KṚTANAGARA AND THE RESURRECTION OF MPU BHARĀDA

Abstract

This article explores the significance of the division of Airlangga's kingdom for the 14th century rulers of Majapahit, specifically through an examination of the Akṣobhya image of Kṛtanagara and the shrine built for his daughter and spiritual successor, the Rājapatnī. Arguing against the commonly held view that these monuments were erected for the purpose of ‘neutralising’ the work of Ārya Bharāda, who had ritually divided the land of Java in the 11th century, the author proposes that they were intended rather as vehicles for communion with the departed sage. Following his ‘resurrection’ by Kṛtanagara, Bharāda became a patron saint for the king's descendants in the 14th century, drawing the founder of Majapahit to establish his palace close to the site of his father-in-law's ‘talisman’ at Lěmah Tulis, and later presiding over the consecration of the Rājapatnī's shrine at Kamal Pandak. Described in detail by the poet Prapañca, this last-mentioned event is interpreted as an effort on the part of the Rājapatnī and her progeny to perpetuate the religious and political revolution initiated by Kṛtanagara in the previous century.

*This article is based on a paper, ‘Dimana letak dharma Sang Rājapatnı¯ di Kamal Pandak?’, presented at the Pertemuan Ilmiah Arkeologi X dan Kongres Ikatan Ahli Arkeologi Indonesia (IAAI), Yogyakarta, 2005.

Notes

*This article is based on a paper, ‘Dimana letak dharma Sang Rājapatnı¯ di Kamal Pandak?’, presented at the Pertemuan Ilmiah Arkeologi X dan Kongres Ikatan Ahli Arkeologi Indonesia (IAAI), Yogyakarta, 2005.

¹For a discussion of the inscriptions issued by Airlangga's immediate successors, see Boechari (1968: 1–26).

²‘His Majesty, residing in the palace of Wilwatikta [Majapahit], supreme ruler of Janggala and Kad,ḍiri’. For further details see Noorduyn (1978: 249), who corrected the earlier reading by Brandes (Krom 1913: 216).

³For a discussion of the various theories advanced over the years, see the useful summary in Nihom (1986a: 78–100).

⁴I use the word talisman here in the sense of the Indonesian word penangkal; the idea being that the monuments were charged with magical power, deemed capable of protecting the kingdom from danger.

⁵All dates are AD, unless otherwise indicated.

⁶The inscription of Ālasantan was unearthed at Bejijong, Trowulan, in 1963. For a transcription and discussion of the contents see the excellent article by A.S.Wibowo (1979) who noted a number of village names mentioned in the inscription. These are still identifiable in the vicinity of Trowulan, among them Tangunan, Pagěruyung and Paděmangan (p.15). I would add the village of Tirěm, which is probably represented today by the settlements of Tirem Lor and Tirem Kidul, located respectively in the villages of Plososari and Tampungrejo (district of Puri), not far east of Trowulan.

⁷Transcription in Kern 1917: 187–98.

⁸Knebel (1907b: 204 ff.); Bosch (1915: 163, 187–8 [no.1638]). The statue was located in the vicinity of the site currently known as Candi Siti Hinggil, until its removal to Surabaya in 1817. Since then it has stood in the park named Taman Apsari at Simpang, facing the East Java governor's residence. For a recent discussion of the contents of the Wurare inscription, see Lokesh Chandra (1995: 148–59).

⁹ Deśawarṇana 68: 2, 77: 2 (pp. 74, 80) All references to Prapañca's Deśawarṇana are from Robson (1995).

¹⁰Poerbatjaraka (1926: 115, 145).

¹¹ibid: 138.

¹² Deśawarṇana 58: 2–59: 2 (pp. 66–7).

¹³Robson (1979: 314).

¹⁴The present village of Lebakjabung (consisting of the settlements of Lebak and Jabung) is the site of a sacred grave, said to be that of a certain Ki Ageng Jabung. According to Sanusi, hereditary guardian of the grave complex of Tralaya at Trowulan, Ki Ageng Jabung is one of five semi-legendary figures whose blessings were in the past sought by visitors to the ruins of Majapahit (personal communication 1990). Although unrecorded by early European researchers, this oral tradition does not seem to be of recent origin. For information concerning archaeological remains at Lebakjabung and Kumitir, see Bosch (1915: 217–18 [nos. 1734, 1739]), as well as Sidomulyo (2007: 17–19, 101, 121).

¹⁵Chandra (1995: 156–7).

¹⁶ibid: 155.

¹⁷This explanation simultaneously argues against the theory supported by a number of scholars (cf. Berg 1965: 99; Poerbatjaraka 1954: 32–3; Slametmuljana 1983: 168–9; Nihom 1986b: 495), that the Jaka Dolog statue had formerly stood in another location, such as Candi Jawi, from where it was moved to Trowulan at a later date.

¹⁸ Deśawarṇana 68: 2a (p. 74).

¹⁹Concerning Prapañca's identity, I accept the reading of Deśawarṇana 17: 8c as interpreted by Kern (1919) and Robson (1995). For a discussion of this passage see Sidomulyo (2007: 3–4).

²⁰Krom (1931: 219–20; 1938: 194).

²¹For a description of the discoveries at Muteran see the recent article by Lunsingh Scheurleer (2005: 52–61).

²²It should be remembered that Wijaya had already chosen Majapahit as his stronghold during the struggle against Jayakatyěng; for which reason it seems almost inconceivable that the latter had willingly granted such a strategic position to his adversary, as the Pararaton would have us believe (Brandes 1920: 28–30). The Chinese records from the period are probably closer to the truth. See, for instance, the extracts from the History of the Yüan dynasty describing the Mongol expedition of 1292–3, and in particular the account of the commander Shih-pi (Groeneveldt 1960: 20–34).

²³It is interesting to note that the same year saw the foundation of a caitya (Buddhist shrine) at Singhasāri by the minister Gajah Mada, acting on behalf of ‘the descendants of His Majesty Kṛtanagara’. One can surmise that this gesture was motivated by the Rājapatnī's death. For a transcription and translation of the inscription commemorating the event, see Blom (1939: 136–8).

²⁴ Deśawarṇana 67: 3c–d, 69: 1c (pp. 74–5).

²⁵ Deśawarṇana 69: 1a–d (p. 75).

²⁶Despite the apparent connection, I am hesitant to interpret this as a reference to Bharāda's mission on behalf of Airlangga, undertaken for the purpose of appointing one of the latter's sons to rule in Bali. Prapañca may be referring to the agreement (samāya) made between the two sages, mentioned in Deśawarṇana 16: 3, which apparently concerned matters pertaining to religion.

²⁷ Deśawarṇana 68: 3b (p. 75).

²⁸The efficacy of this water is demonstrated clearly in the Calon Arang, where Bharāda employs it to counter the magical power of the widow from Girah by sprinkling it on the corpses of her victims and bringing them back to life (Poerbatjaraka 1926: 127).

²⁹ Deśawarṇana 68: 5a (p. 75). ‘Its function was to be a marker, the origin of people being scared to leave their own homes’.

³⁰Robson 1995: 134 (note to Deśawarṇana 68: 5b). See also Schrieke (1957: 24), who viewed the rites connected with Kṛtanagara's Akṣobhya image and the Rājapatnī's śrāddha ceremony as an effort to ‘annul forever the magic of Bharāda’. Schrieke portrayed the priest Jñānawidhi as ‘an incarnation of Bharāda’, employed to undo the latter's work by means of ‘counter-magic’.

³¹In the closing line of canto 68: 4, we learn that the peculiar significance of Kamal Pandak was its position on Bharāda's dividing line (mun˙gwiri pāntara). The fact that the place had been cursed implies that it was a trouble spot; a flaw in the sage's original handiwork, which needed to be removed.

³²There is in fact some new epigraphical data which is worth bearing in mind. The recently discovered fourth plate of the inscription of Mūla-Malurung makes it clear that in the mid 13th century the realm of Java comprised the four principal regions of Janggala, Kaḍiri, Wurawān and Wetan ing Kawi. This quadripartite division provided a model for the rulers of Majapahit. The fact that the inscription makes a clear distinction between the regions of Janggala and Wetan ing Kawi, where the court of Singhasāri was located, suggests that the latter may not have been subject to Bharāda's original division. For a recent discussion of the Mūla-Malurung charter, see Sidomulyo (2010).

³³The distribution of Airlangga's inscriptions provided the foundation for Boechari (1968). Like others before him, however (notably Bosch 1919: 429 ff.), Boechari viewed Prapañca's image of Bharāda pouring holy water from a jar in the sky as a certain indication that the original boundary line was a river. In my opinion, this assumption is unwarranted. Bharāda's boundary line was most probably understood as separating the lands lying on the upper and lower course of the river Brantas, taking into account the natural barrier formed by the Arjuna-Welirang-Anjasmara massif. Judging by its geographical position, the 14th century capital of Majapahit may well have been situated close to this ancient dividing line.

³⁴ Pigeaud (1960–1963, 4: 205).

³⁵ Krom (1931: 274).

³⁶Pigeaud (1960–1963, 2: 81; 4: 204–5). Compare Kern (1919), Teeuw-Uhlenbeck (1958) and Robson (1995), all of whom correctly read Palungan. Kapulungan undoubtedly lay near the present village of Kepulungan, on the eastern side of Mount Penanggungan in the district of Gempol (Pasuruan). As Pigeaud himself admitted, this place was not situated very close to Majapahit.

³⁷Robson (1979: 315) suggested that the Buddhist tendency of the kidung Wargasari might allow us to place it in the second half of the 14th century, but admitted that information concerning Buddhism in 15th century Majapahit was lacking. In support of the earlier date I note that the title of Mpu Padlěgan, held by Wargasari's grandfather, is known from at least three 14th century inscriptions. In two of them, namely the charters of Tuhañaru (1323) and Canggu (1358), we find the name attached specifically to the office of Buddhist dharmādhyaksa, suggesting that the title was hereditary. The latter document is of particular interest for two reasons, the first of which is that we find here a rare case of the Buddhist dharmādhyaksa preceding his Shivaite counterpart in the ordered list of dignitaries recorded in the charter. The second point concerns the name of the official himself, referred to as pungkw i padlěgan, dang ācārya Nādendra, who may well be identifiable with the poet Prapañca (see note 19). This naturally invites speculation as to the connection between the author of the Deśawarṇana and the possibly historical figure named Wargasari.

³⁸The position of Lěmah Tulis has already been discussed above ( Figure 4). Regarding the mention of Kamal Pandak in the kidung Wargasari, see Berg (1953: 195), and Pigeaud (1960–1963, 4: 234, no. 64, Wěti-Wětih). Robson (1979: 313), however, omits the word Pandak in his synopsis of the poem. I am grateful to Amrit Gomperts for taking the trouble to verify the reference at Leiden University, thereby confirming that the name Kamal Pandak is recorded in at least one of the existing manuscripts.

³⁹This last mentioned place is presumably to be identified with the foundation of that name established by the prince Kṛtawardhana, father of King Rājasanagara (Deśawarṇana 82: 2a).

⁴⁰Krom (1913: 89–90 [no. 47, line 28 recto]).

⁴¹ Deśawarṇana 76: 4 (p. 80).

⁴²On sheet EXIII of the Dutch topographic map of 1892 (scale 1:20,000) the village appears as Segodo. The identification with the Sagada of our text is supported by a subsequent episode in the story, in which Wargasari travels eastward from Sagada to Wawakul (Robson 1979: 314). This latter place could well be the village named Wakul, recorded by the Sundanese pilgrim Bujangga Manik on his journey eastward through Java (Noorduyn and Teeuw 2006: 258). It must have been situated close to present-day Segodorejo, as the next place passed by Bujangga Manik was Bubat, which lay not far north of Majapahit. A small settlement named Wakul still exists in the village of Jerukseger, district of Gedeg (Mojokerto).

⁴³For a description of archaeological remains at Betek and Sumberpenganten, see Verbeek (1891: 228 [nos. 451 and 453]), Knebel (1907a: 125–6), and Bosch (1915: 237 [nos.1785, 1786]). With regard to Segodorejo, the result of a recent survey by Nurhadi Rangkuti was published in Kompas (14 November 2006).

⁴⁴There has, admittedly, been a fair amount of speculation with regard to the age of Candi Brahu, with estimates of its construction date ranging from the 10th to 15th century! Arguments in favour of an early date have been influenced by archaeological discoveries attributed to the age of Sindok, among them the inscription of Ālasantan, which was unearthed just 45 metres from the monument (see for instance Mundardjito et al. 1986: 152). On the other hand, Dumarçay (1986: 81, 98) assigns a mid 14th century date to Candi Brahu; a view supported by the team responsible for the Kamus Arkeologi (Magetsari et al. 1979: 35) published by the Faculty of Letters, University of Indonesia. In my opinion, the discovery of 10th century artefacts at Bejijong tells us nothing about the age of Candi Brahu itself, but merely serves to confirm the antiquity of the district where the monument is situated. Further archaeological research may help to provide more certainty.

⁴⁵Once again, this possibility finds support from Pigeaud (1960–1963, 4: 188), who drew attention to the record of the Rājapatnī's śrāddha ceremony in the Pararaton; itself an indication that the event had left a lasting impression.

⁴⁶Known today by the name of Klinterejo, the village of Panglungan is featured clearly on Dutch topographical maps from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is referred to by Verbeek (1891: 235 [No. 469]).

⁴⁷Brandes (1920: 37). According to the Pararaton, a dharma named Pantarapurwa was built for Tribhuwanottungga-dewī (Bhre Kahuripan) at Panggih. A settlement of that name can be found less than 1 km from the archaeological site at Panglungan.

⁴⁸Poerbatjaraka 1926: 118–30.

⁴⁹For a description of the layout of the city of Majapahit, see cantos 8–12 of Prapañca's Deśawarṇana. The poet makes a clear distinction between the ‘senior’, western palace, inhabited by King Rājasanagara, and the eastern palace, which was the residence of the king's uncle Wijayarājasa. Whereas the Deśawarṇana was a poem written in praise of the reigning sovereign and his forbears, the Arjunawijaya and Sutasoma, attributed to Mpu Tantular, were patronised by a prince by the name of Raṇamanggala, who was affiliated with the western palace through his marriage to the king's niece. The figure of Śrī Raṇamanggala is mentioned further in the 1367 inscription of Bungur, where he joins the king in confirming the sīma status of a Buddhist establishment at Kañcana (transcription in Holle 1880; partial English translation in Sarkar 1971, I: 133–62).

⁵⁰A detailed study of the geographical distribution of Shivaite and Buddhist institutions in 14th century Java might help to lend further credence to this proposal.

⁵¹Described in the Pararaton (Brandes 1920: 39), the so-called Parěgrěg war was the culmination of a growing tension between the eastern and western palaces in Majapahit, which seems to have begun in the 1370s.