WELCOME TO BOROBUDUR.TV

Last update:

The Bodhisattvas of Candi Mendut

by N.J. Krom

Originally published in 1917.

Concerning the special form of Mahayana Buddhism that was formerly practiced in Central Java, we only know a little. But within the Old Javanese writings are to be found some undoubtedly Buddhist texts and then still others that contain Buddhist doctrines strongly mixed with details from Shaivaite texts. This need not come as such a wondrous surprise because well-known writings have come down to us from the later East Javanese period, when practices of just such a syncretic nature had reached their peak. A work such as the Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan (S.H.K.), which nevertheless desires to unfold a Buddhist system and therefore makes use of an original Sanskrit text for that very purpose, is already somewhat less than orthodox, even in its commentary, and in many respects must be considered to be a compromise. ¹

Now such writings remain important sources for expanding our knowledge of the manner in which Javanese Buddhism had evolved over the course of the centuries. First of all, they should be appreciated because of the value of their correctness and also because they provide us with a possible means for determining the unadulterated Mahayanist doctrine that the Hindu colonists had brought with them from the mother country. However, what we can learn from the study of East Javanese syncretism is for the purpose of arriving at the nature of the matter during the preceding, Central Javanese, period.

In this regard, literary productions assist us little if at all, leaving the monuments themselves to serve as the sole sources at our disposal. ² By itself this is not so bad, because after all they are sources for which the authenticity is insured, and moreover, ones that have not suffered from the deadening of later interpolations. Borobudur is naturally at the head of all these monuments.

There are relief panels surrounding the sanctuary that illustrate texts that also must have been particularly holy to the designer of the great stupa. For whichever texts are recognized there, the reliefs themselves are based on original Sanskrit texts, not on Old Javanese imitations. What becomes the central question here is whether or not any Old-Javanese translations or local versions had ever existed. Then our attention must fall in particular on indications that by all odds Sanskrit texts form the underpinning of the reliefs, which means that Further-India must have introduced Buddhism before the advent of any Javanese adaptations.

In between one does not have to think that the texts known to be portrayed in the Borobudur reliefs can provide us with a complete picture of books that were deemed holy by the sect that founded the great stupa. It is plausible that the choice of what is represented there is based on the practical feasibility of producing any images whatsoever and leaving out by default the great saintly writings of a purely speculative character that could not be easily expressed by means of art. 

Unfortunately, only a portion of the texts corresponding with the Borobudur reliefs have been identified and therefore contribute to our knowledge of the oldest state of the Mahayana Buddhism of Central Java. Nevertheless, it remains a remarkable fact that in this system the Dhyani-Buddhas were also incorporated in approximately the same original form in which they were represented in Nepal. However, what clearly is missing from the great sanctuary is an indication of which bodhisattva system had formerly been followed there.

However, on several of the narrative reliefs in Borobudur's 4^th gallery, where a number of Bodhisattvas are presented together, one nevertheless sees the arrival of the bodhisattva who is stipulated as playing the leading role there. One obtains from this a clear insight into the role of the Bodhisattva characters that were so highly honored by the designers of the great stupa. Given their distinguished locations in the uppermost relief gallery at Borobudur, which these great beings have assumed in all the Mahayana sects without distinction, one tends to expect more.

In the expectation of arriving at an answer (as to their individual identity), there is another monument in the vicinity of Borobudur that is of approximately the same age, namely Candi Mendut, which also secures for us a sense of its completing the great stupa itself. This temple contains what Borobudur is lacking in terms of its function as a center of worship, for it presents a disproportionately large image of the Savior as the “doctrine made visible,” and at whose feet each and every worshipper could perform acts of homage. Moreover, we find little presented at Borobudur about the foreground treading Avalokiteshvara that is very catching to the eye, as the one to whom belongs the right of presiding over the present world order. And finally we see, created for this monument in the distance, eight large, towering Bodhisattva characters.

It is especially on this last Group of Eight that we wish to boldly engage all our facilities here. Along the way, it shall also prove to be useful if we briefly discuss the remaining images of Mendut, but only in those cases where the effort will further our ultimate aim in some important respect.

We shall therefore pass by without comment the decorative panels on the Mendut sub-basement, the Jataka bas-reliefs on the staircase wings, and the animal fables at the foot of the actual temple body itself. For their positions already make it abundantly clear that they represent an inferior order as compared to what is found on the exterior walls of the monument's central cube, seen inside the portal, or discovered within the temple itself. 

As a matter of fact, we shall need to pause inside the portal for a time. On either side of the portal's walkway there is a recessed panel that contains the relief of a wish-fulfillment tree. Subsequently we arrive before two scenes, one above the other, which have also been symmetrically introduced on either side of the passageway. The upper scene contains a number of celestial beings that can be seen floating in the clouds (and, as one of the two panels show, a naga serpent).  In the bottom panel on the SW side of the passage, the former Resident IJzerman has already recognized Kubera, the Hindu god of wealth, together with its consequence. ³ [More recently, the identification of this relief's main character has been linked with purely Buddhist figures such as Panchika or Atavaka.]

Somewhat later, the same character was exhaustively brought into a new light by Dr. Vogel, ⁴ who simultaneously demonstrated that the protagonist in the corresponding panel on the other side of the passage represents Hariti. In the distant past she was a pediatric-disease-provoking demon, but after her conversion by the Buddha she became the fruitful goddess of wealth. As far as we know, this identification has met with general approval. ⁵ 

It is not to be doubted that the large seated Buddha image, which occupies center stage in the temple's interior, represents the historical Buddha Shakyamuni. That he is thought to be preaching becomes clear from the dharmachakra ("turning of the wheel") mudra formed by his hands (Photo 3-01), which is one clear indication that his first preaching in the Deer Park is meant. The assignment becomes all the more evident when we see an ornamental panel that contains a wheel placed between two stags, which is located on the face of the stage beneath the throne upon which the Buddha himself is seated (Photo 3-02).  [Whether or not this relief suggesting the Deer Park had been correctly restored on the Buddha's throne is also a matter of dispute and thus Krom's identification of the image seated on the throne as Sakyamuni is also not nearly as conclusive as he suggests..]

Two bodhisattvas are also presented on either side of the Shakyamuni image; both on separate thrones and portrayed in simple human-like terms. Although their hands are empty of character-defining attributes, there is no doubt as to who sits on the Master's right side; the Amitabha figurine at the front of his head ornament stamps his identity as that of Avalokiteshvara (Photo 3-03).

By comparison, our difficulty begins with the second Bodhisattva character, which is seated on the Shakyamuni's left-hand side (Photo 3-04). He deviates from his counterpart in terms of the straps of his toggery; wearing a head ornament that is richly decorated with jewels, he displays a cord-formed  breast-band (oepawita) on his left shoulder whereas Avalokiteshvara wears the anticipated broad, flat band. The image in question, however, is otherwise bereft of any character-defining attribute.

Such circumstances leave plenty of room for conjecture as to which Bodhisattva is meant to be here. In the first place one might nominate Maitreya for the role, but not because the character in question shows something special belonging to Maitreya singularly....   

Dr. Foucher called for Mañjushri here on the basis of the usual arrangement found in Further-India, where Avalokiteshvara and Mañjushri typically act as the spectators of the Buddha. The sculptor has so indicated, he reasoned, by omitting the naked fact of bestowing an ordinary attribute to this particular image, his presence at the Buddha’s side alone being sufficiently obvious as the means of which such an identification can be considered. ⁶

A third possibility, that of Vajrapani, we have never suggested in so far as what heretofore has been confessed. It speaks for itself that in the Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan Lokeshvara (= Avalokiteshvara) and Bajrapani ( = Vajrapani) are placed at the Buddha’s two sides.⁷ Likewise in the 4^th gallery reliefs at Borobudur, the Buddha is repeatedly shown between both of these bodhisattvas, who may be identified there by the characteristic attribute that each displays.

In our opinion the identification of Dr. Foucher is correct, although we feel that it is a bit of a stretch to say that placement alone is sufficient evidence for considering Maitreya to be recognized here. When one applies the same to Avalokiteshvara, we find that in this case the sculptor has nevertheless awarded him the Amitabha figurine as the means for further clarifying his intentions; moreover from the Borobudur-reliefs already mentioned, whenever Avalokiteshvara is the Buddha's companion his bodhisattva counterpart is Mañjushri and no other.

For other reasons, however, we continue to say that Mañjushri is nevertheless who is really meant in this case. For starters we are not permitted to adopt Maitreya here, because this Bodhisattva is characterized everywhere else on Java (including on the outside partition of the Mendut) by the small stupa that he wears in his head ornament. If the sculptor had wanted to place an attribute for this bodhisattva, then he only had to place that characteristic incision on the head ornament, which would have served this purpose in the same manner as the Amitabha figurine that he carved into the head ornament of Avalokiteshvara, Maitreya's counterpart. Lacking the stupa symbol, whereas Avalokiteshvara has his, does not, in our opinion, prove that this bodhisattva is Maitreya. In addition, it seems most improbable for Vajrapani to be meant here.  This bodhisattva is inconceivable without his vajra, from which he not only derives his name, but in truth is also the very reason for his adoptive existence.

However, we do not need to give the name of Mañjushri exclusively to this bodhisattva just because the two other above-named bodhisattvas cannot come in or because in the Buddhism of Further-India Mañjushri is the most common Spectator of the Buddha. As we shall see, the sculptor has taken steps to make his intentions clear in an unmistakable manner. ⁸

Against the aureole behind the image's head, we see the points of a crescent moon, which have been introduced on both sides of the ring. Mañjushri does not exclusively own this sickle form in the demeanor of a neck jewel; it is also presented elsewhere and in particular on youthful persons of eminent standing. Ranking below Mañjushri are some other Bodhisattvas who also bear it. [The crescent moon is not, in fact, in evidence on the image’s aureole, which can be seen in Photo 3-04a. Here Krom is clearly mistaken.] Although he does not always show it, the crescent moon is indeed found on a large number of images that can be clearly identified as Mañjushri due to their possession of his typical attribute, the book resting on the lotus flower. Thus it would be strange if, on the other hand, this image were still some other bodhisattva. ⁹ In our opinion this special emblem belongs to Mañjushri due to circumstantial evidence: this particular bodhisattva carries the name of Mañjushri Kumarabhuta ¾ with Kumura betokening “youth” and in particular “prince” ¾ in a large number of texts. It therefore gives standing for anyone who carries this emblem to be correctly placed under the category of youthful distinguished persons. We therefore see the crescent as serving as Mañjushri's emblem because he is also known as kumara-schap, which of all the bodhisattvas presented in plastic art this particular name belongs only to him. ¹⁰

If the sculptor has therefore introduced this mark on the face of his bodhisattva image, then it was for the purpose of indicating that the character being presented is none other than Mañjushri. As originally noticed by T. van Erp, ¹¹ a makara-motif has also been applied to the ear jewel and the upper armband of the image in question. The well-known Mañjushri of Lumpang (Sumatra) also carries a makara-patroon on his garment.

We shall now examine the decorations on the outside of the temple. Each of the four sides of the central cube has been divided into three partitions: a large one in the middle and two narrower ones on the ends. The middle portion of the front side is, of course, entirely taken up by the vestibule; therefore on the whole there are three large middle panels and eight side panels filled with reliefs that need to be considered. In addition, of three more on the exterior walls of the vestibule a couple of which still show by their traces that they were also decorated with reliefs; these latter panels, however, have almost wholly disappeared.

With regards to what is displayed on the middle panels, a study has been conducted by Dr. Brandes. ¹² For the main character on the back wall he has recognized a four-armed form of Avalokiteshvara (B39, Photo 3-05); the head ornament is now missing and so the possible presence of an Amitabha-figurine can no longer be observed, yet this figures other attributes leave no space for doubt. In the left forehand is the red lotus (padma), and although the right hand has been demolished it remains obvious that it was formerly kept in the vara-mudra; in the right after-hand there is a rosary and in the left a book. We therefore find everything that we would expect of an image of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. The stem of a lotus rises up from the ground on the side of the Bodhisattva and from the same plant rises a second flower, upon which rests a jug. To the sides of the Bodhisattva are female figures seated on [thrones upheld by] lions and elephants (Photo 3-05a and Photo 3-05b), undoubtedly Taras, but from the available data it is not possible to arrive at any closer determination than this. 

This Avalokiteshvara image has been represented standing, whereas the main characters of the middle panels on the other sides of the sanctuary's central cube are both seated. According to the pradakshina, the first one to be encountered along the ambulatory path is an eight-armed goddess (B36, Photo 3-06). In her right hands we successively find a shell, vajra, werprad and rosary, whereas in the left she holds a vague, small around object, an axe and an elephant hook. What originally had been in her fourth hand is unknown because it is no longer there, but from what remains near the crack to the right we think that it may have been a book. On either side of her can be seen a standing male figure who is holding a fly whisk. In addition, one holds a red, while the other a blue, lotus.

In the middle of the third and last partition wall, a lotus pond has been represented from which three large lotus cushions rise; the largest of the three cushions, the one between the two that are smaller, is upheld by two nagas. The lead character of this panel is seated on the large lotus and displays certain details that are characteristics of a female being (B42, Photo 3-07). The breast area of this figure unfortunately has been entirely knocked off, so to determine the gender of this human-like character needs more; in itself is the fact that it does not carry the so-called double female-cord, whereas the previously described goddess is so decorated. On the contrary, the broad band worn over the left shoulder is rather an indication that this figure is a man. But of all the descriptions that have come down to us, the eldest ones speak without hesitation of a goddess, perhaps when there was still more to see here.

The main character has four-arms: the right-after hand holds a rosary, the left a book; the forehands lie in the lap in dhyana-mudra with a bucket (or flat flower) on the top of them. Concerning the figures to either side of the main image, one holds a jewel on a small lotus cushion, while the other holds a blue lotus that ends in a rounded-off bud. The latter figure is decidedly male, which provides us with an indication that the lead character of this panel really must have been a woman. As we have already seen, the Avalokiteshvara image in the back wall partition had two female companions whereas two male spectators accompany the goddess in the first partition.

With regards to the two main protagonists of the side walls, Dr. Brandes considered the eight-armed goddess and four-armed figure to be wrathful and peaceful forms of Tara, respectively, and perhaps indicating the paired forms of Bhrkuti and Cyamatara. Yet these names apply here not so well. Indeed, he has given what may be confessed to be what the Javanese Bhrkuti was to eventually become, and less reason for correctly recognizing Tara in the images of Mendut. Dr. Foucher has submitted an entirely different interpretation for both characters; he sees them as two different forms of the goddess Cunda.

Whereas this last judgment is founded on analogies from Further-India, Dr. Brandes brings us back to the lotus pond in relief in order to consider the tale in which Avalokiteshvara once wept concerning the miseries of the human world. A teardrop fell from his face and onto the ground, where it formed a pond out of which Tara arose on a lotus flower, she who became his helper in the moderating of the needs of mortals.                                 

At first blush, both of these determinations appear to be mutually exclusive; but to our way thinking this does not really need to be the case. Not only due to the presence of the lotus pond, but also especially because of the set-up of the whole relief décor at Mendut. The Avalokiteshvara standing in the middle of the back wall and the two goddesses on the sidewalls form a plausible link to another distinct form of the Bodhisattva who is entrusted with the world. The Tara who is the protector of the brave and who is sentenced to the role of being a helper in the maintenance of those placed in her care.

Likewise Dr. Foucher is correct when he points to the corresponding Cundas of Further-India….  Does one need to decide right now whether Cunda has stepped into the place of Tara on Java, or that the Javanese Tara has taken over Cunda's attributes? As to the correct answer we can remain relatively indifferent, especially because we do not know the special name under which this goddess was honored on Java: whether or not Tara was held to be preeminent, he who remains in between must nevertheless be aware. Of all the facts that might aid our further knowledge of the Mahayana Buddhism of Java, the most important one is especially this: that the Tara of the Mendut does not differ from how Cunda was formerly portrayed in India.

On those three sides of the temple's central cube that have been treated with middle panels, as well as on the vestibule walls themselves, are a number of narrower panels that each contain a Bodhisattva who is standing on a pedestal and is covered by a sun-shade. That each is a Bodhisattva need not be doubted. Maitreya, Vajrapani and Mañjushri can be recognized at first sight from their ordinary attributes. The others that remain show themselves to be Bodhisattvas by the manner in which they entirely correspond with the three figures just mentioned; yet each clearly has his own mark of recognition, which is completely unique from the others.

As to which specific Bodhisattvas are represented by these details, only Dr. Foucher has expressed a view. As we already have noticed elsewhere, some confusion has obviously affected the record of Dr. Foucher's visit to the Mendut; ¹³ he sometimes made hasty notes and we how well in such cases slight mistakes can creep in, as is the case with the travel study that he later developed. Contrary to the temple itself, and different from the excellent photographs, T. van Erp ¹⁴ was able to demonstrate these mistakes to everyone with the evidence in hand. One does not have to comment on this any further.

When we ascend the staircase to make a pradakshina of the heaven, we successively find the following attributes in the hands of the Bodhisattvas:

1. (B34: Northwest side of the temple, beside the vestibule) a red lotus that supports a bulbous protrusion out of which a flame arises;

2. (B35: Northeast) a nagapushpa branch; moreover a stupa symbol appears in the head ornament;

3. (B37: Northeast) a branch, finishing in three buds;

4. (B38: Southeast) a branch, finishing in three separate jewels on small lotus cushions and stalks;                  

5. (B40: Southeast) vajra;

6. (B41: Southwest) a book on a blue lotus;

7. (B43: Southwest) a standing sword on a red lotus;

8. (B44: Northwest, beside the vestibule) has disappeared.

Although they are in overall agreement with one another, there are all kinds of noticeable differences between the individual bodhisattvas in terms of the detailing of their ornaments, the attitude of their free hands, etc. In terms of Javanese art, which exhibits a need for variety in the details even as it strives for uniformity and symmetry in the main points, all this has been performed both correctly and gladly. We need not stand here quietly, however, for it is evident from the above-enumerated attributes that what we have here is a characteristic demonstration of the specific Bodhisattvas who are meant to be present.

The first three characters that we already have been able to recognize under this Group of Eight are: B35, Maitreya with his stupa and nagapushpa branch; B40, Vajrapani with his vajra; and B41, Mañjushri with the book on the utpala (blue lotus). If everything that we know about the Javanese Bodhisattvas does not stand on a loose footing, then we must consider the identities for this triad to be above all doubt.

Concerning   B43, the bodhisattva with the sword on the lotus, Dr. Foucher has assumed this to be a second Mañjushri, who in India is repeatedly characterized by the attributes of book and sword. To what extent the Buddhist art of Further-India can serve as the means of making identification, it is not possible to select Mañjushri solely on the basis of the presence of a sword. In assessing whether the cited form is (applicable to this particular bodhisattva) the sculptor takes care to further clarify his intentions through the addition of a lion, the animal ¹⁵ sanctified to Mañjushri. But in any case the acknowledged introduction on Java is the book; the book on the utpala proves to be the bodhisattva value that he carries in the Borobudur-relief already cited as his sole attribute; moreover there he displays the sickle-forming ring decoration. In addition, the corresponding text shows that Mañjushri is meant to be here. And when we now turn to another Borobudur-relief, in the third of the four relief-galleries, we see both bodhisattvas ? one with the book and the other sitting with the sword beside each other in the same panel. It follows from this that they are not one person, but two different personages, and then of course the one with the book must be Mañjushri.

As for B37, the bodhisattva with the branch ending in three buds, we find elsewhere portrayed in the same manner. He appears as the protagonist in the fourth gallery of Borobudur and in which, as has been explained already,¹⁶ we see the Bodhisattva Samantabhadra. In those formerly named relief series the buds sometimes take the form of jewels whereas it is nevertheless evident that the same bodhisattva always plays the lead role in the continuous, uninterrupted tale. We have thus attributed this alternation in portrayed attribute to the large degree of freedom that the sculptors enjoyed at Borobudur in terms of all the details¹⁷ and where they represented the stupa head-ornament of Maitreya in all-possible sizes and shapes. However, this circumstance need not totally seduce us for in B38 on the Mendut, the bodhisattva there also has large, elongated, round buds on the edge of a flower-leaf at the one, and an elegant gem on at the other. Undoubtedly on purpose small lotus cushions are also kept of differing kinds, possibly about to flower, and thought given each time to the assignment of a specific attribute.

So far, we are certain of three out of the eight bodhisattvas, with one more perhaps also being recognized, another who is absent, and three who still await a determination. We now wish to venture an attempt for identifying those bodhisattvas about which we are uncertain. Not because it is so important to name a couple more figures with more or less degrees of certainty, but in hope of what can be known for the niche of Javanese Buddhism that might be of significance, which the couple of eight answers in its whole.

The number eight is certainly no accident, in the sense that there also could have been seven or nine, for example, if a panel had filled approximately more or less space. In the rock temples of Ellora in the Western Ghats of India, which belongs as one of the well-known representations in Mahayanist art, it is correct to consider the bodhisattva serial members out of whom the Buddha himself is generated, either those in the outside professions of the surrounding nine-fold panel divisions, or either in terms of two groups that celebrate while standing on both sides of him.¹⁸

When we see the same returning in the church of the (Tibetan) Lamas and in the temples the Eight Bodhisattvas form two groups of four that have been placed on the sides of the Shakyamuni.¹⁹ Then the Group of Eight arises which in so many places and on so many occasions have maintained an importance. It appears to be a very divergent sharing of the humble Mahayana church and one has to express wonder that a conception that ruled in Ellora as well as in Tibet had also been able to reach the Javanese. Indeed, we consider it appropriate for the bodhisattvas to fill the side-panels of the Mendut.

If this is the way that it has always been, that a consistency exists between all of these examples, then the next question is: Which bodhisattvas are they that are reflected in this Group of Eight? First we want to search for the answer in Nepal, where the same Dhyani-Buddha system is found that so agrees with the one of the Javanese. Now in Nepal we find Dhyani-Buddhas in the first place as the administrators of five Dhyani-Bodhisattvas, whom we leave for the eye to separate apart, yet to which we shall return later, and moreover also a couple groups of nine. ²⁰

They are named Avalokiteshvara, Maitreya, Gaganagañja, Samantabhadra, Vajrapani, Mañjushri, Sarvanivaranaviskambhin, Kshitigarbha and Khagarbha. Some alternative names are of no significance: Mañjushri as Manjughosha or Manjunatha, for example, and further replacements can be made by means of shared synonyms: Gaganagañja is also called Anantagañja or Khagañja; Kshitigarbha, Prthwigarbha; and Khagarbha, Akashagarbha. In Tibet these same nine are called the Vajracaryas.

These nine can of course contain the artificial Group of Eight, but our near confusion comes from having one too many. This really seems to be the case because the Eight Bodhisattvas, which we also saw surrounding the Buddha in the Lama temples, become particularly named, and appear exactly as these nine excepting only Gaganagañja. The Eight Great Bodhisattvas in question that remain in the Chinese translation of the Astamandalaka-sutra agree with the eight guardians.²¹ At the beginning of the list of Great Bodhisattvas, Mahawyutpatti is named²² together with the same eight firstly, and then later all kinds of names are mentioned under Gaganagañja that are less well known. That these bodhisattvas have correctly disappeared from the nine-fold, speaks for itself: the presence of Khagarbha, the first part of whose name also probably had the meaning “ventilates,” an indication that the distinction between Khagarbha and Khagañja was not felt to be more strongly complete.²³ Moreover it can leave us now indifferent, as to the original group of eight, which only continued to be kept as a nine-fold group in Nepal; that one has also disappeared is most probable, to the old Group of Eight a ninth was added there. The result is the same: the tradition in plastic art knows eight of these distinguished bodhisattvas and the literature gives eight names for them.

When we return our attention to the Mendut, then we thereby must state first off that there is no certainty about its natural state, that the Group of Eight represented here is the same as that of Further-India and Tibet. Our further reasoning therefore is in the form of a hypothesis that, after seeing the agreement in other respects of the Javanese Mahayana with what is found in the other named countries, is itself not improbable.                                                  

There are four bodhisattvas that we have already recognized at Mendut, and the names of these four are themselves under the upper enumerate of the two groups that comprise the eight. In order now to also try of the remainder be possible to come, which names can cover which characters, we make use of a remarkable indication is provided in the Pañchakrama. ²⁴ On three occasions this writing mentions our well-known Group of Eight ²⁵ and in two of these places the bodhisattvas are paired and then connected with a certain wind region. The first of these occasions reads as follows:

Pattikayam nyaset purve maitreyam ksitigarbhakam

Vajrapanim khagarbham ca nyased dakshinato vrati

Lokesham mañjughosham ca pashcimayam nyaset punah

Sarvavaranavishkambhim samantabhadram uttare.

The additional references that appear in the Pañchakrama are merely a sideshow. For our purposes, it causes us to arrive at the following layout:  that Maitreya and Kshitigarbha are placed in the east, Vajrapani and Khagarbha in the south, Avalokiteshvara and Mañjushri in the west, and Sarvanivaranaviskambhin and Samantabhadra in the north. In the other references mentioned above the same bodhisattvas have been placed in the same wind regions.

The Mendut has been laid out with its entranceway to the northwest and consequently none of its partitions are oriented towards any one of the four wind regions. For the designer to show his bodhisattvas as belonging to a particular wind region, then it proved to be impossible to wholly carry out the task. But what he could accomplish, was to at least give each a corresponding direction by placing Maitreya and Kshitigarbha in the northeast or southwest, Vajrapani and Khagarbha in the southeast or southwest, Avalokiteshvara and Mañjushri partially in the northwest or southwest, and then Sarvanivaranaviskambhin and Samantabhadra turned to the northeast or northwest.

For starters, we are now able to notice concerning the Bodhisattvas already recognized, is that they are in complete accord with this. Maitreya, as well as Samantabhadra, stands in the northeast, Mañjushri in the southwest, and Vajrapani in the southwest.

With half of the bodhisattvas on the Mendut belonging to places that correspond with their respective wind regions, therefore assigned to these places in advance, this cannot be mere coincidence. It has all of the appearance of being the deliberate intention of the architect to place them so that they could gaze outward in the direction of their respective wind regions, or at least as much as this was possible to do. Since this has transpired with the four already named, then we take this as a favorable indication that the other four places may also be assigned using the same line of reasoning.  

Kshitigarbha, for example, must either be found in the northeast or southwest. Now the positions for two northeast panels B35 and B37 are already occupied by Maitreya and Samantabhadra, and one of the two in the southeast, B40, is occupied by Vajrapani. This leaves the remaining southeast panel, B38, for Kshitigarbha. Therefore the bodhisattva of B38, the one with the three jewels, must be Kshitigarbha. In the same manner we proceed to work with Khagarbha, who can either be directed to the southeast or southwest. In the two southeastern panels, B38 and B40, we already recognize Kshitigarbha and Vajrapani, and Mañjushri already stands in B41 to the southwest. Therefore the only place left for Khagarbha is the second one in the southwest, B43. Khagarbha is therefore the bodhisattva with the upright sword on the lotus.

The Bodhisattvas belonging to panel B35 through B43 have now been assigned in accordance with their respective wind regions, leaving B34 and B44 to account for. Both are in the northwest, and the remaining Bodhisattvas Avalokiteshvara and Sarvanivaranaviskambhin also must be placed in the northwest. That the bodhisattva in B34 is not Avalokiteshvara, speaks for itself; the one with the flaming attribute therefore must be Sarvanivaranaviskambhin. Finally we may say that Avalokiteshvara must have stood in the now-missing panel B44, with a two-armed form, as are all the others. We may therefore call him Padmapani, having the red lotus as an attribute and supposedly the ordinary Amitabha figurine in his head ornament.

Our conclusion is therefore this: of the Eight Bodhisattvas in the side panels on the outside of the Mendut, which are elsewhere confessed in art and literature as belonging to a couple of eight-fold groupings, can be successively named as follows:

B34: Sarvanivaranaviskambhin, with flame-attribute on a padma.

B35: Maitreya, with the nagapushpa branch and stupa in the head ornament.

B37: Samantabhadra, with branch, finishing in three buds.

B38: Kshitigarbha, with three jewels on a branch.

B40: Vajrapani, with a vajra.

B41: Mañjushri, with a book on blue lotus.

B43: Khagarbha, with an upright sword on a red lotus.

B44: Avalokiteshvara as a Padmapani, with a red lotus and an Amitabha-image in his head ornament [now missing].

We must repeat here, however that our reasoning is based on a hypothesis, yet on the other hand one still notices that in all cases where the standing identity of the bodhisattvas has already been fixed elsewhere this hypothesis finds an affirmation.

With respect to B44, we still need to make note of a small reservation, because Avalokiteshvara is also presented in the central-panels on the sides and the back of the temple. Since he has been presented there in a wholly different way, then the figure in B44 can be assumed, is not to be taken as well as the four-armed Avalokiteshvara on its middle scene, as a two-armed Padmapani on panel B44 is reflected. The possibility, however, still remains that since one Avalokiteshvara has already appeared on the sanctuary walls then the now-missing 8^th panel could have been assigned to Gaganagañja. The name of this bodhisattva is later mentioned in a reference that is unfortunately unclear ¾ in a Sumatran inscription some centuries on ²⁶ ¾  where the coincidence of Sumatran Buddhism with the Javanese was at its narrowest. We may therefore presume that this name was also not unknown on Java. Although this seems to be not very probable, we must not consider it entirely impossible that the Bodhisattva Gaganagañja once stood in panel B44.

The appearance and attributes of our newly determined bodhisattvas are only somewhat fixed in Buddhist art outside of Java. It is, however, not unpleasant to notice that, according to certain Tibetan conceptions, ²⁷ Khagarbha also carries a sword on a lotus and Kshitigarbha a jewel as one also rightly finds him having in Japan. ²⁸ Sarvanivaranaviskambhin carries a sun, which is therefore not so completely far from the flame attribute given.  

On the other hand, however, standing images of these bodhisattvas occur elsewhere, so we cannot attach too large a value to the aforesaid agreements. When we return once more to examine the Eight Bodhisattvas at Ellora, then we can make the observation that the five attributes are always in agreement with the same five beings: Avalokiteshvara, Maitreya, Vajrapani, Mañjushri and Khagarbha. Concerning the other three, however, some variation is noticeable: a flame often returns, which possibly would belong to the Bodhisattva Sarvanivaranaviskambhin, yet on other occasions this attribute has been replaced by a flower branch.

In addition, we find a staff having a garland as a standard together with a very large round flower bud. The manner in which these three bodhisattvas are portrayed therefore seems to have already been drifting somewhat, so that those in Tibet as well as on Java possibly went their own different ways.

Concerning Java, we still need to button up some observations if we are to obtain the desired results. For our conclusions to be considered correct, then they should also help us in determining the identity of other bodhisattva figures, i.e., those at Candi Plaosan, for example. We can also draw some useful information from our observations of the Borobudur reliefs. This becomes particularly important in gallery IV where three of the Eight Bodhisattvas found therein have already been named. Among these would be Sarvanivaranaviskambhin, who is already known for his flame-attribute and Khagarbha is recognized from his sword.

This further gives to the display on the Mendut a nice resolution for the proportion between the Eight Bodhisattvas and the appropriate number of five Dhyani-Buddhas. The names for these are everywhere always given as: Samantabhadra, Vajrapani, Ratnapani, Padmapani (alias Avalokiteshvara) and Visvapani.

Three of these also come under the earlier group of eight. Ratnapani and Visvapani, however, do not…. The name of the Bodhisattva Ratnapani, “he with the jewel in the hand,” does not necessarily indicate that his attribute initially would have been a jewel. But on Java itself he really is found thus with his jewel as well as its underlying meaning and significance. In this case, when one deliberates here it also could be that where the presence of the animal belonging to him is found (the horse), this makes the determination all the more certain.²⁹ The Javanese Ratnapani with the jewel reminds us therefore of Kshitigarbha with his jewel branch.

Visvapani's present form on Java is the same as how he is found in Nepal: with two crossed vajras in the one hand and with a standing sword on a lotus in the other.³⁰ One can therefore correctly say that this second attribute is the same as that of Khagarbha.³¹

Concerning the agreement between these two, as well as our acquaintance with eight Dhyani-Bodhisattvas and two versions of the Group of Eight, we think we detect an inclination toward equalization. As a matter of fact there appears to be an interpretive need to bring the Group of Five (Dhyani-Bodhisattvas) into agreement with the Group of Eight. It is a remarkable fact, however, that the scheme of Borobudur-Mendut clears a distinguished place for the Dhyani-Buddhas, and even reveals knowledge of the two groups of Eight Great Bodhisattvas. On the other hand it shows absolutely no trace of an acquaintance with the reputation of the assembly of the five Dhyani-Bodhisattvas. Perhaps the declaration of the Group of Five is to be found already present under the Group of Eight. Regarding the two bodhisattva systems, which are reciprocally independent of each other, under the Javanese, being inclined to syncretism, have remained spiritually equal.  

There remains one more point that is still outstanding: by placing the bodhisattvas into several wind regions, one does secure from them a sense of the Astadikpalakas in the right to step in for the Brahmanistic guardians of the wind regions. In this respect, the circumstance that receives the regions of the wind-orients of the Shaivaite main temple at Prambanan, which Toneet recognized in an article in which the details were lacking, yet what is certainly the main point, the crux of the matter, is correct for the designated declaration.³² The appearance of so many Bodhisattvas seems extremely significant. Could it also be that here one deliberately encounters a desired bridge between the Hindu and Buddhist settings? Closer research in that direction will undoubtedly be rewarding.

FOOTNOTES

(1) As J. Kats noted in 1910, and as discussed by Speyer, “Ein altjavanicher mahayanistischer Katechiamus,” Zeitschr. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. (1913), pp. 347-362.

(2) Information provided by the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing (translated by Takakusu, 1896), is less useful for our understanding what concerns Java than what is usually supposed. Here, however, is then not the place to enter into the matter any further.

(3) Beschriving der oudheden nabij de grens der residentie’s Soerakarta en Djogdjakarta (Description of the antiquities close to the border of the residencies of Surakarta and Yogyakarta), 1891, p. 92.

(4) “Le Kubera du Candi Mendut,” Bull. Ec. franc. d'Extr. Or. 4 (1904), pp. 727-750.

(5) Against the idea in general of Kubera as the husband of Hariti, Dr. Foucher has made his objection known in the Revue Archéologique, 1913, p. 343; of the Mendut what comes there in between is not spoken. See for yourself in Mém. Concern. L'Asie Or. I (1913), p. 128. To us both names are possible, and as a matter of fact we are indifferent as to which are used to refer to the god of wealth and his female counterpart in the portal of the Mendut.   

(6) Notes d'archéologie bouddhique, Bull. Ec. franç. d'Estr. Or. 9 (1909), p. 46.

(7) Fol. 53 a. See Juynboll in Bijdr. Kon. Inst. 7:6 (1907), p. 59.

(8) Na Pleyte, Die Buddba-legende in den Skulpturen des Tempels von BoroBudur (1901), p. 179, and Jochim, “Determineeren van Bodhisatwas,” Bijdr. Kon. Inst. 69 (1914), p. 27.

(9) See for instance plate H. to the right of IJzerman's description, Beschrijving, and the Borobudur relief II 16.

(10) In the Bodhisattva-lists of the literature, for instance those of the Mailawyutpatti, has there Kumarabhuta as a second denomination; this, however, is less confessed, tha is seldom or never presented.                      

(11) Twentieth Century Impressions of Netherlands India (1909), p. 148.

(12) “De hoofdbeelden op de voorsprongen van den teerling der Tjandi Mendoet”( The main images on the projections of the cube of Candi Mendut). Not. Bat. Gen. 1902, Bijlage XIII, with a suppliment in Not. 1903, Bijlage II.

(13) Rapp. Ondh. Commissie 1910, p. 18.

(14) Of these photographs, as Nos. 2013-2022 incorporated within the serial of the Oudlieidkundigen service, there are field copies for consulting in the colonial library at s’ Gravenhage and the Colonial institute in Amsterdam. A third (part) came after the war in the Bibliotheque d'art et d'archéologie in Paris.

(15) Foucher, Etude sur l'iconographie bouddhique de l'Inde, I (1900) p. 120.

(16) Bijdr. Kon. Inst. 71 (1916), pp. 579-583.

(17) This itself only takes us so far; that the same person in the same tale now once has a beard and then carries none; that in the same conversation, which covers a couple of reliefs, the same participant has assumed entirely different costume decorations, that the seat completely changes is appearance in successive fields of the same tale of the Buddha Lalitavistara, etc.

(18) Particularly in the caves XI and XII of Ellora. See Burgess, “Report on the Elura Cave Temples,” Arch. Surv. of West. India, V (1883), pp. 13-22 and plates XIX and XX.

(19) Pander, “Das Pantheon des Tachangtscha Hutuktu,” Veroff. Kon Mus. f. Volkerk. Berlin, I, 2-3 (1890), p. 77.

(20) See Wilson, Essays and lectures on the religions of the Hindus, I (1861), p. 14; Hodgson, Essays on the languages, literature, and religion of Nepal and Tibet (1874) pp. 95 and 142.

(21) See De Viseer, “The Bodhisattva Ti-Tsang (Jizo) in China and Japan,” Ostasiatische Zeitschrift 2 (1913-14) pp. 189-192.

(22) Uitgave van Meronov, Bibliotheca Buddhica, XIII (1911), p. 11.  Denzelfde acht worden ook in Rgyud 13 genoemd. Daarentegen geeft Dharmasanggraha 12 Gaganagañja erbij, maar laat Awalokiteshwara weg.

(23) See Pelliot, “Notes a propos d'un catalogue du Kanjur,” Journ. asiat 11: IV (1914), p. 132 sq.

(24) Uitgave van De la Vallée Pousain, “Receuil de travanx publiés par la faculté de philosophie et leltres de l'Université du Gand, 16me fasc. (1896).

(25) I 31-33, 62-65 en 154-157.

(26) On the back of the Amoghapasha-image of Padang Tjandi; the document is dated Shaka 1269 and issued by Kern in Tijd. achr. Bat. Gen. 49 (1907), pp. 159-170; Verspr. Geschr. VII (1917), pp. 163-175.

(27) See Grünwedel, Mythologie des Buddhismus in Tibet und der Mongolei (1900), p. 111.

(28) See De Visser, 1.1 pp. 178, 188 en vooral 196; furthermore in issue 3 of the same magazine (1914-15), pp. 66, 226 sq, 232-236, 333-341, and 366. Dl 74.

(29) See “The bronze find of Ngandjoek,” Rapp. Oudh. Dienst 1913, and Kot. Bat. Gen. 19l3, p. XLVIII, no. 5393; Rapp. Oudh. Dienst 1913, and Kot. Bat. Gen. 1914, p. 187, no. 5494.

(30) Bronsvondst, p. 65; Not. 1918, p. XLVIII, no. 6895; 1914, p. 184.

(31) See Juynboll, Catalogus Rijks Ethnogr. Mus., V Javaansche Oud. (1909), p. 103. Mañjushri also carries the sword;  but he never carries it on a lotus, but rather keeps it in his hand. 

(32) Bijdr. Kon. Inst. 7:6 (1907), pp. 128-149.