1 Introduction
The Islamization of Java is apparent since the fourteenth century when Islamic graves began to be built near the Hindu-Majapahit royal court. It has been assumed that the process was made easy by the spread of Sufism, a current within Islam which seeks union with God, and as such may have appealed to the mystically-minded Javanese. The same explanation is used in connection with pre-Islamic pantheistic philosophy, which seems to oppose the direct adoption of Islamic monotheism and jurisprudence. However, we have not had adequate discussions of the consequences of adopting the term âSufism.â According to Yasushi Tonaga, Sufism can be analyzed along three axes: mysticism, ethics, and popular veneration, with changing preferences over the course of time (Tonaga 2005). Still, we do not know what type of Sufism we are dealing with, and how it developed in Java.
In Java, the Sufi saints referred to as walis are well known. Local society believes that Islam spread peacefully in Java as an achievement of the legendary Nine walis (J. wali sanga).1 Actually, the number of walis is not nine, and their names are not fixed. One of the earliest Javanese manuscripts,2 called the Ferrara kropak,3 describes the Deliberation of Saints (J. Musawaratan para wali) held on the Gunung Kadaton, and the number of the walis who appear there is eight (Drewes 1978). Probably, later Javanese tradition set the number of walis at nine. The famous wali sanga are included in the larger number of walis who appear in the annals of the Javanese kingdoms and are believed to have spread the faith of Islam to this island in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries. Many legends in all areas of Java ascribe numerous elements of culture to them (musical instruments, shadow plays, works of literature and so on). However, the truth of such stories, or sometimes even the very existence of some of these walis, is difficult to prove because of the limited availability of historical sources. Some walis have several tombs in different areas. Most of the manuscript sources on the walis are relatively recent copies from the nineteenth century.
Sunan Bonang, whom I discuss in this chapter, is one of the most famous walis among the nine. His father, Sunan Ampel, is the progenitor of the nine walis and is believed to have been the teacher of Raden Patah, the first king of Demak, which was the first Islamic kingdom in Java. He himself also converted Sunan Kalijaga, a legendary hero throughout Java, to Islam. In the popular story of Siti Jenar, Sunan Bonang is the representative of the ârightâ walis who punished Siti Jenar for being heretical (nevertheless, Siti Jenar has enjoyed popularity in Javanese society to the present). The Babad Tanah Jawi, the chronicle of the Mataram kingdom, only mentions that Sunan Bonang had many disciples and exerted extensive religious influence, especially after Raden Patah defeated Majapahit and became the king of Demak. One of the deeds attributed to him was the forging of a holy sword, part of the royal treasure.
Sunan Bonang is also credited as the author of many religious poems, as Drewes (1968) emphasizes. The most famous of these is one of the few surviving sixteenth-century manuscripts, which B.J.O. Schrieke estimated in his 1916 doctoral dissertation to have been written by Sunan Bonan himself (Schrieke 1916). What is even more interesting is that the content of this manuscript is not the legendary tales common in the later manuscripts and oral traditions of Java, but rather a discussion of Islamic doctrine. G.W.J. Drewes (1899â1992), who published the text of the manuscript in transcription with an English translation in 1969, gave the text the title of âThe admonitions of Seh Bari.â It is a valuable source of information on Islamic doctrine in the sixteenth century, especially because the sayings and deeds of walis known in the oral tradition of popular veneration are legendary and insufficient for analyzing the contents of their doctrine. In the Babad Tanah Jawi, the Mataram Kingdom Chronicle, the walis have the supernatural power of prophecy and have a role in giving legitimacy to the kingdoms, but their doctrine is never discussed.
It is difficult to ascertain whether these latter teachings can represent the religious situation of the time in Java. As for Sunan Bonang, it stands to reason that a meticulous comparison between the text of the sixteenth century manuscript and the other writings ascribed to him is urgently called for. However, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss some focal points of Islamic doctrine apparently current at the time by analyzing the sixteenth century text, not to ascertain its authorship. Rather, we should take into consideration the meaning of the claim that Bonang wrote this text.
Before going into the main topic, since the purpose of this volume is to explore new directions in the study of Javanese literature, it is important to ask whether this sixteenth century text falls into the category of âliteratureâ in the first place. Therefore, this chapter follows the definition of Javanese literature as suggested by Th.G.Th. Pigeaud in his book Literature of Java, i.e., âany text written in Javanese is considered as belonging to literature and registered as such, because all texts can supply information on Javanese civilization in its various aspectsâ (Pigeaud 1967, 1: 2). According to the four-stage development of Javanese literature he proposed, this text belongs to the Pasisir (north coast) literature phase, the third era which began around 1500 CE when Javanese literature developed under the influence of Islam, mainly at the port cities on the north coast. Pasisir literature was created by borrowing vocabulary from the Malay, Arabic, and Persian languages. This is because these languages had already been used as a medium to disseminate Islamic literature in Southeast Asia outside of Java. However, many elements of the pre-Islamic Old Javanese literature were also assimilated into Javaâs northern coast (J. pasisir) literature (Pigeaud 1967, 1: 6â7; Robson 1981: 281â88). At first, âthe mystic and the legalistic orthodox currents existed side by side,â and the mystic legendary tales seem to have been popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pigeaud listed the text which I discuss here under âNotes on theology and mysticismâ (Pigeaud 1967, 1: 78â81). While the content is indeed a doctrinal treatise on theology and mysticism, the format is didactic fiction, depicting a question-and-answer dialogue between a teacher named Seh Bari and his disciple.
2 The Manuscript
The text is contained in Cod. Or. 1928 of Leiden University Library. Before being published by Drewes, it had been published by B.J.O. Schrieke as his dissertation in 1916, under the title âHet boek van Bonangâ (the book of Bonang), as mentioned above. The manuscript formed part of a collection of manuscripts in the possession of Bonaventura Vulcanius, professor of Greek at Leiden University in the period 1578â1614. According to Schrieke, the manuscript was acquired at an East Javanese port (Sedayu or Tuban) during one of the first two voyages by the Dutch to Indonesia before 1600. It was probably presented to Vulcanius by one of his students, who was in contact with the organizers of the voyages to the East.
The manuscript consists of 88 pages of Javanese paper measuring 18 by 25 cm. The text numbers 83 pages. The manuscript is âbound in a shabby European cover with a parchment spine and has a double fly-leaf at the front and backâ (Drewes 1969: 2). According to Taco Roorda (1801â74, professor of Javanese in Delft and Leiden), the manuscript was written in a type of Javanese script that shows the peculiarities of the north coast of Java, not of Central Java (Drewes 1969: 3).
The author of the text is assumed to be Sunan Bonang, on the basis of what is written by the copyist in the final line of the text: âTammat carita cinitra, kang pakrÄti Pangeran ing Benang (Thus ends the written story, the author is the Lord of Bonang).â The text is written in the form of questions and answers exchanged between a teacher, Seh Bari,4 and his pupil. The name of the pupil is not mentioned, but Schrieke concluded that this pupil must be Sunan Bonang, the text being based on the discipleâs memory of the instructions given by his teacher. It is not clear who this âSeh Bariâ is. He is not one of the nine walis, nor is he known to be a famous wali. Drewes adds the information that a group of manuscripts originating from Banyumas in Central Java mention the name of Seh Bari as a teacher of a famous school in Karang, Banten, West Java (Drewes 1969: 8â13). In the text, however, the teacher talks about admonitions from imam Ghazali5 (1058â1111) on heresy to a certain three Javanese teachers as if he were witnessing the scene. It is not clear whether âSeh Bariâ really existed, or whether the author of the text created the story for the purpose of preaching.
Kitab Pangeran Bonang, late 16th century (?)
Leiden University Library, Cod. Or. 1928, ff. 2â3
In this chapter, I do not intend to participate in the debate on whether the author of this text really is Sunan Bonang, or who Seh Bari is.6 The point on which I focus is that this manuscript was copied in sixteenth-century Java and is ascribed to Sunan Bonang who is a central figure among the walis. This means that this text reflects a contemporaneous discussion, and the copyist insists that the views expressed here are the correct ones.
This text is mentioned by Ricklefs and Zoetmulder in their books (Ricklefs 2006; Zoetmulder 1995), but it has not been fully analyzed, presumably because they thought its content was only a dogmatic argument translated from Arabic literature and did not reflect Javanese society at the time. Here I refer to the translation and transcription of Drewes and Schrieke, but I also use my own when necessary because I found some differences between their two transcriptions, and I also wish to make the translation more literal.7
3 The Contents of the Text
At the beginning of the text, the author writes that it contains the words of Seh Bari addressed to his friends about the meaning of usul suluk (principles of the knowledge concerning the journey along the mystical path), quoting from the IḥyÄʾ Ê¿UlÅ«m al-DÄ«n and the TamhÄ«d:8
Nyan punika caritanira Sekhul Bari tatkalanira apitutur dhatÄng mitranira kabeh; kang pinituturakÄn wirasaning usul suluk, wÄdaling carita saking kitab Ihya ulumi din, lan saking Tamhid, antukira Sekhul Bari, amÄtheti tingkahing sisimpÄnan, ing nabi wali mukmin kabeh. (Cod. Or. 1928: 1â2)
This is the tale of Seh Bari when imparting instruction to all his friends as to the meaning of the principles of the knowledge concerning the journey on the mystical path. The narrative comes forth from the IḥyÄʾ Ê¿UlÅ«m al-DÄ«n and the TamhÄ«d. Seh Bari took parts that were hidden by all the prophets, walis and true believers.
After this, the conversation between Seh Bari and his pupil begins. The term suluk (path) is difficult to define precisely here. But the term being used in the beginning gives the impression that the goal of this text is to teach some form of mysticism. Contrary to that expectation, however, the explanation by Seh Bari about Godâs transcendence, repeated in several ways, occupies most of their conversations. And, although the author claimed that Seh Bariâs teachings are quoted from al-GhazÄlÄ«âs IḥyÄʾ, the main theme of the conversation is Godâs transcendence and the relationship between the divine being and human beings. Explanations about virtue and vice as described in the IḥyÄʾ only appear in the last part of the text (Cod. Or. 1928: 75â83). The exact title of the TamhÄ«d (âPrefaceâ) is unknown, so its contents cannot be identified.
In his explanation of the âcorrectâ teachings on Godâs transcendence Seh Bari first mentions the names of several persons who spread âwrongâ teachings as kafirs (infidels). Seh Bari repeatedly explains what kinds of understanding of the faith are wrong, or what kinds of understanding can turn people into infidels. The persons and teachings characterized as infidel or wrong are those of Abdulwahid ibni Makiyah (Ê¿Abd al-WÄḥid b. Makkiyya), Bataniyah (Ar. BÄá¹iniyya), Karamiyah (Ar. KarrÄmiyya), Muntanengiyah (Ar. Muá¹ÄÊ¿iyya), Arabiyya (Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«), and three âshekâ who are allegedly denounced by al-GhazÄlÄ« (Shek Sufi, Shek Nuri, Shek Jaddi). Except for Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ« (1165â1240), the identity of these persons and schools is not known due to a lack of information. The descriptions of the last three sheks are presented as if Seh Bari had had a conversation on this subject with al-GhazÄlÄ« himself, as if the two were acquainted. Since al-GhazÄlÄ« lived in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, it is unlikely that Seh Bari spoke directly with him. However, by claiming to have spoken with al-GhazÄlÄ«, we can see that the author wants to emphasize the importance of this teaching on heresy and orthodoxy. The explanations that appear in the text appear to be too difficult for the average Javanese of the time to understand, but they clearly show that there was a conflict of views about what the orthodox teaching was.
4 Godâs Transcendence; the Use of Negation
The introductory lines are followed by what Seh Bari has to say about the oneness of God:
Miwah kawruhana yan sira Pangeran, tunggal tan kakalih; saksenana yan sira Pangeran, asifat sadya suksma, mahasuci tunggalira, tan ana papa-dhanira, kang mahaluhur. (Cod. Or. 1928, 2)
And know that the Lord is one and not two. Bear witness that the Lord has eternity and immateriality, that All Pure is His Oneness, and that there is none like him who is Most High.
Here it is claimed that God has two attributes (sifat), sadya and suksma. The word sadya has several meanings. In Modern Javanese sadya means âaim, intention, purpose, resolution, what a person intends or wills to do; to intend or will (doel, bedoeling, oogmerk, voornemen, war iemand van zins of gezind is te doen; van zins of gezind zijn, voornemens zijn)â (Gericke-Roorda 1901, 1: 794). In Old Javanese, sÄdhya means âobject to be obtained, aim, goal, desireâ (Zoetmulder 1982: 1590). In Malay, sÄdia means âalready; admittedly; of old; ready; prepared; at all times; immemorialâ (Wilkinson 1932: 399). In Javanese, suksma means âsoul, immaterial.â In Old Javanese the word suksma (originally from Sanskrit) means âsubtle, unsubstantial, not accessible to the usual organs of perception, but perceptible to those gifted with supernatural powers; invisible, immaterial; to assume an invisible state, disappearâ (Zoetmulder 1982: 1841â42).
Next follows the explanation of the meaning of the confession of faith:
Iki si lafale, tingkahing anakseni ing Pangeran, Wa-ashhadu an lÄ ilÄha illÄʾllahu waḥdahu, lÄ sharÄ«ka lahu, wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan rasÅ«luʾllÄhi, tÄgÄse iku ingsun anakseni, kaananing Pangeran, kang anama Allah, kang asifat sadya suksma,9 langgÄng kÄkÄl, wibuh sampurna, purba kadim, sifatira mahasuci, orana Pangeran sabÄnÄre, anging Allah uga Pangeran kang sinÄmbah, sabÄnÄre kang agung. (Cod. Or. 1928: 3)10
These are the words, the way of bearing witness to the Lord: Wa-ashhadu an lÄ ilÄha illÄʾllahu waḥdahu, lÄ sharÄ«ka lahu, wa-ashhadu anna Muḥammadan rasÅ«luʾllÄhi, i.e. I bear witness to the eternal and immaterial Being of the Lord whose name is Allah. His attributes are eternity, everlastingness, perfection, and all pureness. There is no Lord but Allah, the object of our devotion, He the truly high.
After this, an explanation is given of the meaning of the word ânoâ (ora/nora), because the confession of faith begins with the word of denial.
He mitraningsun, karana satuhune lafal nora iku, nora malih angorakÄna satuhuning Allah, Pangeran, nora malih angorakÄna Pangeran siya-siya. (â¦)
Kewala si lafal nora iku, sikÄping wong kang sinung wasil paningale, kang antuk pasthining iman sakadare, ika, kewala lafal nora iku ingkang andÄlingakÄn mahasucining Pangeran, yan tunggal tanpa kufu, iku siptane, kang anduweni sabda iku. (Cod. Or. 1928: 3â4)
My friends, in reality, pronouncing the word ânoâ does not negate the reality of Allah as God; nor does it rashly negate the Lord (â¦)
So, as for the word âno,â for one who has been granted the vision of union and has acquired a surety of faith to the greatest extent possible, the word ânoâ is what shows the Absolute Purity of Allah, who is one without any equal. That is the understanding of one who possesses the Word.
Therefore, Seh Bari uses a word of negation, ânoâ (ora), to explain the singularity of God and he begins his long and esoteric expositions about the differences between the heretical teachings and his own by expounding on the meaning of the word âno.â He explains that a heretical scholar named Ê¿Abd al-WÄḩid b. Makkiyya from Mecca offers wrong understandings of nothingness.
He mitraningsun, aja sira kadi ujaring wong sasar.
Iku si ujaring wong sasar iku, Ê¿Abdulwahid arane, mangka angucap Ê¿Abdulwahid, ibni Makiyah, anak pandhita MÄkah ika, atunggul sastra, tan apaut kalawan tÄgÄse. (Cod. Or. 1928: 6â7)
My friends! Do not follow the opinion of those who went astray! Here is an example of the doctrine of such a person, Ê¿Abd al-Wahid by name. Ê¿Abd al-Wahid ibn Makkiyya, the son of a Meccan scholar, taught in keeping with the text, but not in conformity with the meaning. (Drewes 1969: 43)
Then, Seh Bari quotes an account written in Arabic by a scholar named Ê¿Abd al-WÄḥid, and gives its Javanese translation as follows.
Al-aá¹halu âl-qadÄ«mu, wa-huwa nafsu âl-muá¹laqi, wa-huwa dhÄtuʾllÄh taÊ¿ÄlÄ, ḥaqqun maÊ¿bÅ«dun, tÄgÄse kang liwung sadya iku, iya iku dhÄtu Ê¿llah, sabÄnÄr-bÄnÄre Pangeran kang sinÄmbah,11 tatapi ta nafining Allah, liwunging Allah iku nora yan suwunga, Walakin qabla halki rasuili Muhammad, tatapi ta sadurunging andadekÄn nabi Mohammad,12 anging sira Pangeran kang ana dhewek tanpa rowang, norana kawula sawijia, kadi ta angganing sungging sadurunging andadekÄn panuli, sadurunging anulis, iya iku tÄgÄsing liwung nafi dhÄtuʾllah, nora ing dheweke. (Cod. Or. 1928: 7)
Al-aá¹halu âl-qadÄ«mu, wa-huwa nafsu âl-muá¹laqi, wa-huwa dhÄtuʾllÄh taÊ¿ÄlÄ, ḥaqqun maÊ¿bÅ«dun, It means that Primordial Void (liwung sadya) is the dhatuʾllah, the Essence of the adored Lord, [Arabic quotation lacking] but this Divine nothingness, this Divine Void is not empty. Walakin qabla halki rasuili Muhammad i.e.: but before the creation of Muhammad the Apostle [Arabic quotation lacking], the only one in existence was the Lord and He alone, without any servant. He may be compared to a painter before he has made his brush and before he has set to work. This is the meaning of the Essence of Allah being the Void, the Nothingness as such. (Drewes 1969: 43)
The word liwung often appears in the text and refers to the dhatuʾllah, the Essence of God. In the quoted Arabic text, the word aá¹hal is the original word for liwung. This means âdestitute, devoid.â Drewes translates the word liwung as âVoid.â And it also seems to refer to the condition before the Creator began his act of creation. But it is not clear what the author or Seh Bari means by this word because, according to Modern Javanese dictionaries liwung means âfurious, raging, senseless, crazedâ (Robson and Wibisono 2002: 449), or âfrantic from an attack, senseless from despair or sadness; mad with infatuationâ (âverwoed van een aanval, zinneloos van radeloosheid of droefheid; dol van verliefdheid,â Gericke-Roorda 1901, 2: 125). It seems that the meaning is contradictory. In Old Javanese the word means âvast and deep (of water, cave, ravine)â (Zoetmulder 1982: 1042). In Modern Javanese we find the expression alas gung liwang-liwung, which means âextensive and dense jungleâ (Poerwadarminta 1939: 276; Robson and Wibisono 2002: 449).13 It is possible that the author imagines a vast and deep jungle when describing the primordial universe. According to Soewojo Wojowasito, we can also find in the Kawi lexicon the expression aliwung-liwung, which means âempty; mentally derangedâ (Mills 1980: 484). The meaning of the word sadya following liwung is aim or intention as mentioned above, but here we see that the original Arabic word is qadÄ«m, which means âtime long since past, old times; time immemorial; infinite pre-existence; timelessness (of God)â (Wehr 1994: 877).
Here it is argued that this liwung sadya, translated by Drewes as Primordial Void, is the Essence of God and that it is not empty. Seh Bari, however, rejects as false Abdul Wahidâs explanation that this liwung sadya is the state of the universe before the birth of Muhammad.
Mangka anabda Shekhul Bari, he mitraningsun, pamanggihingsun ta nora mongkono, kaya Ê¿Abdulwahid iku, karana satuhune pangucape Ê¿Abdulwahid iku kufur ing patang madahab; dhatu llah den-arani nafi, nora ing dheweke, kalawan sira Pangeran den-arani durung andadekÄn ing rasulullah, durung andadekÄn ing sawiji-wiji, iku kufure, karana satuhune kaananing Pangeran, sadya purba. (Cod. Or. 1928, 8â9)
Seh Bari said, My friends! My opinion is not like that of Ê¿Abd al-WÄḥid because in fact his statement is disbelief from the perspective of the four madahab; the Essence of Allah is said to be nothingness (nafi), non-being itself. And he says that God had not created the Apostle or anything yet. This shows his infidelity because in fact, the existence of God is since all eternity.
Mangka anabda ShehulBari, he mitraningsun, Ê¿Abdulwahid angucap kang liwung den tÄgÄsaken maring ora ikupon kufur, karana tÄgÄsing liwung iku suksmaning Pangeran, mahasuci sadya ananira tan ana wikana ing suksmanira, tan lyan piambÄkira uga, punika rÄke tÄgÄsing kang liwung sadya wruh ing suksmanira piambÄk. (Cod. Or. 1928, 9)
Seh Bari said, My friends! It is from unbelief that Ê¿Abd al-WÄḥid teaches that Void is interpreted as non-being (ora), because the meaning of Void is the immateriality of the Lord, whose Being is All-Pure and eternal. And his immateriality is unknown to anyone but Himself. What is meant by the Primordial Void is that He knows His own Immateriality.
Seh Bari explains that liwung does not mean ânoâ (ora) or âemptyâ (kosong) but the suksma (immateriality) of the eternal and transcendent God, an attribute which only He knows. This description of the universe can lead us to imagine pantheistic philosophy even if we cannot make clear yet what the word liwung means. However, Seh Bari continues explaining Godâs transcendence and His attributes using various concepts, and emphasizes the differences between the characteristics of the Creator and the created, while mentioning the names of erroneous scholars.
5 The Universe and Ibn al-ʿArabī
Among these erroneous scholars Ibn al-ʿArabī is one of the most criticized. First, Seh Bari does so as follows:
Utawi ana wong sasar sawiji, Arabiyah arane, akÄcap, sadurunging ana jagad iki kabeh, nama Allah pon dereng nyata, lan dereng ana, iku dhat, mangkana malih dhat iku anyatakakÄn ing asmanira, sarta lan dadine jagad iki, kabeh, ingupamakakÄn dhat iku, kadi angganing wiji-sawiji, awit agodhong, akÄmbang awoh, iku sami amuji ing wit, lintang nekmate, rasane manise, godhong sÄkar woh iku, singgih punika rahasya kabeh, rahasyaning wit, ⦠. (Cod. Or. 1928: 27â28)
There is another person who has lost his way. His name is Ê¿Arabiyya. He teaches as follows; Before this world came into being even the name of Allah had not become manifest and did not exist. This was at the grade of Essence (dhat). The Essence manifested its names together with the genesis of the universe. The Essence may be compared to a body of origin which comprises leaves, flowers, and fruits. All these praise their origin; delicious and sweet-flavored are the leaves, flowers, and fruits and all this is a mystery, the secret of its provenance.
Jagad iki kabeh, gÄlaring wiji sawiji, maksih sawiji tan ana wawaneh. Kadi ta angganing wÄsi bariyuh sawiji, wontÄn dadi tumbak, dadi dhuhung, tatah wadung, panyukur, dadi usu, cacathut, Ädom kadut, linÄbur pinalu dadi tosan malih, dene si angsale saking wÄsi sawiji, mulih kajatine sawiji; mangkana malih, osiking jiwaraga iki osiking dhatu Ê¿llah, paningaling kawula iki rahasyaning dhatu Ê¿llah, kang angucap iki pasthi kinÄkÄlaken sasoring narakaning kafir, kang anÄmbah ing brahala ika. (Cod. Or. 1928: 28â29)
This whole universe has sprung from one seed, and this is still the only seed. It is like a piece of iron which may be made into a pike, a kris, a chisel, a hatchet, a blade for shaving, a wusu [a bow-shaped tool for cleaning cotton], pincers or sacking-needle, but melted down all these objects once more become iron; originating from one piece of iron they are made again into one. In the same way the actions of the individual body and soul are the actions of Godâs essence. The vision of the individual (kawula: servant) is the secret of Godâs Essence. Whoever teaches this is doomed to stay forever at the bottom of the hell of the idolaters.
Since the original Arabic text is not cited, it is unclear whether these explanations of Seh Bari are quotations from Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«. However, although the name of the doctrine that Ibn Arabi is believed to have advocated,14 wahdat al-wujud (Ar. waḥdat al-wujÅ«d: Oneness of being / Unity of existence), is not found in the text, Seh Bari clearly states that Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ« is a scholar spreading false teachings, and carefully describes the philosophy of Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ« using meticulous examples closely related to the daily life of the Javanese. The concept of wahdat al-wujud, often also regarded as âpantheism,â holds that God is the only true being and that all other beings are temporary or illusory, and the entire universe is understood as the self-manifestation of the One. After this, Seh Bari continues with his criticism of statements about the existence of the world before the appearance of God. Above all, what Seh Bari is clearly arguing is that even if God and man are one, the actions of man, the servant, absolutely do not determine the actions of God. He is adamant in his criticism of any understanding that would reverse the relationship between God and man.
He mitraningsun, sira Pangeran, agÄlar ing kawidagdanira, anyatakÄn ing saniskara kabeh, kasaktenira, dhat sifat afaʾalira, kalawan kawruhana salwiring pakaryanira, norana apakarana saking kawula, utawi anaa sakÄdhep netra ing angÄn-angÄne, anaa uga apakarana saking kawula, kufur. (Cod. Or. 1928: 30)
My friends! Displaying His wisdom, the Lord made manifest the whole universe, His power, attributes, and works. None is induced by man. Should you imagine even momentarily that this could be the case, then you are guilty of unbelief. (Drewes 1969: 61)
Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs leading thought is the ontology of wahdat al-wujud and the theory of the âperfect manâ (insan kamil, Ar. al-insÄn al-kÄmil), and there are passages in the text that seem to be an explanation of this âperfect man.â However, Seh Bari does not criticize this âperfect manâ; Seh Bari uses the expression âexcellent man,â not perfect man. Seh Bari answers affirmatively to the pupilâ s question as to what the wong lÄwih (excellent man) is. The term wong lÄwih is translated as âperfect manâ by Drewes and Zoetmulder (Drewes 1969: 47, 65; Zoetmulder 1995: 84). This translation can be expected to be made in reference to Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs insan kamil (perfect man) even though the term insan kamil does not occur in the text. Seh Bari explains wong lÄwih as follows:
Mangka matur Rijal, ya guru amba, punapa ta puniku lampahing wong lÄwih.
Mangka anabda ShehulBari, he Rijal, lampahing wong lÄwih iku kabeh, yen ta sira wikana, mangkana15 luputa ing paninggalira iku kabeh, mapan sakathahing kang karasa, ingkang tiningalan, miwah ing osike jiwaraganira iku kabeh ing ÄnÄnge, ing dukacipta nastapane, kabeh iku dudu lan dheweke, saparti bathang lumampah, anging lumampah lan idining16 sih, kaarsaning Pangeran ugi, ika minangka sapatemonira lan Pangeran. (Cod. Or. 1928: 33â34)
So, a man said: My Master, what is the behavior of the excellent man (wong lÄwih)? Seh Bari answered: Men! If you do not know it, the behavior of the excellent man is such that his vision is never amiss. All that he experiences and sees and all his individual actions, his silence, distress and sorrow, all these are not his own; he is like a walking corpse, which only walks by the permission and the will of the Lord. This is his unison with the Lord.
We can find another description of this wong lÄwih:
mapan ananira iki ingupamakakÄn, kadi angganing wawayangan, kewala si dening kinarsakÄn, enggening anunggal paningalira, ingkang angilo pribadi, kang aningali tiningalan, kang asih sinihan tan lyan piambÄkira, kewala si panduluning kawula iki, pinangka cihna panduluning kang asih, asih sinihan ing dhewekira, dadi nir panduluning kang sinihan, kawibuhan dening sihira kang sadya aningali, kewala si panduluning kawula iki darma amalÄsi. (Cod. Or. 1928: 34â35)
Because your existence is like a form of shadow, only by the intention of God, the oneness of yourself reflecting vision that sees and is seen, who loves and is loved by none other than Himself (yourself). Only the servantâs vision is proof of the sight of the one who loves, loves the one who is loved by Himself, so there is no vision of the loved. Coupled with Godâs ever-seeing love, this servantâs sight is nothing but a form of reflection.
Seh Bari describes the wong lÄwih as âa walking corpseâ (bathang lumampah), but he has no intention to ridicule the person, as he uses the word lÄwih (excellent). Wong lÄwih connects with the Creator, but his being is possible only by Divine Ordinance.
In conclusion, Master Seh Bari rejects the argument of wahdat al-wujud, which explains the manifestation of the world, because he is dedicated to asserting the transcendence of God. He also holds that the existence of a perfect man united with God is due to Godâs great will.
6 Ethical Sufism
As mentioned at the beginning of this text, the purpose of the author is to impart instruction to his friends on the meaning of the principles of suluk. Drewes translated suluk as âmysticism.â If we understand suluk as âspiritual path to God,â the author has to explain what that way is. The only reference is in the following passage.
E Rijal mitraningsun kabeh, den-sami amiarsaa ing tuturingsun iki; kalayan sapisan ingsun lumampah ing ara-ara iman, sun-tingali tindakingsun ika; sarta lan idining sih nugrahaning Pangeran, sasampun ingsun lumampah ing ara-ara iman, tumindak ingsun ing ara-ara tohid, ya ta sun-tingali tindakingsun ika tan katon, kang katingalan deningsun ika kaananing Allah, kewala; sasampun ingsun lumampah ing ara-ara tohid, lumampah ingsun ing ara-ara maÊ¿rifa, norana kaananingsun, tingalingsung kang maring Pangeran pon nora ana, tÄgÄse iku dening sampun anunggal tingal, dadi nir tingalingsun ika, ing tingal tunggal, kang tiningalan kang sadya andulu dinulu ing pandulunira. (Cod. Or. 1928: 74â75)
Men! All my friends! Listen to my words. As I entered the field of faith (iman), by nature of Godâs mercy and grace I could see my own doings. After I entered the field of faith, I proceeded to the field of tawḥīd (tohid),17 then I did not see my own doings, what I saw was only the existence of God. After I entered the field of tohid, I proceeded to the field of intuitive knowledge (maÊ¿rifa). There my existence did not exist, I also did not see God, that means that because the vision had merged, my own sight vanished into the one and only sight, and what was seen was He who is the eternal subject and object of His own sight.
Seh Bari explains the successive steps such as imÄn, tawḥīd, and maÊ¿rifa. Several times in other parts of the text he describes the differences among these three levels by deliberately using various expressions, even though he only instructs on the progress to the goal and does not explain the methods. The third level, maÊ¿rifa, is commonly translated as âknowledge or cognition,â18 but its meaning is not discussed here. Instead, this process of development is explained in close connection with the understanding of Godâs transcendence. This text can be said to lead to the entrance to, but not cross the threshold into, the field of mysticism.
In the latter part of the text, Seh Bari stresses the ethical teachings and basic obligations of a Muslim, that is, five ritual prayers (salat limang waktu) and charity (sidekah) (Drewes 1969: 90â93). Pupils are taught to concentrate on God and keep away from worldly pleasures and extravagances of food, dress and sleep.
Mangka akÄcap Shekhul Bari, kang sinampurnakakÄn iman tohide maʾrifate, dening Allah taʾala, e mintraningsun, den-sami awas sira ing Pangeranira, den-sami angestokÄna kalawan sira anglaranana sarira, tÄgÄsing anglarani sarira iku, aja sira suka-suka awakira, kalawan ta aja mamaesi pangan panganggenira, turunira ing dunya, atinira aja madhÄp ing lyan, balikan sira asukan-sukana, akalangÄna lan Pangeran. (Cod. Or. 1928: 41â42)
Meanwhile, Seh Bari whose faith, tawḥīd, and maÊ¿rifa are perfected by God said: âMy friends, you should be alert to God, obey His commandments and hurt your body, which means that you should not indulge in worldly pleasures nor in extravagances of food, dress and sleep. Turn your hearts to God alone and seek your pleasures and delight with Him.â
In the end, Seh Bari admonishes his pupil for a lack of sincerity and teaches that outward piety, ascetic life, great learning, or even a high position, is of no value if one lacks sincerity of heart.
E mitraningsun ora sun-kalÄwihakÄn ing wong atapa kang kaliwat sangÄte kasutapane, dereng ta ikÄlas atine. â¦â¦
E mitraningsun ora sun-kalÄwihakÄn wong kang andrÄbeni kapandhitan, na, lan kawruh kang abÄnÄr, dereng ta ikÄlas atine. â¦â¦
E Rijal, mitraningsun ora sun-kalÄwihakÄn wong kang andrÄbeni bangsa kang kaliwat19 luhure, ingkang andrÄbeni kagungan kang kaliwat gunge, dereng ta ikÄlas atine. (Cod. Or. 1928: 75â78)
My friend! I have no respect for ascetics, who are given to severe austerities but lack sincerity of heart.
My friend! I have no respect for people who possess learning and great knowledge but lack sincerity of heart.
My friend! I have no respect for high-born people who are held in the highest esteem but lack sincerity of heart. (Drewes 1969: 97â99)
7 Theoretical Controversies of Sufism in Aceh
In Southeast Asia, the Sufi doctrine of Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ« was famously embraced by Hamzah Fansuri, the sixteenth-century Sumatran Sufi poet,20 and the first writer known to articulate mystical pantheistic ideas in the Malay language. He was a prolific writer who composed many poems (syair) praising Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs philosophy. His works enjoyed popularity, especially in the Aceh royal palace, in the early seventeenth century, the heyday of the Aceh Darussalam kingdom ruled by Sultan Iskandar Muda (r. 1607â36). However, this popular poet was severely criticized as heretical and his books were burned by NÅ«r al-DÄ«n al-RanirÄ«, an Islamic scholar from Gujarat, India, who served the sultans of Aceh (1637â44) as jurisconsult and later as shaykh al-IslÄm (the highest-ranking religious office). Al-RanirÄ« was a partisan of the anti-wujÅ«diyya movement which denied the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (Al-Attas 1962: 36) and criticized Hamzahâs belief as pantheistic in the sense that he believed Godâs essence is completely immanent in the world and that God permeates everything that is seen (Al-Attas 1970: 31). This anti-wujÅ«diyya movement flourished in the middle of the seventeenth century in India. It was influenced by the Naqshbandiyya,21 under the reign of the Mughal emperor ShÄh JahÄn (r. 1628â57), but the WujÅ«diyya succeeded in gaining popularity again in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Therefore, âRaniriâs action was a reflex of the internal discord among the Indian Muslim themselves on the subject of the compatibility of the doctrine of Ibn al-ʾArabÄ« with orthodox Islamâ (Drewes 1986: 16).
This seventeenth-century religious debate on wahdat al-wujud in Aceh is very famous in the history of Indonesia. Curiously enough, The Admonitions of Seh Bari indicates that the controversies concerning wahdat al-wujud already existed in Java in the sixteenth century at the latest, when Hamzah Fansuri was active in Sumatra and the influence of the WujÅ«diyya doctrine was enormous, especially during the rule of Akbar the Great (1542â1605) in the Mughal Empire. How should we evaluate the Indian influence? Did the author only translate the foreign polemics of Sufi mysticism into the Javanese language, or did he resist the new ideas from abroad and was it his intention to protect his own philosophy? It should be noted that we can already find theoretical discussions of Sufism in sixteenth-century Javanese texts, even though Java experienced Islamization in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, much later than Aceh, where the first Islamic kingdom was established in the late thirteenth century.
The text originates from the north coast area (pasisir) of Java, where many emerging Islamic port-polities flourished at that time. The author could have been of foreign origin, as Ricklefs argues that on the north coast the Javanization of foreign Muslims and the Islamization of Javanese was underway (Ricklefs 2006: 15â29). We do indeed find some vocabulary from the Malay language, but the author describes the structure of the universe using various Javanese expressions, including in Old Javanese. He did not merely translate items of Arabic origin, because he uses examples of daily commodities used in Javanese society, such as tumbak (spear), dhuhung (keris/ceremonial dagger), tatah (chisel), wadung (hatchet), panyukur (blade for shaving), usu (a bow-shaped tool for cleaning cotton), cacathut (pincers) and Ädom kadut (sacking needle). He is harshly critical of Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs philosophy, but the rich description shows a deep understanding of it.
His expression of the Essence of the God as liwung also makes us imagine a pantheistic philosophical leaning. In any case, this literature provides us with an opportunity to reconsider Javanese religion in the sixteenth century. It is often thought that advanced Islamic knowledge was not brought to Java until after it arrived on Sumatra and in the Malay Peninsula, but the flow of knowledge may have been faster, or taken a different direction than what has been assumed.
Furthermore, this text of Sunan Bonang repeatedly emphasizes the transcendence of God and strongly criticizes the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud. Regarding union with God, only the three stages for approaching God are indicated, but the methods are not explained in the text. The last part of the text is characterized by the teaching of ethical Sufism which teaches the fulfillment of the basic obligations of Islam, which are only to be performed during the first stage. Perhaps that is what the author means by suluk in the first place. According to Seh Bari, after all, the final stage can never be achieved by human will. Considering the three axes of Sufism described by Tonaga (2005), namely mysticism, ethics, and popular veneration, the content preached by this text can be classified in the category that gives prominence to the ethical aspect.
In addition, given the significance of the textâs claim of attribution to the âlegitimateâ wali, Sunan Bonang, who gave religious authority to Javanese kings and punished heretical walis, it is quite possible to assume that this type of ethical Sufism may have been a leading faction at the time, or was considered important.
8 The Meaning of Heresy
As we have seen, the admonitions as to what kinds of understandings make one an infidel are regularly repeated in the text. The names of âwrongâ persons or teachings are repeated in order to mark the contrast with the right ones. The same holds for another surviving sixteenth-century Javan manuscript, also published by Drewes in 1954, under the title Een Javaanse Primbon uit de Zestiende Eeuw (âA Javanese Primbon from the Sixteenth Centuryâ).22 This text focuses on what true believers and Sufis should do, while its teachings are more basic and more of a moral nature. However, here also the differences between Muslim and infidel/hypocrite (munafik) are emphasized repeatedly.
The author of âThe Admonitions of Seh Bariâ makes an effort to analyze Godâs transcendence precisely because he is aware of the existence of âhereticalâ teachings. The subtleties offered help us to imagine how difficult this discussion must have been for religious intellectuals in the sixteenth century. It is plausible that the same debate created the literature that has as its theme the heresy of people like the wali Siti Jenar, who proclaimed himself one with God. On the other hand, we can find the following sentences in the Suluk Malang-sumirang, a text which was allegedly written by the âhereticalâ Sunan Panggung who was burnt at the stake, on the orders of the King of Demak.
Dosaâgung alit tan dèn singgahi, ujar kupur kapir kang dèn ambah, wus liwung pasikÄpane, tan andulu-dinulu, tan angrasa tan angrasani, wus tan ana pinaran, pan jatining suwung, ing suwunge iku ana, ing anane iku surasa sajati, wus tan ana rinasan.23 (Poerbatjaraka 1952: 100)
If you avoid neither big nor small crimes, and if you follow the words of infidels, it shows your empty body.24 You do not see and are not seen, do not feel and do not understand. You are without direction because the essence is empty and in the emptiness is the existence. In the existence there are the real meanings. Already there is nothing to be felt.
Pangrunguningsun duk rare cili, nora SÄlam dening asÄmbahyang tan SÄlam dening pangangge, tan SÄlam dening saum, nora SÄlam dening nastiti, tan SÄlam dening tapa, nora dening laku, tan SÄlam dening aksara nora SÄlam yèn anut aksara iki, tininggal nora Äsah.
SÄlame ika kadi punÄndi, kang ingaranan SÄlam punika, dening punapa SÄlame, pan ing wong kapir iku, nora dening amangan bawi, yadyan asÄmbahyanga, yèn durung awÄruh, ing sajatine wong SÄlam, midÄra anglikasan amontang-manting, jatine kapir kawak. (Poerbatjaraka 1952: 101)
I often heard when I was a child, that one is not a Muslim because of prayer or because of clothing, fasting, thriftiness, austerities, behavior, this script or that script, but that not adhering to these things was illegal.
What is Islam like? How does something called Islam become Islam? Eating pork does not make one an unbeliever. If you pray without knowing the truth of being Muslim, even if you go around like a spinning spool, actually you will be always an outdated infidel.
This plea that one must follow each teaching of Islam, but even if one follows them, if it is only in form and if one does not understand the true meaning, one will remain an infidel in the end, shows the dilemma of Javanese Muslims who continue to search for true answers.
Although Pigeaud explains that in the Pasisir literature âthe mystic and the legalistic orthodox currents existed side by sideâ (Pigeaud 1967, 1: 78â81), the sixteenth-century text discussed in this chapter shows that the various controversies surrounding Sufism had already entered Java (at least among the Islamic scholars), where Islam had only begun to spread its influence, while the author, who claims to be âorthodoxâ in the name of GhazÄlÄ« and Sunan Bonang, insisted on the transcendence of God and emphasized ethics. The harshness of the criticisms against the wahdat al-wujud philosophy makes us imagine that there were certainly people who supported the philosophy.
In this chapter, in response to the frequently used historical explanation that the influx of Sufism facilitated the Islamization of Java, I have attempted to clarify the nature of Sufism in Java in the sixteenth century through an analysis of manuscripts from the same period. I believe that it is possible to trace the history of Javanese Sufism by examining the religious discussions of the walis in manuscripts from the seventeenth century onward and comparing them with those of the sixteenthth century, although the number of manuscripts copied in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is small, and the acquisition or date of writing is uncertain. Comparisons with religious debates that developed in South Asia during the same period will also be important to understand the background of the discussions in Java.
It is difficult to understand the history of Islamâs spread in Java during the period of Islamic influx in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. However, by rereading the manuscripts from the perspective of historical changes and interregional comparisons, it will become possible to use the manuscripts for the purpose of writing the history of Islam.
Bibliography
Al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naguib. 1962. âRaniri and the Wujudiyyah of 17th century Aceh: A Critical Study of Nuruâl Din al-Raniriâs refutation of Hamzah Fansuriâs mystical philosophy, based on Raniriâs Hujjatuâl-Siddiq li dafʾiâl-Zindiq and Yibyan fi Maʾrifatiâl-Adyan and other Malay sources.â Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.
Al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naguib. 1970. The Mysticism of Hamzah Fansuri. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Braginsky, Vladimir. 2001. âOn the Copy of Hamzah Fansuriâs Epitaph Published by C. Guillot & L. Kalus.â Archipel 62: 21â33.
De Casparis, J.G. 1948. âDe Betekenis van het Rijm in de Structuur van het Javaans.â TBG 82: 401â537.
Drewes, G.W.J. 1954. Een Javaanse Primbon uit de Zestiende Eeuw. Leiden: Brill.
Drewes, G.W.J. 1968. âJavanese Poems Dealing with or Attributed to the Saint of Bonangâ BKI 124.2: 209â240.
Drewes, G.W.J. 1969. The Admonitions of Seh Bari. A 16th Century Javanese Muslim Text Attributed to the Saint of Bonang Re-edited and Translated with an Introduction. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Drewes, G.W.J. 1978. An Early Javanese Code of Muslim Ethics. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Drewes, G.W.J. and L.F. Brakel. 1986. The Poems of Hamzah Fansuri. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Leiden: Brill, 2012. URL: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/.
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, edited by Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Leiden: Brill, 2016. URL: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/.
Gericke, J.F.C and T. Roorda. 1901. Javaansch-Nederlandsch Handwoordenboek. Amsterdam and Leiden: Johannes Muller & E.J. Brill.
Jansz, P. ed. 1913. Practisch Javaansch-Nederlandsch woordenboek : met latijnsche karakters. Semarang, Surabaya, Den Haag: G.CT. van Dorp.
Kitab Pangeran Bonang. Late 16th century (?). Leiden University Library. Cod. Or. 1928.
Pigeaud, Theodore G.Th. 1967. Literature of Java : Catalogue Raisonné of Javanese Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden and Other Public Collections in the Netherlands. Vol. I: Synopsis of Javanese Literature 900â1900 A.D. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Poerbatjaraka. 1952. Kapustakan Djawi. Djakarta: Penerbit Djambatan.
Poerwadarminta, W.J.S. 1939. Baoesastra Djawa. Groningen, Batavia: J.B. Woltersâ Uitgevers-Maatschappij.
Ricklefs, M.C. 2006. Mystic Synthesis in Java: A History of Islamization from the Fourteenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries. Norwalk: East Bridge.
Robson, Stuart. 1981. âJava at the Crossroads: Aspects of Javanese Cultural History in the 14th and 15th Centuries.â BKI 137.2â3: 259â292.
Robson, Stuart and Singgih Wibisono. 2002. Javanese-English Dictionary. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions.
Schrieke, B.J.O. 1916. Het Boek van Bonang. Dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: P. den Boer.
Soewojo Wojowasito. 1980. A Kawi Lexicon, edited by Roger F. Mills. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, no. 17. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Tonaga Yasushi. 2005. âSufism in the Past and Present: Based on the Three-axis Framework of Sufism.â Special Issue I: Sufism and Tariqa Movements in the Era of Islamic Resurgence. Nihon Tohogakkai Nenpo 21.2: 7â21.
Wehr, Hans. 1994. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, edited by J.M. Cowan. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services.
Wilkinson, R.J.A. 1932. Malay-English Dictionary (Romanised). 2 vols. Mytilene, Greece: Salavopoulos and Kinderlis Art-Printers.
Zoetmulder, P.J. 1982. Old Javanese-English Dictionary. âs-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Zoetmulder, P.J. 1995. Pantheism and Monism in Javanese Suluk literature: Islamic and Indian Mysticism in an Indonesian Setting, edited and translated by M.C. Ricklefs. Leiden: KITLV Press.
The presence of walis has created a variety of meanings in Javanese literature; see the chapters by Ronit Ricci, Verena Meyer, and Els Bogaerts.
According to Drewes, the date of the compilation of this text can be fixed at the 17th century at the earliest (Drewes 1978: VII).
Kropak means a book made of leaves of the lontar palm (Borrassus flabellifera).
Seh Bari is spelled differently across manuscripts: Sekhul Bari, Sek Bari, Shehul Bari, and so on. Here I use the spelling Seh Bari in accordance with previous studies.
AbÅ« ḤÄmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-GhazÄlÄ«.
Drewes does not dispute the attribution of this 16th-century text to Sunan Bonang in his 1968 article, but in his 1969 publication he presents the chronological impossibility of attributing this student to Sunan Bonang.
If a translation does not indicate the source, it is my own translation.
IḥyÄʾ Ê¿UlÅ«m al-DÄ«n (The Revival of Religious Knowledge) is al-GhazÄlÄ«âs masterpiece, but the exact title of the TamhÄ«d (Preface) is not known, so it is unclear to which book he is referring.
The word suksma is omitted in Drewesâ book.
This sentence is followed by the sentence âHe mitraningsun, sangsiptaning ⦠wong iku mÄneâ in the manuscript, but Drewes judged from the context that the sentence should have come after âkalawan ingsun anakseni .⦠wali muʾmin kabeh.â and annotated it as such. I agree with Drewesâs judgment. Since there are many sentences in the text that begin with âHe mitraningsun,â it can be assumed that the copyist omitted it.
In the manuscript, this sentence is followed by the Arabic quote âWalakin laisa lidhatihi waqifunâ is written here, but according to Drewes, that sentence should be after ânora ing dheweke.â I assume that Drewes wrote âArabic quotation lackingâ here because he could not find the Arabic sentence that should be there.
Drewes states that there is no written Arabic quote that should be here either.
liwang-liwung means â(A Forest) that is large and lonely (where man may become mad and senseless)â (âGroot en eenzaam (om er dol en zinneloos in te worden) van eenn woud,â Gericke-Roorda 1901, 2: 125). De Casparis gives the meaning of the expression alas gung liwang-liwung as labyrinthine jungle (âhet labyrinthische oerwoudâ), but states that the word liwung is difficult to interpret because in Modern Javanese it means rolling around in a frenzy (âvan razernij rondtollendâ) and in Old Javanese it means hollow (âholâ) (Casparis 1948: 453).
The term was not used in Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs own writings. Rather, the term was used in the writings of the inheritors of Ibn al-Ê¿ArabÄ«âs thought and eventually became popularized as a cosmology.
ma(ng)sana in the manuscript.
ingdining in the manuscript.
Tawḥīd is the act of believing and affirming that God is one and unique, in a word: monotheism. For the Muslim, it is believing and affirming what is stated by the first article of the Muslim profession of faith: âthere is no other god but Godâ (lÄ ilÄha illÄʾllÄh). See Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, s.v. âTawḥīd,â accessed May 28, 2022.
MaÊ¿rifa means knowledge, cognition, ⦠which enables a person to recognize, to identify a thing. See Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, s.v. âMaÊ¿rifa,â accessed May 28, 2022.
Drewes omitted âluhure, ingkang andrÄbeni kagungan kang kaliwatâ which follows this âkaliwatâ (Or 1928: 75â78).
âThe date of his death has once again become a subject of debate, since Claude Guillot and Ludvik Kalus, in contrast to earlier scholars, dated it to 933/1527, on the basis of a funeral stele in Mecca, which they identify as Hamzahâs. Nevertheless, given the weight of current scholarship, the date 998/1590 or a short time later, suggested by Gerardus Drewes, seems more probable.â (Braginsky 2001; see also Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, s.v. âFansuri, Hamzah,â accessed May 28, 2022).
The Naqshbandiyya Sufi order obecame influential in Indo-Muslim life. Ê¿Abd al-Ḥaqq of Dihli (d. 1642), a Naqshbandi saint in India, rejected wahdat al-wujud and propounded the theory of waḥdat al-shuhÅ«d (oneness of witnessing, a doctrine asserted by Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624), an Indian divine and mystic who claimed Allahâs supremacy. He argued that Allah and His creation are not one, and that man can only âwitnessâ Allah and experience oneness with Him in the mystical path). See Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, svv. âWaḥdat al-ShuhÅ«dâ and âNakshbandiyya,â accessed May 28, 2022.
We can find identical contents in text II in Or. 10.811, published by Drewes (1978) under the title of An Early Javanese Code of Muslim Ethics. Drewes assumes that the date of compilation of this manuscript can be fixed in the 17th century at the earliest based on âinternal evidenceâ (Drewes 1978: vii).
Risasan in the book.
Here I translate pasikÄpan as âbody,â but this word can be translated as âattitude.â