Journal of Southeast Asian Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/SEA

Additional services for Journal of Southeast Asian

Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and

Monotheism

Iem Brown

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies / Volume 18 / Issue 01 / March 1987, pp 108 - 117
DOI: 10.1017/S0022463400001284, Published online: 24 August 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022463400001284

How to cite this article:

Iem Brown (1987). Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism. Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies, 18, pp 108-117 doi:10.1017/S0022463400001284

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SEA, IP address: 137.132.123.69 on 27 Jun 2015

Vol. XVIII, No. 1 Journal of Southeast Asian Studies March 1987

Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism

IEM BROWN

The philosophical basis of the Indonesian state, first framed in 1945, is the Panca Sila or
Five Principles. Since 1985 all political and social organizations including religious ones
have had to subscribe to the Panca Sila as their sole philosophical principle (Azas
Tunggal). The first of the Five Principles is belief in Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, normally,
though not entirely satisfactorily, translated as the One Supreme God. The founders of the
state had accepted this principle rather than a more specific statement of belief in the God
of Islam, the religion of the majority of the people. Its formulation was clearly a com-
promise, aimed at stressing the importance of religion in the state, but avoiding declaring
Islam as the state religion. As it stood, the principle was generally acceptable to followers
of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, and all religions which did acknowledge the
existence of God, in one form or another.
This formulation, however, would obviously present problems for religions or belief
systems which were non-theistic, which did not clearly and openly acknowledge the
existence of God. Buddhism in Indonesia was such a religion. The Buddhism which had
been enjoying something of a revival in Indonesia since the early years of the twentieth
century was. at least until the Japanese Occupation, dominated by followers of the
Theravada School. This school, as western scholars have described it, is essentially a non-
theistic one, one which does not discuss or consider the concept of God. So long as
Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands, the recognition or otherwise of God by local
Buddhists was a matter of no great significance. Or at least, it was of no great political
significance, given the attitude of the colonial authorities to non-Christian religions.
However, with the proclamation of Indonesian independence, and the adoption of the
Panca Sila by the new state, the issue clearly took on a much greater importance. It
certainly acquired a clear political significance, both in the obvious sense that, in order to
be accepted by the state as a religion, Buddhism had to conform to the Panca Sila, but also
in the less direct sense that many leaders of the Republic seem to have come to the view
that Buddhism had essentially ceased to be an indigenous religion, and was only an alien
Chinese one. Buddhists, then, had to show that their religion was compatible with the
Panca Sila in order to demonstrate their "Indonesian-ness", their commitment to the
Indonesian state.
The problem which confronted Buddhists in the early years of Indonesian indepen-
dence was how to accommodate the Panca Sila in their religion. They had to do this both
to prove the bona fides of Buddhism as a religion, and also to show their political respec-
A paper originally titled "Contemporary Indonesian Buddhist Responses to a Monotheistic Framing of
Religion", presented at the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Fifth National Conference, Adelaide
University, 13-19 May 1984. The author acknowledges the kindness of Dr Robert Cribb, who commented
on the draft of this paper.

108
Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism 109

tability. In this article, I will examine the ways in which Buddhists have tried to resolve
this problem, and evaluate how successful they have been.
In a previous paper, I discussed the early years of the Buddhist revival movement in the
pre-war period.' It was Theravada in orientation. Its adherents were drawn from all three
of the major ethnic communities in the archipelago: indigenous, Chinese and European.
Although several different organisations were established, often catering specifically for
one or the other of these communities, Buddhism did provide a meeting point for
believers from all three communities. It played a role, albeit a small one, in integrating
those communities. After the occupation and the proclamation, however, one of these
communities virtually disappeared from Indonesia: the European.
The first of the post-war generation of Buddhist leaders, and a man who has come to
hold a dominating position in the religion, was a Chinese intellectual, The Boan An, born
in Bogor in 1923. In the immediate post-war years he studied physics at Groningen in the
Netherlands, where he already had a reputation amongst his fellow students as a healer
and a very self-sufficient person, who habitually dressed in all white.2 He seems at this
time to have been a theosophist. Certainly on his return from the Netherlands in 1949 he
became Deputy Chairman of the Perhimpunan Pemuda Theosofi Indonesia (Indonesian
Association of Young Theosophists).3 In 1950, however, he formally became a Buddhist,
and by the end of 1952 was a leading layman, known as Anagarika. Questioned by
a reporter from Star Weekly as to the meaning of that name, he said that it meant "Home-
less Follower of the Path". It had been given to him, he said, by "some Buddhist groups
in Europe". The significance of his adoption of the name, according to the reporter, was
apparently that he had decided that he would not marry.4 It should be noted, however,
that the term "Anagarika" indicates a learned layman, who is close to being a bhikkhu
(monk). By his activism, Anagarika Boan An attracted the attention of the Sam Kauw
Hwee, or Three Religion Organisation, initially established in 1934 and then re-estab-
lished after the war on 22 February 1952. The organisation was able rapidly to establish
a network of branches in cities and towns in many parts of Java, and also in Sumatra,
Sulawesi and Bali. As its name clearly suggests, the organisation was predominantly
Chinese; though this obviously presented problems in independent Indonesia, it did
mean that the organisation was able to survive the end of colonialism in a way that the
Batavia Buddhist Association, also founded in 1934, could not, given that membership of
the latter was predominantly Dutch.5
In December 1953, sponsored by the 5am Kauw Hwee, Anagarika Boan An went to
Burma to study under the well-known meditation teacher Mahasi Sayadaw. He was
introduced to the study and practice of the Vipassana ("insight") form of meditation, a
very effective medium for conversion to Buddhism, in which students attempt direct
meditative observation of their own bodily and mental processes. Anagarika Boan An
was ordained a bhikkhu in Burma at the end of 1954, and took the name Ashin Jinarak-
khita; he was the first Indonesian-born bhikkhu since the Mojopahit period.6

'"Buddhism in Indonesia in the 1930's: The Beginnings of Revival", paper presented at the Third
National Conference AS A A, Brisbane, August 1980.
interview with Betty Tjioe, who was studying in the Netherlands at the same time, Brisbane, January 1984.
3
Sang Pengasuh, 30 tahun Pengabdian Suci Y.A. Maha Nayaka Sthavira Ashin Jinarakkhita, n.p., n.d.
(January, 1982), p. 39. Also personal interview, October 1981.
'Star Weekly,28Feb. 1953.
5
The history of the pre-war Sam Kauw Hwee is being researched by M. v. Rees, an M. A. candidate from
Melbourne University.
6
Tri Budaja 8 (Sept., 1954): 47.
110 lent Brown

On his return to Indonesia Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita set out with great zeal to
establish Buddhist groups and organisations in as many locations as possible.7 Not
surprisingly, his teachings centred on the practice of Vipassana meditation. This
approach was apparently found attractive by many people and thus it played an important
role in the development of post-war Buddhism in Indonesia, though one might be allowed
to question just how many of the converts it brought to Buddhism had a deep detailed
knowledge of it. Fairly quickly Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita managed to attract a sizeable
following, especially in the larger cities, the most important centres being Semarang,
Bandung, Jakarta, Surabaya, Surakarta and Makassar (Ujung Pandang).
From the outset, Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita was clearly aware that in order to
prosper, and perhaps even in order to survive in the long run, Buddhism had to attract
indigenous Indonesian converts. This had been a matter of some significance to Chinese
and Dutch Buddhists before the war, but clearly it was of much greater significance after
independence. Thus those indigenous Indonesians whom Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita
did manage to attract in those earlier days were given prominent positions in the religion.
He also came to reject the ethnic exclusiveness of the Sam Kauw Hwee, the organisation
which had sponsored his original visit to Burma. He realized very quickly that one of the
most important issues facing the Chinese ethnic group in Indonesia in the coming years
would be integration; and like his predecessors in the 1920s and 1930s he saw Buddhism
as being a vehicle by which this integration could be achieved. But the Sam Kauw Hwee,
with its very clear Chinese ethnic identification, could hardly serve this objective. In 1958
he was instrumental in the foundation of Perbuddhi (Perhimpunan Buddhis Indonesia—
Indonesian Buddhist Association), which was specifically intended to be free of the
ethnic connotations of the 5am Kauw Hwee (renamed Tri Dharma in 1963).8 Perbuddhi
was solely a Buddhist organisation; unlike Tri Dharma it sought to have nothing to do
with Confucianism and Taoism, and deliberately sought to encourage membership of
pribumi Indonesians, especially those whose previous links had been with Theosophy and
Kebatinan (Mysticism). Once again, although such members constituted only a very small
proportion of the organisation's total membership, they occupied important positions in
its leadership. Amongst the pribumi Indonesians who joined Perbuddhi and who had
backgrounds in Theosophy and Kebatinan, were Mangunkawatja, Sariputra Sadono,
Parwati Supangat and Oka Diputhra.
In organisational terms, Perbuddhi can be said to have been successful, quickly
establishing a wide network of branches, primarily through the work undertaken by
Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita. Viharas were built, services held, the partita read, medita-
tion practised. It was largely through the activities of Perbuddhi and its affiliate Persauda-
raan Upasaka dan Upasika Indonesia (Brotherhood of Buddhist Laymen and Laywomen
in Indonesia) that many ordinary Indonesians came to see Buddhism as a living religion.
Gradually a number of popular stereotypes were worn down, if not removed altogether.
Thus there was a wider appreciation of the fact that being a Buddhist did not mean a
7
For his travel plan for 1955 see his letter dated 30 November 1954 to Upasika Dayika (Mrs. Tjoa Hien
Hoey?) in Tri Budaja 12 (January, 1955): 24. West Java in Jan. 1955, Central Java in Feb., East Java in
March, continued to Makassar, in Sulawesi in April.
Head office of SKH: Jakarta (Mangga Besar), branches: Cileungsi, Tanggerang, Bogor, Ciampea,
Cirebon, Bandung, Sukabumi, Cianjur, Krawang, Rangkasbitung, Cikarang, Bekasi, Purwakarta,
Semarang, Magelang, Temanggung, Muntilan, Mojokerto, Makassar (now Ujung Pandang).
8
By the 1960s Perbuddhi had around 50 branches throughout the archipelago. On Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarak-
khita, see Apa & Siapa (Jakarta: Grafiti Pers, 1981), p. 261. See also D.E. Willmott, The Chinese of
Semarang (Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1960), pp. 252-56. Also personal interview, October 1981.
Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism 111

rejection of family life, shaving one's hair and becoming a vegetarian; only monks and
nuns had to fulfil these conditions. Lay Buddhists were under no such constraints. The
popular image of a vihara began to change too, no longer being seen typically simply as
a place to go when one wanted to ask for good luck, to burn paper, to have fortunes told
and so forth. And certainly knowledge of the religion was expanded considerably.
Previously for many who called themselves Buddhists, the religion really consisted of four
elements: liam-keng (chanting), burning hio (joss sticks), cu-ciam (shaking bamboo
sticks) and burning slips of paper. Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita in his travels around Java,
and later on also outside Java, laid great stress on the teaching of the major precepts of
Buddhism: the Four Noble Truths, The Three Gems, etc.
We can conclude that by the late 1950s Perbuddhi had become an influential organisa-
tion amongst Indonesian Buddhists, and that it had done much to reform the way in which
people who were nominally Buddhists practised their religion. As a result of its efforts,
and in particular the efforts of Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita, Buddhism was beginning
to lose its folk-religious elements and to adopt a form more clearly recognizable as
Buddhism. This meant, of course, that it was losing at least some of its Chinese-ness. The
distinction between the beliefs and practices of members of Perbuddhi, and those of
members of Tri Dharma was becoming quite clear and open.
During the early 1960s, however, a division occurred witin the ranks of Perbuddhi, a
division which began as a personal one, between supporters of Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarak-
khita and his opponents (his ex-supporters), but which took on clear political overtones
after the attempted coup of 30 September 1965. The coup and the subsequent coming to
power of an anti-communist government which saw religious belief as the natural
antithesis of communism, gave Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita the opportunity to launch an
attack on his opponents, charging that they did not believe in God, and were thus not true
followers of the Panca Sila. In order to make such changes stick, he had, of course, to be
able to show that his understanding of Buddism did in fact specifically include a reference
to God.
It would seem that up until this point, the concept of God had not been widely discussed
by Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita in particular, or Perbuddhi in general. However,
Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita began to popularise the term "Sang Hyang Adi Buddha", a
term which he claimed to be found in the Old Javanese text, "Sang Hyang Kamahayani-
kan". According to Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita this term "Sang Hyang Adi Buddha"
referred to God. Using this term and "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" and other Pali and
Sanskrit texts he devised what he claimed was an indigenous Indonesian school of
Buddhism which he called the Buddhayana School.
The fact that Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita interpreted "Sang Hyang Adi Buddha"
as a reference to God did not, of itself, cause great division within Buddhist ranks. Even
Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita's opponents acknowledged his right, as a Buddhist, to deal
with the question of the existence of God in whatever way he wished, and to adapt his
interpretation of Buddhism to the secular situation as he saw it. What did upset his
opponents, though, and clearly set his Buddhayana School apart from other schools of
Buddhist thought in Indonesia, was the great prominence, the central role in the religion,
which he gave to Sang Hyang Adi Buddha. Thus for example, the phrase "Namo Sang
Hyang Adi Buddhaya" — in the name of Sang Hyang Adi Buddha — preceded, and in
some cases superceded entirely, the more traditional phrase "Namo Tassa Bhagavato
Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa" as a salutation for beginning chanting or meditation
practice; Buddhayana altars were surmounted with large signs reading "Namo Sang Hyang
112 lent Brown

Adi Buddhaya" and so forth. Clearly Sang Hyang Adi Buddha was being promoted as the
central feature of Indonesian Buddhism according to Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita, and it
is worth making a closer examination of the term and its origin in the "Sang Hyang
Kamahayanikari". "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" was written in the 10th century at the
time of mPu Sindok, the first King of East-Java. It is a manual of Mahayana Buddhism,
its author unknown. It is clear from linguistic analysis of the text that "Sang Hyang
Kamahayanikan" has undergone several significant changes and revisions, including the
addition of elements which were clearly Hindu in origin; and by the middle of the 10th
century it was regarded as a Sivaite text.
"Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" gives instruction on how to achieve Buddhahood
through the practice of the Paramita (the ten qualities of Liberality, Morality, Renuncia-
tion, Wisdom, Energy, Patience, Truthfulness, Resolution, Loving-kindness and Equa-
nimity). It explains the concept of Paramaguhya (the materialisation of Batara Wisesa)
and Mahaguhya (meditation). The text then goes on to consider the idea of Advaya or
non-dualism, which overcomes the dualism of existence and non-existence. Advaya is the
active element of the pursuit of Buddhahood; the passive element is advaya-jnana. At the
beginning of the road to Buddhahood, advaya-jnana is just a theoretical concept. How-
ever, after undertaking samadhi (concentration), it becomes an advaya reality. After
reaching this level, the student will know, and will personally experience the essence of
the advaya — he or she has reached the level of Divarupa, or Batara Paramasunya (Ba-
tara Wisesa). It is then explained that Diwapura is the Batara Buddha, and that Batara
Buddha is none other than Sakyamuni, the highest level of being in "Sang Hyang
Kamahayanikan". However,' Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" does not define Sakyamuni
as the teacher in human form, but rather as a transcendent aspect of Buddhahood.
The term "Adi Buddha", which became central to Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita's
interpretation of Buddhism does appear in "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" as the name
given to the form of thinking at the fifth of the seven levels of Samadhi taught in the
text. However, the term is not the subject of any deep analysis, nor the centre of any
great attention. The text, for instance, pays homage to the Buddha, with the phrase
"Namo Buddhaya" not "Namo Sang Hyang Adi Buddhaya". There is no evidence
that the Adi Buddha was regarded as God. It is clear from the above that the concept
of the Adi Buddha is far from being the central one in the original text of "Sang Hyang
Kamahayanikan".
The text of "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" has been translated several times during the
twentieth century. In 1910 de Kats published a translation from Kawi into Dutch.9 The
first translation into Indonesian was that completed by the Hindu Balinese scholar I Gusti
Sugriwa, published in 1956.10 In his introduction, Sugriwa says that Hinduism in Bali is the
product of a blending together of the philosophies of Buddhism and Sivaism. Thus
one object of the translation, he says, is to help Hindu Balinese come to a better under-
standing of Mahayana Buddhism, which is part of their own tradition and philosophy.
Clearly, as a Hindu, Sugriwa saw Buddhism as an aspect of Hinduism.
In 1965, a follower of Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita, Dhammaviriya, published a small
book entitled Ke Tuhanan dalam Agama Buddha.11 In this book, he summarized the main
tenets of Indonesian Buddhism as follows:12
9
J. Kats (ed.),Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan (The Hague), n.p., 1910.
10
I Gusti Sugriwa, Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan (Denpasar: Pustaka Balimas, 1956).
"Dhammaviriya, Ke Tuhanan dalam Agama Buddha (Bogor: PUUI, 1965).
12
Ibid.,p. 4.
Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism 113

1. The One Supreme God is Adi Buddha

2. The Prophets are Buddha Gotama and the Bodhisattvas
3. The Holy Books are: 1) Tipitaka
2) Dhammapada {sic., in fact a part of the Tipitaka)
3) Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan
In this way he put Buddhism precisely into the Islamic/Christian context, fulfilling the
main requirements the Government set for a belief system to be formally recognized as
a religion. In this book God is defined in the following ways:13
1. The God who is without feature or characteristic is Sang Adi Buddha.
2. The definable God who created the Universe is Avalokitesvara.
3. The God who is close to mankind is Padmapani.
Further it is noted:14
1. Adi Buddha symbolized Dharmakaya, who caused the creation of the Universe.
2. Avalokitesvara symbolized Sambhogakaya, who created the Universe.
3. Padmapani symbolized Nirmanakaya, that is, Avalokitesvara on earth.
It should be noted nowhere in this book is the term "Namo Sang Hyang Adi Buddhaya"
used as a salutation.
In 1971, the Central Java branch of Perbuddhi published a commentary on Sugriwa's
translation of "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan", with financial support from the Provincial
Government.15 Unfortunately the text of this book does not differentiate between
what is the opinion of the editor (S. Jasmin), and what is actually the text of "Sang
Hyang Kamahayanikan". It is clear, though, that once again "Namo Sang Hyang Adi
Buddhaya" is not used as a salutation in the text, although Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita
used it as a salutation in the Preface in which he says that the Buddhism of Srivijaya and
Mojopahit is now reviving in Indonesia after being dormant for five centuries.16
In the next year, Upi Dhammavadi, a follower of Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita,
published Ke Tuhanan dalam Agama Buddha.11 Although the book itself said little that
was new or original, it began with the salutation "Namo Sang Hyang Adi Buddhaya".
"Namo Tossa" etc. was allocated second place. Clearly the concept of Adi Buddha was
now coming very much to the forefront. The book listed twelve other titles by which Adi
Buddha was known, and noted various interpretations of Adi Buddha to be found in nine
sacred books, of which "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" was one.18
The culmination of the campaign to establish the pre-eminence of Adi Buddha in
Indonesian Buddhism probably came in 1973 with the publication of a new translation
of "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" by the Project to Translate Sacred Hindu and Buddhist
Texts in the Department of Religious Affairs.19 Although many applauded the Depart-
ment for supporting the translation of texts sacred to non-Muslim religions, this particular
translation was an extremely contentious one. It clearly raised the status of Adi Buddha

"Ibid., p. 5.
14
Ibid.
I5
S. Jasmin (ed.), Kitab Sutji Sanghyang Kamahayanikan (Djawa Tengah: Madjelis Pimpinan Daerah
Perbuddhi, 1971).
16
Ibid.
"Dhammavadi (comp.), Ke Tuhanan dalam Agama Buddha (Patjet: Buddharasmi, Vihara Nagasena,
1972).
18
Ibid.,pp. 12-13.
"Kitab Suci Sanghyang Kamahayanikan (Jakarta: Departemen Agama, 1973).
114 lent Brown

to that of God, and, in effect, pronounced governmental approval of that elevation.

There are many examples in the text of this development: one example will suffice.
The text at the commencement of part II runs as follows:20 (Kawi first, followed by
Indonesian)

Im! Namo Buddhaya! Im!

Nihan sang hyang Kamahayanikan ya warahakna mami ri
kita ng tathagatakula jinaputra, adhikarmika sang hyang Mahayana,
ya ta warahakna mami ri kita.

Artinya:
Segala puji bagi Sanghyang Adi Buddha.
Inilah Sanghyang Kamahayanikan yang hendak kuajarkan kepadamu, kepada
putra Buddha (yangjuga) keluarga Tathagata, keagungan pelaksanaan Sanghyang
Mahayana, itulah yang hendak kuajarkan padamu.

Hail! In the name of the Buddha!

This is the sang hyang Kamahayanikan which I am going to teach you, to the son of
Buddha, who is also related to the Tathagata (= the Perfect One), the greatness of the
deeds of sang hyang Mahayana, That is what I am going to teach you.

It will be noted that the Indonesian translation contains a phrase which does not appear
in the Kawi original: "Segala puji bagi Sanghyang Adi Buddha" or "All Praise to the Lord
Adi Buddha". The insertion of this phrase here and in other places in the text, seems to
indicate quite clearly that the author of the translation has been guided by considerations
other than textual accuracy.
After the publication of "Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan" by the Department of
Religious Affairs, in July 1975 Drs Oka Diputhra, who was the Head of Subdirector-
ate of Education and Information of Buddhism (in 1981 he became the Director of
Buddhist Affairs) of the Directorate General of Community Guidance of Hinduism and
Buddhism, declared that:
"...after we all purify our hearts and thoughts through our holy meditation of the
Asadha celebration and the abundant blessing of the Sang Hyang Adi Buddha the
One Supreme God, on behalf of the Directorate General of Community Guidance of
Hinduism and Buddhism, I hereby declare to all Buddhists in Indonesia that: The One
Supreme God of the Buddhist religion in Indonesia is the Sang Hyang Adi Buddha.
The Director General of Community Guidance of Hinduism and Buddhism will
further deal with this matter in the not too distant future."21
This "declaration" was later on withdrawn by Oka Diputhra's superior, the Director Gen-
eral of Community Guidance of Hinduism and Buddhism, Mr Gde Pudja, explaining that:
"It is not in the Government's authority to deal with doctrinal matters in Buddhism.
It was an administrative mistake that the 'declaration' was issued, and therefore
should be withdrawn."22
2
»Ibid.,p.79.
21
As quoted in Risalah Hasil Penelitian Sekitar Masalah Adi Buddha (Bandung: Pengurus Cabang Budhi,
November 1975), p. 30.
Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism 115

It should be clear from the above that the term "Sang Hyang Adi Buddha" is in a signi-
ficant sense an artificial one, at least in so far as its prominence is concerned. It has been
created or interpreted in order to give Buddhism a character which is consistent with the
official Muslim-Christian understanding of religion, and a character which is specifically
Indonesian. It has also been used in an attempt to link this particular interpretation of
Buddhism with the Borobudur.
There is no doubt that most Indonesians feel a sense of pride in the Borobudur, the
largest Buddhist monument in the world. Many books have been written about it. Yet it
remains, in many ways, a mystery. Who built it, why, what it signifies: these are all
questions to which there are, as yet, no authoritative answers. Stutterheim has suggested
that the stupa at the top of the Borobudur should be the place of the Adi Buddha of the
Mahayana tradition, the absolute Buddha at the centre of the five Buddhas: Wairocana,
Aksobhya, Ratnasambhawa, Amitabha, Amoghasiddha, and that the unfinished
Buddha found under the kenari tree is this Adi Buddha.23 This theory is unproven; it has
been rejected by Sutjipto Wirjosuparto, Bernet Kempers and others on scholarly
grounds,24 and in any event there are doubts as to whether, in fact, the statue in the
top-most stupa was stolen a century ago. But clearly acceptance of the theory would be
of considerable benefit to those who interpret the Adi Buddha as God. It would reinforce
the idea that this school of Buddhist thought had deep roots in Indonesian history and
would stamp the Borobudur, a monument universally recognised as Buddhist, as one of
its central supporting elements.
Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita's efforts to establish the Indonesian-ness of Buddhism
have been highly effective and the religion is now accepted with little question as legiti-
mate by the authorities. Vesak Day has recently (1983) been promulgated as a national
holiday to mark Buddhism's symbolic equality with the three major religions. Bhikkhu
Ashin Jinarakkhita's revision of Buddhism, however, has by no means met with universal
approval of the Buddhist community, as his formulations have been resisted despite his
habit of painting his opponents as atheists, communists, people who do not accept the
Panca Sila and so forth.
The firmest rejection of the prominence Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita has given to the
concept of Sang Hyang Adi Buddha has come from the Theravada school. While careful
not to reject the idea of One Supreme God, they have defined the issue in a way which
enables them to postpone considering it indefinitely. They have still had to consider
the question of the existence of One Supreme God, but have arrived at a different
understanding of the term. They interpret it as referring to the Absolute or the Un-
conditioned. This interpretation is made clear in the following passage from the Khud-
dhaka Nikaya, in which the Buddha is preaching about reaching the unconditioned
(Asankhata Dhamma) by the inductive method:
Monks, there is the not-born, the not-become, the not-made, the unconditioned.
Monks, if that not-born, not-become, not-made, unconditioned were not, there
would be apparently no escape from this here that is born, become, made, con-
ditioned. But since, Monks, there is the not-born, the not-became, the not-made,
the unconditioned, therefore the escape from this here is born, become, made,
conditioned, is apparent.
Udana VIII, 3
a
W . F . Stutterheim, Studies in Indonesian Archaeology (The Hague: MartinusNijhoff, 1956), pp. 48 ff.
24
Sutjipto Wirjosuparto, Bunga Rampai Sedjarah Budaja Indonesia (Djakarta: Djambatan, 1964), p. 81.
A.J. Bernet Kempers, Ageless Borobudur (Wassenaar: Servire, 1976), pp. 168-70.
116 lent Brown

The negation of the imperfection of the world, the negative aspect, recur in almost all
passages where the Unconditioned/Absolute is mentioned, for it is emphasized that it has
no relationship with this world or any future life, either in regard to matter or to mind,
which includes the state of Samadhi. And yet, it is not void or nothingness, as some
scholars assume.
In religious practice the Unconditioned/Absolute is worshipped in its embodiment
called The Triple Gem, i.e., the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. The Triple Gem
is the most highly worshipped element in Theravada Buddhism, and the highest ideal
which can be attained in the heart of the people. (Theravada) Buddhists have faith in the
Unconditioned (i.e., The Triple Gem) which leads them to be religious people. Believing
in the Dhamma means believing in the Path or Teaching of the Buddha, which leads
believers on by their own experience to find the happiness that comes as they approach
the Unconditioned/Absolute.
We can see that Theravada Buddhism is not atheistic; it is also not fundamentally
theistic (if we take theism to mean the Christian/Muslim theism).25 The teaching con-
cerning Gods (Devadhamma) in Buddhism is not based on philosophical speculation or
traditional belief, but on the direct personal experience of the Buddha. Because of this
unique teaching, with its own characteristics, it cannot be reduced into a simplistic formal
classification of 'theist' or 'atheist' or even 'non-theist', terms derived from religions of a
very different background.
There is therefore a considerable difference between the Buddhayana and the
Theravada schools about the meaning of God. However, both schools are in agreement
that Buddhism does not discuss the existence of a Creator God. Because the Buddha's
teachings are to do with Truth — with something which is absolutely true, irrespective of
time and place — the Buddha avoided discussion of the concept of the Creator God, on
the grounds that the concept of God could not possibly be understood through the human
mind with all its limitations: the idea of a single God who is indivisible because of his/her
infiniteness, and who is everywhere at once.
One leading Buddhayana figure in Medan, Mr Krishnaputra, has said that Buddhism
in Indonesia should not become simply an intellectual exercise.26 The majority of
believers, he argued, need a straight-forward religion, one which can be used as a guide
to the living of a Panca Sila-ist life. They do not need a religion which is just a Study Club.
The Buddhayana school has clearly been acceptable and popular in large measure
because it has adopted this general principle despite the philosophical criticisms which
have been launched against it. It is ironic that on the one hand the first of the Panca Sila
caused much debate and conflict amongst Buddhist intellectuals, while on the other the
adoption of the Panca Sila has created a politico-religious environment with which
the Buddhism of the ordinary people could flourish. Not that Indonesian Buddhism is
unique is this respect, of course. The practice of Buddhism in other countries such as
Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka also varies markedly from the theory of Buddhism
enumerated by its leaders, and in particular from the understanding of Buddhism held by
western Buddhists who generally pay much less attention to practices such as religious
services, reading the paritta and so forth than do Southeast Asian Buddhists.
In this article I have tried to analyse the reactions of the Indonesian Buddhist commu-
nity to the requirement that the religion demonstrates the belief in the One Supreme
"Helmut von Glasenapp described Buddhism as non-theistic religion, Buddhism a Non-Theistic Religion
(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1970) (General edition first published in 1956).
^Interview, Medan, October 1981.
Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism 117

God. I have focused in particular on the views of Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita, undoubt-
edly the most powerful and influential Buddhist leader today, but have set these views
against those held by members of the Theravada school.27 Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita
himself is an intriguing man. He has a particularly strong personality, is a great pragmatist
and a shrewd judge of political developments. He wears a Theravada robe, yet wears a
beard in the Mahayana style; he succeeded, it is reported, in thoroughly confusing the
Dalai Lama when he met him in Indonesia in 1982. Bhikkhu Ashin Jinarakkhita has
been very successful in combining both religious and political considerations in an
interpretation of Buddhism. By 1979, his Buddhayana school had representatives in 16
provinces. It does him no injustice to suggest that the reasons for the promotion of the
idea of Adi Buddha being God, and its ultimate acceptance, were at least as much
political as religious.

27
There are currently seven schools of Buddhism affiliated with the WALUBI (Perwalian Umat Buddha
Indonesia — The Buddhist Council of Indonesia), they are: Theravada, Buddhayana, Mahayana,
Tridharma, Kasogatan, Maitreya and Nichiren. However for the purpose of this debate on the issue
of ke-Tuhanan Yang Maha Esa I have concentrated on the first two schools, i.e..the Theravada and the
Buddhayana, as these are the schools which discussed this issue. My rough estimate of followers of
Theravada is 1 million, Buddhayana Vi million, the total Buddhists in Indonesia approximately 2V2
million, a big proportion is in the rural Central and East Java. Buddhism, in a way, has gained the numbers
from the uncertain situation of Confucianism. Although Confucianism is officially recognized by the
government (as Agama Konghucu), however it is not represented in the Department of Religious Affairs.
The Maitreya and Nichiren schools are both recently developed sects and have gained followers in most
big cities throughout the archipelago.