).14 it occupies sixty-six folios whereas in Babading Sangkala occupies only four."5While the Babad Kraton MS is indubitably from the later eighteenth century, it can be shown that some sections of it are recopied passages known in the Kartasura period,16 and one might guess that the First War of Succession episodes had Kartasuran antecedents as well. Several curious passages in BabadKratonsurround the usurpation by Puger/Pakubuwana I. Probably the oddest takes place at the death of Amangkurat II in 1703, when Puger and the two other surviving brothers of the dead king come to the kraton pay obeisance to the to body. A ritual which chronicles also describe at the time of the death of Panembahan Senapati Ingalaga,17 the kissing of the dead king's penis, then takes place. But on this occasion something odd happens, for the penis stands erect. Puger alone sees on its tip a radiant light the size of a peppercorn-apparently a supernatural symbol of legitimacy-which he quickly sucks up. The text says: Now it was the wish of God that the light of monarchyshould move to the House of Puger.
14 British

Library 15 Becausethe MS is

their correct order in Ricklefs, Modem HistoricalTradition, Javanese pp. oo-i 9.

Add. MSS I 2320,ff. 503v.-568v. misbound,the ff. are 367, 357, 355, 356. They are printedin

In response to Day', BKIvol. I35 no. 4 (I979), P. 447. 17 See the Surakarta Major Babad: Bale Pustaka,BabadTanah Jawi (31 vols, Batawi Sentrum: Bale Pustaka, I939-41), vol. VII, p. 47; and IOL Jav. 36(A), f.

16Somepassagesare the same as in IOLJav. 36(A), a Kartasura MS; othersare the same as in the Surakarta a MajorBabad, congruitylikely to go back to shared Kartasura antecedents. M. C. Ricklefs,'The evolutionof Babad See texts: TanahJawi

in Kraton accountof Senapati's deathon f. 135v.This ritualis not described the Babad

I85r.

668

M. C. RICKLEFS

What the princedid and of the light none knew. Indeed to PangeranPugeralone would change the inheritance, the rulingof the land of Java. if thingswent so far that he becameking, ruler.'8 would be only an interregnum This is clear supernatural legitimation of Puger/Pakubuwana I as king, indeed, as sole king. But then it is Puger himself who publicly proclaims that Amangkurat III is king19and thereafter the latter has normal royal titles in the BabadKratonaccount. This contrasts interestingly with the approach of the VOC, which refused to recognize Amangkurat III's accession and continued to call him by the titles of the Crown prince, 'Pangerang Depatty' (Pangeran Adipati Anom). BabadKraton proceeds to the tale of a magician hired by the VOC to defeat the Javanese king in a contest of magic and then to kill him. This tenungWelanda terrifies Amangkurat III that he redirects him so to Puger. The latter defeats the tenung with his magic spells and takes this-as no doubt did the readers of the babad-as a sign of his divine election as monarch.20 So far the chronicle has concerned supernatural phenomena, but now the emerging contest between Puger and Amangkurat III takes a moral twist. Amangkurat III rapes the beautiful young wife of the powerful old lord of Madura Cakraningrat II (I68o-i707). Upon learning of this, Cakraningrat II declares that the king's rule is Ratu mundur returning to the level of animals (panjenengan kaya ewanand prepares to attack the court.21But Puger attempts to disewan)
18 Babad Kraton, ff.

The Crown prince,

21 Babad f. Kraton, 517r.This seemsto contradict Anderson's idea that 'traditional' Javaneseviewedpoweras 'neitherlegitimatenor illegitimate.... as something... withoutinherentmoralimplications such';see his 'Idea of power',p. 8. See also as

his installation of the new monarch: eh sakehwong Kartasural pranayaka moncanegara lamunsutengulunKi Dipatil ulunjujung umadeg pasisirpadhaangestrenana/ Narendra/den kabeh.The Patih Sumabrata objects that this is a redundant act, for padha/ ngastokin Amangkurat III is already king. 20 BabadKraton, ff. 513v. - 515r. A parallelversionwith some variationsis in the Surakarta Major Babad: Bale Pustaka, Babad TanahJawi,vol. XVI, pp. 52-5.

19In Babad f. III Kraton, 505v., PugerstandsbehindAmangkurat who is seatedon the throne(Dhampar and calls upon the peopleof all the kingdomto recognize Mas)

504r.-v., Canto 130 (Dhandhanggula): 42. ... wus karsaning YwangLuhurlyennurbawatira angalihlmarang Kapugiran/ ing tan Pangranri[ng] karyeku/ ana wikaning cahya/ iya amungPangranPugergenti waris/ amengku tanahjawa. 43. PutraKanjeng Narendra/ ratuwewela Pangeran Dipatil lamunkongsiya madeg pan bael ...

n.27 below.

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

669

suade him, saying that it is treason (duraka) for the people to oppose their lord, for a king is God's representative (werana Yyang Agung). Puger denies that he intends to usurp the throne, saying 'that he wishes only to look after (mamong)the young king.22 The pressure from his supporters intensifies, but Puger only goes over to rebellion (in 1704) after a period of prayer and meditation which culminates in a sign from God (sasmitaning Hyang) that he is allowed to become king and rule all of Java.23 Thus the ambiguities deepen. Babad Kraton provides a series of episodes (there are others preceding the central ones described above) which ascribe supernatural legitimacy to Puger. At the same time it does not deny that Amangkurat III remains king. It rehearses the doctrine that a subject owes loyalty to his king even if he is oppressive and makes Puger its exponent. Then Puger rebels. In other words, the text sets up Puger as the rival king, gives him legitimacy without denying the reality of Amangkurat III's rule, lets Puger say why he should not act upon this legitimacy and then lets him act. Babad Kraton goes on to describe the warfare down to Amangkurat III's surrender in 1708.24 Throughout this time the text describes two kings: Puger/Pakubuwana I is the righteous one, but unquestionably both are kings. Indeed, at this time Amangkurat III still had-or at least was generally believed to have-the holy regalia (pusaka) of the kingdom.25 If the views of some of the theorists of pre-colonial Javanese ideas cited above were correct, then this alone should have made Amangkurat III's power more legitimate or effective than Pakubuwana I's,26 yet Babad Kraton certainly inclines not at all to this view. One may deduce the complex and rather ambiguous view of right political order which is encapsulated in the Babad Kraton account of 1703-08, and which can be seen to be consistent with that of Babad ing Sangkala, to be as follows. As is implied by the tale of the radiant light sucked up by Puger, there was at least some feeling that there ought to
BabadKraton, 5 7v. - 518r. See also Moertono, StateandStatecraft, 35. if. p. f. BabadKraton, 523r. 24 On ff. 579r.-v. It is interesting to note that in this version, VOC officers address whereas in the Company's own sources he is Amangkurat III as GustiSri Narendra, denied royal titles. 25 See M. C. Ricklefs, 'The missing pusakasof Kartasura, 1705-37', in Sulastin Sutrisno et al. (eds), Bahasa-Sastra-Budaya: RatnaManikanUntaianPersembahan kepada Prof. Dr. P. J. Zoetmulder (Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, I985), pp.
22

23

601-30.
26 E.g. Anderson, 'Idea of power', p. I2; Heine-Geldern, Conceptions, p. I0; Selosoemardjan, Social Changes inJogjakarta(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), p. I8.

670

M. C. RICKLEFS

be only one king, or that only one could be legitimate at a time. Rebellion might be legitimate against an unrighteous or illegitimate ruler.27The legitimation of such resistance was, however, properly supernatural in origin. In the absence of supernatural sanction, the subject owed loyalty to his monarch. But even when a righteous, supernaturally legitimized king such as Pakubuwana I was at war with an unrighteous king like Amangkurat III, the latter was still a king. So while one can find Javanese evidence for the idea that there ought to be only one monarch, and while one might imagine that moral judgement and political expediency would have led a Javanese writer to deny the royal status of one contender in a war of succession (as did the VOC), in fact the scribes quoted here did not do so. This contest between kings was ultimately settled on the field of battle, which also reflected a supernatural judgement.28 Foreshadowing the conclusions of this essay, one might deduce that here was the idea of a unitary supernatural order lying behind temporal disorder, and that war and politics constituted a search for this unity behind diversity, for a political meaning to bhinneka tunggalika. The key to understanding such a view of the world lies in Javanese Islamic mysticism. Here one encounters a particular philosophical view of reality which is consistent with the doctrine of non-duality of en in pre-IslamicJava. P. J. Zoetmulder's Pantheisme monisme deJavaansche soeloek-litteratuur29 remains the classic study of this subject. Unfortunately none of his sources is as old as the Kartasura period, so historians must feel some reticence about employing them for that period, however great the likelihood that the doctrines of concern here were taught widely in Java and without change over very long periods. Zoetmulder makes much use of Leiden cod. 1795, a Surakarta
The classic case of tyranny in Javanese history is the reign of Amangkurat I (I646-77). Note Babad ing Sangkala'scomments upon this reign, e.g. 'As if dimmed was the lustre of the kingdom' (Ricklefs, Tradition, 52-3), or 'All were subjected to pp. the tyranny of their lord' (ibid., pp. 70-I). The same text says of Surapati II that 'All his father's women/ ... were dishonoured/ by Ki Adipati;/ therefore his supernatural destruction ofJava now began/ with the death of the Sayid, for he was shot/ upon the wish of the king./ There were many who said/ that they were shocked that he was killed' (ibid., pp. I36-7). Such comments reflect moral judgements upon unrighteous rulers, against whom resistance is thereby justified. 28 Cf. Babading Sangkala's description of the fall of Mataram to Trunajaya's rebels in 1677: 'The soldiers of Mataram/ all lost their supernatural power; and the princes/ their hearts were like women's,/ having no courage, terrified./ It was the wish of God' (Ricklefs, Tradition, 84-5); or of the fall of Kartasura to Pakubuwana I: 'it was the pp. wish of God/ that Kartasura should fall' (ibid., pp. 104-5). 29 Nijmegen: J.J. Berkhout, 1935.
powers disappeared' (ibid., pp. 112-13). Of Pakubuwana I in 1719 the text says 'The
27

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

671

compendium of suluks dated AJ I763 (AD I835), and cod. 1796, a companion MS.30 In these MSS one finds a description of the relationship between worshipper and God which concludes, we are one yet not one, certainly, two yet not two. It looks like (the relationship) of soul and body: they look like one yet appear like two. Such is my being with that of my Lord.31 Or again, If you wish to reach God, know your body, for this is His substitute. One yet not one is the true meaning of life. The truth of oneness is to be without duality. It is like Wisnu and Kresna, like the echo and the sound: one yet not one in truth, one yet not able to be one.32 A version of this latter passage also occurs in British Library Add. MS I2305, which was written in Yogyakarta, probably c. i792-i8I2.33 A more relevant source for this discussion is India Office Library MSJav. 83 (IO 3102) (B), Kitab Fatahurrahman, published by G. W.J. Drewes. This is a Kartasura MS erroneously dated Jimakir AJ I663. That was actually a Dal year, and it is clear that this date is a mistake for Jimakir AJ 1666 (AD 1741-42), for it is said to have been written at the time of the rusake Walonda-Jawa, 'the Dutch-Javanese destruction', a clear reference to the Javanese attack on the VOC garrison at
30 See Theodore G. Th. Pigeaud, Literature Java: Catalogue raisonne Javanese of of in in Manuscripts the Libraryof the University Leidenand otherPublic Collections the of Netherlands vols; The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff; Leiden: Bibliotheca Universitatis (4 Lugduni Batavorum; Leiden University Press, 1967-80), vol. II, pp. 27-8. Although it is undated, cod. 1796 is clearly a companion volume to cod. 1795: they are both written on Dutch paper and employ the same paleography and binding. 31 Text in Zoetmulder, p. Pantheisme, 102; my translation differs only slightly from Zoetmulder's on p. Io5. 32 Text in ibid., p. I I; Zoetmulder's translation is on pp. I 6-17. 33 A. H. Johns (ed. and transl.), The to Gift Addressed theSpiritof theProphet (Canberra:The Australian National University, 1965), pp. 74-7. On the provenance of the MS, see M. C. Ricklefs, 'A note on ProfessorJohns's "Gift addressed to the spirit of

the Prophet"', BKIvol.

129, nos 2-3 (I973),

pp. 347-9.

672

M. C. RICKLEFS

Kartasura in July 1741. The text contains an orthodox dualistic doctrine of being going back to the teachings of the Sufi master Abi'lQasim Muhammad al-Junayd (d.9io): Being is twofold: first the Real one, the AbsoluteEssence, one, secondlythe metaphorical namedlimitedbeing.34 To this the writer has attached the quite different doctrine of the seven grades of being. He also posits the idea that 'if you want to know the Lord, you must know your self,'35and finds room for the rejection of dualities36 and the negation of opposites as means to describing mystical truths: Essentiallythereis no difference betweenthe seer and the seen; subjectand objectof the vision are the same; the seer is none other [than the seen].37 So again one encounters doctrines of non-difference, of non-duality, reflecting concepts of an eternal unity veiled by temporal plurality. Thus there are parallels between the Old Javanese and the Modern Javanese usage of paradox in philosophical speculation to convey the nature of truth, being or reality. One no longer finds the Old Javanese bhinneka tan ika, tunggal but rather its Modern Javanese versions tunggal tunggal(one but not one), rorotan roro(two but not two) and suchlike. These parallels are probably neither mere coincidence nor the result of enduring influence after centuries of cultural change. It is
34 G. W. J. Drewes (ed. and transl.), Directions Travellers the Mystic Path: on for Kitab Fath al-Rahmdn its Indonesian al-Ansrin's and Zaskariyya' Adaptations (VKI vol. 8i; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977), pp. 78-9. On al-Junayd's doctrines, see ibid., pp. 35-6; Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensionsof Islam (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), pp. 57-9. See also Zoetmulder's discussion of al-Ghazzali's doctrine of being in Pantheisme, 28-9. pp. 35 Drewes, Directions, 6o-i. pp. 37 Ibid., pp. 6o-i. One finds this idea widely in Javanese mystical literature. Museum Pusat BG i94, a MS from Panaraga (see Poerbatjaraka, 'Lijst derJavaansche handschriften in de boekerij van het Kon. Bat. Genootschap', Koninklijk Bataviaasch van en 1933 Genootschap Kunsten WetenschappenJaarboek [Bandoeng: A.C. Nix & Co., I933], p. 358), contains a nice statement of this doctrine: 'For there is no difference/ between worshipper and worship:/ both are he alone,/ as the being of the universe/ cannot be divided ...'; G. W. J. Drewes, 'Javanese poems dealing with or attributed to the saint of Bonai', BKI vol. I24, no. 2 (1968), p. 225. See also G. W.J. Drewes (ed. and transl.), TheAdmonitions Seh Bari: A s6th Century JavaneseMuslim of TextAttributed theSaintof Bonah(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969), pp. 82-3. to
36 Ibid., pp. 54-5.

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

673

likely that if the older ideas influenced the newer, they did so directly, through the simultaneous study of both traditions within the court of Kartasura. A particularly important piece of evidence in this regard is the MS NBS 95, Darma Sunya Keling, a text of the Old Javanese kakawinDharmasuinya. This is a treatise of giva-Buddhist mysticism at the court of Kartasura in November I716 by Pangeran copied Adipati Dipanagara,38 a son of Susuhunan Pakubuwana I who rebelled in 1718 and was eventually exiled from Java in I723. Dipanagara seems to have had a reputation as a connoisseur of such older texts. This is suggested by a passage in SeratCabolek, story a which is set in Kartasura, probably in the early 173os. Some Cabolek texts say that copies of Bima Suci (Dewa Ruci), a work of esoteric knowledge going back to an Old Javanese prototype, were rare in Kartasura because few people liked it. Neither the late Cakraningrat III of West Madura (I707-18), who much loved Old Javanese literature (kawi), nor Pangeran Erucakra (i.e. Dipanagara) had possessed an original text (babon, presumably meaning the Old Javanese knew the story's mystical message through version), although they Modern Javanese paraphrases (kawi-kawijarwa).This clearly implies that Dipanagara was among those who might be expected to own such a work. But obviously he was not the only such collector. According to Cabolek,the work was then sought from Pangeran Mangkubumi, the later Sultan Hamengkubuwana I of Yogyakarta.39
The text is discussed in Ricklefs, Tradition, 153-4. pp. The Cabolek text is somewhat obscure about why Bima Suci was not often kept. Leiden cod. 6373, p. 80, says 'Awis-awissenadyan awis wonten babon/abdi-dalem rumiyin/ remen kawi/ Panembahan punpamantandarbe/Cakraningrat ngunillangkung sepuh/ bapakipun seda RamaBratayuda/ boten tan (CantoXII:) Panembahan kapallprandene nyimpenil namung Bimasuci/awis kangrenmn BimaSucisampenipun/ Erucakra/ boten asimpen sangking/ Pangeran darbe BimaSuci/ mungrahsane tan dumeh mawiprang/samikawi-kawi ngelmu jarwa/ nenggih
39
38

is found at pp. 75-6 of the printed text: [Serat Cabolek]. . . anggitanipun adbi-dalem Kratoning nagariSurakarta bujongga RadenAdipatiPanji Adiningrat... katurun Kangleng . leresdeningWedana Undersetan Suryakusuma.. kadamel MagetanRadenPanjiJayasubrata (Semawis: Ge Se Te van Dorep [G. C. T. van Dorp], i885); this reveals, incidentally, that Jayasubrata's 'corrections' were not always accurate, for Panenbahan seda kapal, an unequivocal reference to Panembahan Cakraningrat III who was killed on a VOC ship in 1718, is altered erroneously in the printed text to Sri Nata SedaKarapyak, i.e. Panembahan Seda ing Krapyak (d. 6I3). A brief summary of the Cabolektext is available in A. C. Vreede, Catalogus deJavaansche Madoereesche van en handschriften der Leidsche Universiteits-bibliotheek (Leiden: EJ. Brill, I892), p. 32I. The edition of Cabolek in S. Soebardi (ed. and transl.), TheBookof Cabolek: Critical A EditionwithIntroduction, Translation Notes;A Contribution theStudyof theJavanese and to MysticalTradition (Bibliotheca Indonesica o0; The Hague: Martinus Nyhoff, r975), omits the passage discussed here. For a detailed discussion of Dewa Ruci and its antecedents, see Poerbatjaraka, 'Dewa-roetji', Djdwa vol. 20, no. I (Jan. I940), pp. 5-55, which also contains references to other relevant publications.

Serat Bima Sucil amung raose kewala .. .'. See also cod. 2325, p.2 6. The parallel passage

674

M. C. RICKLEFS

There is other evidence pointing also to the continued study of Old Javanese literature in Kartasura.40 All of this demonstrates the probability of direct and contemporaneous influence by Old Javanese Hindu-Buddhist Islamic philosophy upon Modern Javanese speculations. It is likely that Kartasura literati were quite aware of the influence of older religious speculation and approved it. At any rate, in Serat Cabolek, which concerns a religious controversy at the court, Ketib Anom Kudus, who appears as the defender of orthodoxy, makes this remarkable statement to his opponent: 'Don't give up, Mutamakin. If you haven't yet exhausted all your tricks in debate with me, I'll wait for you to return to Arabia and ship all the kitabsfrom there. But in fact the essence of kawi works such as Bima Suci and Wiwaha is expressed in many metaphors which achieve the essence of the mystical sciences if the interpreter is precise. And these, just like the Ramain kawi, are books of tasawwuf[Islamic mysticism]'.41 The paradox of 'one yet not one' necessarily meant not only that behind distinctions and dualities lay a higher unity but also, and more 40 E.g. the authorof Babad Sangkala AD 1738claims to have workedwith of ing

contains (pp. 15-53) the Old Javanese Paniti Sastrawith Modern Javanese and explanations.This MS was owned by a particularly paraphrases important courtiernamed Png. Arya Purbaya.Until 1737 he had been known as R. Dm. it Urawan,underwhichnamehe playsa centralrolein Serat Cabolek;is he who triesto finda copyof Bima Suci.He was namedsecondpatih 1737but was exiledin 1738at in the urgingof the VOC for his anti-VOC activities.The scribeof the MS was Ki a lebet whosecareercan be reconstructed at Asmaradana, mantri of someconsequence leastin partfromreferences otherJavanese Dutchsources.He was killedin the in and in Javaneseassaulton the VOC garrisonat Kartasura July 1741.This MS is describedin TheodoreG. Th. Pigeaud, and and Codices Manuscripts Some Javanese Balinese Written Related in Idioms in der Spoken JavaandBali: Descriptive (Verzeichnis Catalogue Orientalischen in Handschriften Deutschland, XXXI; Wiesbaden: vol. FranzSteiner
Verlag GMBH, I975), pp. 226-7. 41 The Book

kidung and kakawin texts (Ricklefs, Tradition,pp. I6-17, 152-3); and another Kartasura MS, Berlin Staatsbibliothek Or. fol.402, dated AJ I66I [AD 1736-37]

Soebardi, p. of Caboltk, II4. My translationdiffers slightly from Soebardi's. The extant MSS of Cabolek apparently older than the nineteenth are no century, so the possibility that this passage reflects views held only after the Kartasura periodmust be acknowledged.

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

675

importantly for the discussion here, that the very existence of multiformity (as posited by the doctrine) constituted, paradoxically, proof of the existence of unity. In Leiden cod. I796 occurs the following passage: For all that is visible concealstheir sight. All that is obviousbecomeshidden fromsight. Their way of doing and seeing is thus. of The manifestation God is the cause of His obscurity, on becausethey concentrate the external.42 Zoetmulder observes that in this teaching 'the manifestation becomes a screen for that which is manifest, clarity becomes a cause of blindness, because one does not see the relative as relative, but is obsessed by it as if it were something absolute.'43If a sceptic were to approach an adherent of this philosophy and object to it on the grounds that the visible multiformity of the phenomenal world disproves the idea of the non-duality of all reality, the adherent would reply that this multiformity, indeed the very objection, is consistent with the philosophy. For the multiformity and the objection reflect both the plurality of the temporal order and the extent to which it obscures from humanity the true, non-dualistic eternal order: the philosophy is thereby confirmed rather than undermined. The circle of tautology is thus complete: the doctrine of unity cannot be disproved by multiplicity, for the existence of multiplicity constitutes evidence of the truth of the doctrine. Javanese sources provided a direct link between philosophical theories of unity-in-diversity and the realm of politics in the doctrine ofpanunggal(orjumbuh) kawula-gusti ing (the unity of servant and lord). This was a doctrine applied both to the temporal and to the supernatural orders. A temporal subject and his earthly lord were certainly readily distinguished, yet at a higher level of meaning they were one. And all of mankind, all servants of God, were ultimately one with their eternal Lord.44Bound with the Kartasura MS KitabFatahand urrahman, certainly contemporaneous with it, is another text called Kitab Daka. Here one finds Islamic mystical speculation with kawula-gusti teachings included. For example: Looknot upon two, the being of servantand lord,
42 Zoetmulder, Pantheisme, I64. p.
43 Ibid., p. I67. 44 See the discussion in Moertono, State and Statecraft,pp. 14-26. For further

references the indexin Zoetmulder, see under'kaoela-goesti'. Pantheisme,

676

M. C. RICKLEFS

for the servantexists no more; his being is negated and he possessesit not. Indeed trulyis he void, for he is replacedby God. Know the Almighty: [your] actionsare the doingsof Allah the Creator.45 Moertono and Selosoemardjan imply that in the political sphere ideas constituted a sort of social contract,46but this was kawula-gusti only partly true. Monarchs were expected to exercise paternal concern for their subjects and the latter were expected to render loyal service and taxes to their earthly lord. Yet the temporal realm remained characterized by distinctions and multiplicity while the unity of servant and lord was a mystic one, a matter of the eternal order. Thus the doctrine of the unity of kawula and gusti need not disturb a hierarchical social order in this world or, asJavanese history amply demonstrates, sometimes extravagant degrees of oppression and injustice. There were genuine checks on tyranny, but they were imposed more by the facts of geography, population patterns, military technology and poor communications, than by the speculations of philosophers, whether religious or political. A consistency should now be clear between the babadview of unity and disunity in Javanese politics and the religious literature's view of the unity and plurality of being. The temporal realm was in both cases characterized by duality, disunity, or disorder. It was a realm of flux and of distinctions. It was a screen behind which lay an eternal, supernatural realm characterized by non-duality. In both politics and religion the seeker after wisdom worked to attain this higher realm. For the mystic, there were texts to study, ascetic practices to follow and God's grace to pray for. For the Javanese aristocratic politician, there were wars to fight.
45 IOLJav. 83 (IO 3102) (A), p. 8: aja angroro kawula gustilpan kawula tingal/jenenge norananal kawulaje'nenge napi/ mapanboyandarbenil mapansajatinesuwung/pan kaganten Sukmalweruhe Allahkangmurba. The text is Yang maringYangWidilpolahtingkah tingkahe taken from a transcription done by Mr Soegiarto, the India Office copy of which is numbered IOR MSS Eur. D.5i8, 'Manuscript uit Londen van India Office Library no.3102 Shattariya tracts'. 46 See StateandStatecraft, 14-15, 26; Selo Soemardjan, 'Kraton', p. 226. Anderpp. son, 'Idea of power', p. 47, however, takes the view that 'traditional thought' did not allow for 'any form of social contract'. Neither of these viewpoints is quite consistent with the historical evidence as I see it, both being too theoretical in character. There was in fact a form of social contract, but kawula-gusti ideas were merely an ideological frosting on it.

JAVANESE

POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

THOUGHT

677

War as the dharma (duty) of the warrior is a well-known doctrine in Hindu literature.47The classic example of this, Krsna's teaching to is Arjuna on the eve of the great battle of the Mahdbharata, found also in an Old Javanese version.48 It does not seem to exist in Modern Javanese Bratayuda texts, although it must be said that this writer has had an opportunity to search for such passages.49Given that Old not Javanese literature seems to have been studied at Kartasura, however, the establishment of an Old Javanese version is perhaps sufficient to suggest the possibility that the teaching was known to the The heart of Krsna's teaching is the war-weary literati of Kartasura.50 unreality of the phenomenal world: Thereis no existenceof thatwhichis unreal,thereis no non-existence that of which is real;the men that knowthe truthperceivethe limit betweenthem both.... He who thinksthat it (the Soul) is the killerand he who thinksthat it (the Soul)is killed,bothdo not haveknowledge aboutit. It neitherkillsnor
is killed ... 51

Here one encounters again a combination of political and religious messages. Krsna's teachings are grounded in a definition of the Real which essentially equates it with the permanent. This transitory world is, by definition, unreal: it is maya, an illusion veiling the Reality behind it. Hence warfare, with its killing and being killed, is unreal, a screen before an eternal Reality. For the Ksatriya,fulfilment of dharma will be found on the field of battle. And for the knights (satriya)of Kartasura, too, warfare was their natural milieu, where they also must fulfil their duty and seek understanding, seek that world beyond this temporal realm. This excursion into Javanese philosophy may explain why it is that in the Kartasura chronicle stories, if there ought to be a single king, there was nevertheless no evident difficulty in describing periods when there were more. The existence of a plurality of kings would merely confirm the multiplicity and multiformity of this disordered temporal realm. Behind this lay a higher order characterized by unity
which the Javanese satriya pursued in politics and war. The disunity of
47 See the discussion in A. L. Basham, The Wonder was India: A Survey the that of Culture theIndianSubcontinent the of before Coming theMuslims(New York: Grove Press, of 48

Inc., 1959), p. 126.

36-82. 49 I am grateful for the advice of Dr S. O. Robson on this point.

J. Gonda,'TheJavaneseversionof the Bhagavadgit5', TBGvol. 75 (1935),pp.

in Cabolek in n.39 above,sayingthatCakraningrat cited 50 Note the comment Sirat III ownedMSS (by implication OldJavanese)of Rdmayana Bharatayuddha. in and 51 Gonda,'Bhagavadgita', 57-8. pp.

678

M. C. RICKLEFS

Javanese political history served to demonstrate the truth of the basic philosophy and thus confirmed that behind the distinctions of the phenomenal world, behind this veil of illusion, lay an eternal unity. So while there was properly a unity in politics, it was, like the identity of kawula and gusti, a unity which one might only perceive on a supernatural plane. Although state politics aspired to mirror this unity, it was a natural reflection of the nature of the temporal realm that unity should only be temporary and should frequently collapse into disunity and war.52 Thus there is an analytical link between Javanese ideas and Javanese political life in the eighteenth century. But study of the primary sources for the history of the period, particularly of the babads and religious literature, shows the link to be more complicated and subtle than has been supposed by some earlier writers.53 Clearly Javanese political and religious theories do not tell us what happened in Javanese history, but they do tell us a great deal about Javanese perceptions. It would presumably not have been difficult to find Kartasura literati who would assert that the political order was characterized by unity under the rule of a single benign monarch. The same people would have agreed, however, that this was rarely true. Simultaneously holding both views would have been no problem. For their philosophy posited both unity and order in the eternal realm and disunity and disorder in the temporal. Anything which confirmed the temporal facet of this philosophy would serve to confirm it all. As for the two kings of the First Javanese War of Succession, whose simultaneous existence exemplified the problem which is the focus of discussion here, cross-questioning a learned Javanese observer of the time might have led to the comment that there was no problem because they were 'one but not one, two but not two'. If his Old Javanese were up to scratch, he might even have conveyed this view with the words bhinneka tunggalika.
This argument also sheds further light upon the crisis of legitimation in the later eighteenth century, when the partition of the kingdom between Surakarta and Yogyakarta became rigid and institutionalized. This meant not merely that there were two kings, but also that there were permanently two. So the temporal realm was characterized by duality as it should have been, but no longer by its properly concomitant state of flux. This suggests further subtleties of analysis not adequately reflected in myJogjakarta under SultanMangkubumi especially pp. 33-5). (see 53 See the sources cited in notes 4-8 above.
52