History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c33.s17: Boro-Budur.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c33.s17
- Language
- English
Boro-Budur.
v2.c33.s17.1
There may be older monuments in the island of Jâva than Boro-Budur, but, if so, they have not yet been brought to light. The rude stone monuments of the western or Sunda end of the island may, of course, be older, though I doubt it; but they are not architectural, and of real native art we know nothing.
v2.c33.s17.2
When Sir S. Raffles and J. Crawfurd wrote their works, no means existed of verifying dates by comparison of styles, and it is, therefore, little to be wondered at if the first gives A.D. 1360,¹ and the second A.D. 1344² as the date of this building. The former, however, was not deceived by this date, inasmuch as at page 67 he says, "The edifices at Singasari near Malang were probably executed in the 8th or 9th century. They nearly resemble those of Prambânan and Boro-Budur. It is probable the whole were constructed about the same period, or within the same century; at any rate, between the 7th and 9th century of the Christian Era." This, perhaps, errs a little the other way. Heer Brumund, on historical grounds, places Boro-Budur "in the 9th, perhaps even in the 8th century of the Christian Era."³ On architectural grounds I would almost unhesitatingly place it a century earlier. The style and character of its sculptures are so nearly identical with those of the latest caves at Ajantâ (No. 26, for instance), and in the western Ghâts, that they look as if they were executed by the same artists, and it is difficult to conceive any great interval of time elapsing between the execution of the two. If I am correct in placing the caves in the first half of the 7th century, we can hardly be far wrong in assigning the commencement, at least, of the Javan monument to the second half of that century. This being so, I am very much inclined to believe that Boro-Budur may be the identical seven-storeyed vihâra, mentioned by Âditya-dharma in his inscription at Menankabu.⁴ Its being found in Sumatra does not appear to me to militate against this view. Asoka's inscriptions are found in Gandhâra, Saurâshtra, Mysore, and Orissa, but not in Bihâr. At home he was known: but it may be that he desired to place a permanent record of his greatness in the remote portions of his dominions. The date of the inscription, A.D. 656, accords so exactly with the age I would assign to it from other sources, that it may at least stand for the present. Of course, it was not completed at once, or in a few years. The whole group, with Chandi Pawon and Mendut, may probably extend over a century and a half—down, say, to A.D. 800, or over the whole golden age of Buddhism in the island.
v2.c33.s17.3
¹ 'History of Java,' vol. ii. p. 85.
v2.c33.s17.4
² 'Dictionary of Indian Archipelago,' p. 66.
v2.c33.s17.5
³ 'Boro-Boudour,' par Dr. C. Leemans. Leyden, 1874, p. 506 (French translation, p. 536).
v2.c33.s17.6
⁴ *Ante*, p. 419. Also 'Verhandelingen,' etc., vol. xxvi. pp. 31 *et seqq.* One of his inscriptions—the fourth—was found in Jâva proper.
v2.c33.s17.7
477. Half-plan of Temple of Boro-Budur. (From a Plate in the second edition of Sir Stamford Raffles' 'History of Java.') Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c33.s17.8
478. Elevation and Section of Temple of Boro-Budur. (From an unpublished Plate intended for Sir Stamford Raffles' 'History of Java.')
v2.c33.s17.9
It certainly is fortunate for the student of Buddhist art in India that Boro-Budur (Woodcuts Nos. 477 and 478) has attracted so much attention; for, even now, the four folio volumes of plates recently devoted to its illustration do not contain one figure too many for the purpose of rendering its peculiarities available for scientific purposes: the fact being that this monument was erected just at the time when the
v2.c33.s17.10
479. Section of one of the smaller Domes at Boro-Budur.] [Figure: 480. Elevation of principal Dome at Boro-Budur. (From Sir S. Raffles' 'History of Java.')
v2.c33.s17.11
Buddhist system attained its greatest development, and just before its fall. It thus contains within itself a complete epitome of all we learn from other sources, and a perfect illustration of all we know of Buddhist art or ritual. The thousand years were complete, and the story that opened upon us at Bharaut closes practically at Boro-Budur.
v2.c33.s17.12
The fundamental formative idea of the Boro-Budur monument is that of a dâgaba with five procession-paths. These, however, have become square in plan instead of circular; and instead of one great domical building in the centre we have here seventy-two smaller ones, each containing the statue of a Buddha (Woodcut No. 479), visible through an open cage-like lattice-work; and one larger one in the centre, which was quite solid externally (Woodcut No. 480), but had a cell in its centre, which may have contained a relic or some precious object. There is, however, no record of anything being found in it when it was broken into. All this is, of course, an immense development beyond anything we have hitherto met with, and a sort of half-way house between the majestic simplicity of the Abhayagiri at Anurâdhapura, and the somewhat tawdry complexity of the pagoda at Mingûn (Woodcut No. 448).
v2.c33.s17.13
With the idea of a dâgaba, however, Boro-Budur also combines that of a vihâra, such as that illustrated by Woodcuts Nos. 89, 90. There the cells, though only copied solid in the rock, still simulated the residences of the monks, and had not yet advanced to the stage we find in the Gandhâra monasteries, where the cells of monks had become niches for statues. Here this is carried further than in any example found in India. The cells of the Mâmallapuram example are here repeated on every face, but essentially as niches, and are occupied by 436 statues of Buddha, seated in the usual cross-legged attitude. In this respect Boro-Budur is in advance of the Takht-î-Bahai, which is the monument in India that most nearly approaches to it in mythological significance. So great, indeed, is the similarity between the two, that whatever date we assign to the one drags with it that of the other. It would, indeed, be impossible to understand how, in the 7th century, Buddhism had been so far developed towards the modern Nepalese and Tibetan systems if we had not these Gandhâra monasteries to fall back upon. On the other hand, having so similar a Buddhist development in Jâva in the 7th century, it seems difficult to separate the monuments of the north-west of India from it by any very long interval of time.
v2.c33.s17.14
As will be observed from the plan and elevation (Woodcuts 477, 478, page 423), the monument may be described either as a seven or a nine-storeyed vihâra, according as we reckon the platform on which the seventy-two small dâgabas stand as one or three storeys. Its basement measures over 400 ft. across, but the real temple is only 300 ft. from angle to angle either way. It is not, however, either for its dimensions or the beauty of its architectural design that Boro-Budur is so remarkable, as for the sculptures that line its galleries. These extend to nearly 5,000 ft.—almost an English mile—and as there are sculptures on both faces, we have nearly 10,000 lineal ft. of bas-reliefs ; or, if we like to add those which are in two storeys, we have a series of sculptures, which, if arranged consecutively in a row, would extend over nearly 3 miles of ground. Most of them, too, are singularly well preserved ; for when the Javans were converted to Muhammadanism it was not in anger, and they were not urged to destroy what they had before reverenced ; they merely neglected them, and, except for earthquakes, these monuments would now be nearly as perfect as when first erected.
v2.c33.s17.15
The outer face of the basement, though extremely rich in architectural ornaments and figure-sculptures, is of comparatively little historical importance. The first enclosed — or, as the Dutch call it, the second—gallery is, of all the five, the most interesting historically. On its inner wall the whole life of Sâkyamuni is portrayed in 120 bas-reliefs of the most elaborate character. The first twenty-four of these are occupied with scenes in the Tusita heavens, or events that took place before the birth. In the twenty-fifth we have Mayâ's dream, depicted exactly as it is at Bharaut or Sânchi, 800 or 900 years earlier. In the following sculptures it is easy to recognise all the familiar scenes of his life, his marriage, and domestic happiness, till he meets the four predictive signs; his subsequent departure from home, and assumption of the ascetic garb; his life in the forest; his preaching in the Deer-garden at Benares—the whole Lalita Vistara, in short, portrayed with very few variations from the pictures we already possess from Gandhâra to Amarâvatî, with this singular exception: in all Indian examples the birth and the Nirvâna are more frequently repeated than any other events; for some reason, not easily guessed, they are omitted here, though all the events that preceded and followed them are minutely detailed.¹ Below these bas-reliefs depicting the life of Buddha is an equally extensive series of 120 bas-reliefs of subjects taken from the Jâtaka, all of which may be easily identified.
v2.c33.s17.16
¹ All these, or nearly all, have been identified by Dr. Leemans in the text that accompanies the plates. See also Pleyte, 'Die Buddha-legende in den Sculpturen des tempels von Boro-Bœdœr,' 1901; Foucher, 'Notes d'Archéologie Bouddhique' in 'Bull. de l'École Française d'extrême-Orient' tom. ix. 1909, pp. 1ff.
v2.c33.s17.17
In the three galleries above this Buddhism is represented as a religion. Groups of Buddhas—three, five, or nine—are repeated over and over again, mixed with Bodhisattwas and saints of all sorts. Among these, the five Dhyâni, Buddhas are conspicuous in all, perhaps more than all, the variety of manifestations which are known in Nepâl and Tibet, which, as Lassen points out, almost inevitably leads to the conclusion that this form of faith was introduced from Nepâl or Western Tibet.²
v2.c33.s17.18
² 'Indische Alterthumskunde,' vol. iv. p. 467.
v2.c33.s17.19
Whether this is exactly so or not, no one probably who is familiar with Buddhist art in its latest age on the western side of India will probably doubt that it was from these parts that the builders of Boro-Budur migrated. The character of the sculptures, and the details of the ornamentation in Cave 26 at Ajantâ, and 17 at Nâsik, and more especially in the later caves at Kanheri in Salsette, at Kondivtê, Mâgâthânâ, and other places in that neighbourhood, are so nearly identical with what is found in the Javan monument, that the identity of the workmanship is unmistakable. It is true we have no monument in that part of India to which we can point that at all resembles Boro-Budur in design, but then it must be borne in mind that there is not a single structural Buddhist building now existing within the limits of the cave region of Western India. It seems absurd, however, to suppose that so vast a community confined themselves to caves, and caves only. They must have had structural buildings of some sort in their towns and elsewhere, but scarcely a fragment of any such now exists, and we are forced to go to Gandhâra, in the extreme north-west, for our nearest examples. As already pointed out, there are many points of similarity between Jamâlgarhi, and more especially between Takht-î-Bahai and Boro-Budur; and if any architect, who was accustomed to such work, would carefully draw and restore these northern monasteries, many more might become apparent.¹ We know enough even now to render this morally certain, though hardly sufficient to prove it in the face of much that may be brought forward by those who care to doubt it. Meanwhile, my impression is, that if we knew as much of these Gandhâra monasteries as we know of Boro-Budur, we could tell the interval of time that separated them, probably within half a century at least.
v2.c33.s17.20
¹ General Cunningham's drawings are not enough for any one who is a stranger to the subject.
v2.c33.s17.21
Stretching such evidence as we at present have, as far as it will bear, we can hardly bring the Takht-î-Bahai monastery within one century of Boro-Budur. It may be two—and Jamâlgarhi is still one or two centuries more distant in time. But, on the other hand, if we had not these Gandhâra monasteries to refer to, it would be difficult to believe that the northern system of Buddhism could have been so completely developed, even in the 8th century, as we find it at Boro-Budur. It is this wonderful progress that has hitherto made the more modern date of that monument probable—it looks so much in advance of anything we know of in Indian Buddhism. But all this we must now revise by the light these Javan monuments throw on the subject.
v2.c33.s17.22
Being nearly a pyramid, situated on the summit of a hill, there were no constructive difficulties encountered in the erection of Boro-Budur, and it is consequently no wonder that it now remains so entire, in spite of its being, like all Javan buildings, erected wholly without mortar. It is curious to observe, however, how faithfully its architects adhered to the Indian superstition regarding arches. They did not even think it necessary to cut off the angles of the corbel-stones, so as to simulate an arch, though using the pointed-arched forms of the old chaitya caves of the west. The two systems are well exemplified in the following woodcut (No. 481), but it runs
v2.c33.s17.23
481. View of Central Entrance and Stairs at Boro-Budur. (From a Lithographic Plate.
v2.c33.s17.24
throughout. All the niches are surmounted by arch forms—circular, elliptical, or pointed—but all are constructed horizontally, and it may be added that, in nine cases out of ten, the keystones are adorned with a mask, as in this last example.
v2.c33.s17.25
About two and a half miles from Boro-Budur is a small temple of a different class known as Chandi Mendut. It stands on a platform 11 ft. high, measuring 71 ft. wide and 83 ft. deep. The temple itself is cruciform, measuring 29 ft. 6 in. wide and 41 ft. 7 in. deep, the porch projecting more than is usual. This temple preserves its stone roof, the cell is 23 ft. square inside and at a height of 13 ft. from the pavement horizontal courses of stone, thirty-seven in number and 28 ft. in height projecting one in front of the other, from an inverted pyramid of steps which is terminated by a hollow cone. Externally the roof still rises to a height of about 50 ft. above the platform, and consisted probably of three storeys with a series of twenty-four miniature pagodas round the lower storey, sixteen around the second storey, eight round the third half sunk in an octagonal wall, being crowned with a larger dâgaba. The walls are decorated with bas-relief figures of Hindû deities, groups of three or five in the larger central panels and single figures in the side panels all under canopies of slight projection. The sides of the platform are carved with figures and ornament in a series of panels. Inside the cell are three colossal figures about 11 ft. high each. The central one is Buddha, curly-headed of course, and clad in a diaphanous robe. The two other colossi, having only two arms each, are almost certainly intended for Bodhisattwas. These three may have been placed in the cells at a later date. On one of the faces, externally, is Lakshmî, eight-armed, seated on a lotus, with attendants. On another face is a figure, four-armed seated cross-legged on a lotus, the stem of which is supported by two figures with seven-headed snake-hoods. It is in fact a slightly altered repetition of a group inserted among the older sculptures on the façade of the cave at Kârlê. That insertion I have always believed to be of the 6th or 7th century; this group is certainly slightly more modern. The curious part of the matter is, that the Mendut example is so very much more refined and perfect than that at Kârlê. The one seems the feeble effort of an expiring art; the Javan example is as refined and elegant as anything in the best ages of Indian sculpture. The same remarks apply to the sacred tree under which the figure is seated. Like all the similar conventional trees at Boro-Budur, they are complicated and refined beyond any examples known in India.
v2.c33.s17.26
The great interest, however, of this little temple arises from the fact that it almost certainly succeeded immediately to Boro-Budur. If it is correct to assume A.D. 650-750 as the period during which that temple was erected, this one must have been built between A.D. 750 and A.D. 800. It shows, too, a progress in design at a time when Buddhist art in India was marked by decay; and it exhibits such progress in mythology, that though there can be no doubt as to the purity of the Buddhism of Boro-Budur, any one might fairly argue that this temple belonged either to that religion or to Hinduism. It is in fact one of those compromises that in India might be called Jaina; in other words, one of those transitional examples of which we have many in Jâva, but the want of which leaves such a gap in our history of architecture in India.¹
v2.c33.s17.27
¹ Rapporten van de Commissie Nederlandsch-Indie’ 1903, p. 64, and plates 46-58; ‘De Tjandi Mendoet,’ door B. Kersjes en C. Den Hamer (with 22 plates), 1903.
v2.c33.s17.28
Close to Chandi Mendut is another small temple of similar design known as Chandi Pawon;² it is raised on a platform 28 ft. square and 5 ft. 6 in. high. The plan of the temple is cruciform, being 17 ft. in its extreme dimension, and when perfect was probably about 30 ft. high. It was apparently surmounted by two storeys with eight miniature dâgabas above the ground storey and a large dâgaba forming the summit.
v2.c33.s17.29
² *Ibid.* pp. 73ff. and plates 59-61.