Imagine Buddha in Prambanan: Reconsidering the Buddhist
Background of the Loro Jonggrang Temple Complex, by Jordaan, Roy E.
Reviewed by John N. Miksic
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies
Vol.25 No.2
Sept 1994
pp.442-444
COPYRIGHT 1994 Singapore University Press Pte. Ltd
I share two basic opinions with the author of this book. First, the
amount of attention devoted to the Sivaitic architectural complex of
Loro Jonggrang in central Java is unfairly miniscule compared to
that which the other glory of central Javanese civilization,
Borobudur, has received. Second, there seems to be more than a
coincidental similarity between the designs of Loro Jonggrang and
some nearby Buddhist complexes. Beyond this, however, we part
company in a number of matters.
Candi Loro Jonggrang shares three important characteristics with
Borobudur: it was conceived on a grand scale, it bears a series of
narrative reliefs, and it is designed as a mandala. The manner in
which Loro Jonggrang's mandala was realized bears a closer
resemblance to nearby Buddhist complexes in the Prambanan plain such
as Candi Sewu rather than to Borobudur; Sewu and Loro Jonggrang
consist of several hundred separate stone structures, whereas
Borobudur is a single massive building. Borobudur and Loro Jonggrang
are the only two monuments in central Java with a large number of
narrative reliefs connected in series (unlike e.g. Mendut where
stories are depicted in synoptic fashion, one relief per story).
Dr. Jordaan's main thesis is that the resemblances between Loro
Jonggrang and the Buddhist sites should be interpreted as evidence
of personal support or collaboration by the Sailendra wangsa in
designing and building Loro Jonggrang. He constructs his thesis in
opposition to another, according to which Loro Jonggrang was built
as a riposte to Borobudur. One of Dr. Jordaan's principal subsidiary
arguments is that archaeologists have clung to this conception on
the basis of outmoded assumptions formulated long ago, when
historical and other evidence was less plentiful.
It is undeniable that early authors such as Raffles, Brumund, and
Leemans, obtained the mistaken impression that Loro Jonggrang had a
Buddhist affiliation. This fact cannot however be used to support
the idea of Buddhist influence on Loro Jonggrang; it was formed on
the basis of ignorance and the ruined condition of the site.
Similarly, Loro Jonggrang's proximity to the Buddhist complexes of
Lumbung, Bubrah, and Sewu can be interpreted, as Dr. Jordaan notes,
as merely evidence of toleration. On page 9 Dr. Jordaan introduces
an important assumption which does not seem valid; the presence of
similar motifs on Buddhist shrines and Loro Jonggrang cannot be used
as proof for a theory of Buddhist involvement in Loro Jonggrang's
design. Makara thrones, bells, garlands, as well as kalpataru or
"wishing trees", lions, and many other motifs, are indeed found on
the Buddhist shrines of central Java as well as on Loro Jonggrang.
There is however no reason to state that Loro Jonggrang possesses
any specifically "Buddhist traits" some of these motifs appear on
earlier Hindu candi in central Java, and are found on both types of
building in ancient India. Dr. Jordaan seems to accept the
conclusion that motifs were associated in the minds of ancient
Javanese with one religion or the other, an idea which he traces
back to Tonnet in 1908 and Rouffaer in 1918. Yet on page 20 he notes
that even in India the same craftsmen might work on both Hindu and
Buddhist shrines.
Dr. Jordaan rejects J.G. de Casparis' interpretation of the
epigraphic data which may give a date for Loro Jonggrang's
consecration (p. 21), and proposes his own. The Kelurak inscription
is a key to his argument. This stone was found between Sewu and Loro
Jonggrang, and refers to the bodhisattva Manjucri as Brahma, Visnu
and Mahesvara. Bosch thought that this might refer to a grandiose
plan to construct both the Buddhist sanctuaries of Bubrah and
Lumbung, and the Hindu Loro Jonggrang. One important objection to
this conclusion is the date of the Kelurak stone: A.D. 778.
Loro Jonggrang was consecrated in A.D. 856. When was its
construction inaugurated? Here we have no precise data to go on. The
newly-discovered Wanua Tengah III inscription certainly is important
for any revision of de Casparis' earlier reconstruction of central
Javanese history, but it does not solve the problem of fixing the
date at which Loro Jonggrang was planned: under a Buddhist or Hindu
monarch?
On page 28 Dr. Jordaan apparently assumes that Plaosan Lor, a
Buddhist complex erected with the assistance of Rakai Pikatan, a
Hindu, was substantially completed before Loro Jonggrang was begun.
Given the need for about two decades of construction, however, the
minimum time needed for building Loro Jonggrang, the activities on
the two sites probably overlapped quite closely. On the same page,
he also advances the arguments that the use of the makara at Loro
Jonggrang is associated with the Sailendras, and that after the
early ninth century the Sailendra moved to Kedah. This latter
inference is based on the Nalanda inscription of A.D. 860; however
this inscription only says that the Sailendra were lords of Kataha,
which in Indian epigraphy stood for Srivijaya, the capital of which
in all probability was Palembang. There are hardly any makara in
Kedah.
In footnote 1, page 29, he implies that the Sailendra were in fact
located in Sumatra. Furthermore, one cannot assume that all
Sailendra were forced to leave Java in the ninth century; the only
person known to have fled is Balaputra, a rebel. The other members
of the faction who did not join the rebellion may well have
remained.
Dr. Jordaan is also inclined to accept the vital role of Indian
influence on the design of Javanese temples. On pages 25 and 29 he
suggests that Loro Jonggrang's plan may have been copied from a
Buddhist site, Paharpur, in northeast India. This overlooks the fact
that at Kalasan in the eighth century there were already rows of
stupas beside the main sanctuary, and that Candi Sewu's present
lay-out was probably designed around A.D. 800. Thus Loro Jonggrang
could well be seen as a logical descendant of these two Javanese
predecessors, and possibly Plaosan as well, if Plaosan was indeed
begun before Loro Jonggrang was planned.
Ultimately, the book fails to provide concrete examples of the
supposed Buddhist/Sailendra involvement in designing and building
Loro Jonggrang. Although it is true that the majority of the
Javanese people may not have concerned themselves much with the
differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, the priesthoods of the
two religions would have been deeply concerned with their doctrinal
disputes. It is difficult to envision a situation in which the
specialists who designed the complex buildings used for the
different Buddhist and Hindu rites would have sat down together to
create a joint vision.
The resemblances between Borobudur, Plaosan, Sewu, and Loro
Jonggrang in my opinion can best be interpreted as appropriations of
the Sailendrast mode of discourse by the Hindus rather than personal
support or cooperation, a common Javanese set of architectural
motifs, and a fascination with the powers attributed to mandala. J.
Dumarcay has noted that the Hindu architects of Java made use of
some fundamentally different design practices than their Buddhist
counterparts; important among these at Loro Jonggrang are the use of
perspective to enhance the apparent height of the shrines, and the
use of the parrot motif.
In The Temples of Java, he also noted that just as the builders of
Loro Jonggrang intentionally chose a site in the midst of many
Buddhist shrines, Borobudur's site lies in the middle of an area
where there are remains of over 20 ancient Hindu temples. This
smacks of a desire to create an architectural confrontation rather
than to establish a pleasant mutually complimentary dialogue.
Siva of course appears on Borobudur, among the kalyanamitra who help
Sudana along his path to becoming a bodhisattva. Siva's presence
here is probably not meant as a mark of respect for Hinduism;
according to the Vajrayana school, Vajrapani was a deity especially
created to kill Siva in order to convince him of the superior power
of the Buddhist doctrine, after which he was brought back to life
and became a devotee of Buddhism. This would seem to be a more
accurate reflection of the relationship between the Buddhist and
Hindu clergy of central Java. They probably did not seek to destroy
each other physically, but rather to assert the superior validity of
their doctrines through reason. In this endeavour, architectural
display would have served a significant role.