Tirukkural (Book-Burning in India)

[Guest guest]

"vishalsagarwal" wrote:

 

> I have seen a detailed discussion on this on a Tamil list

> (Agathiyar?) and there too someone pointed out that the

> depiction of Thiruvalluvar as a Jain on a British coin is

> hardly proof that he was a Jain!

 

The author of Tirukkural was clearly a Jain. However Tirukkural

was not written specifically for Jains, but for everyone; just like

Amarakosha was written by a Buddhist, but not for Buddhists alone.

Tirukkural generally reflects the values of the Tamil society at that

time, in fact of Indian society itself.

 

Perhaps a majority of scholars regard Tirukkural's author to be a

Jain.

 

The Tamil classic Silappadikaram is now regarded to be the work by a

Jain, although it was not always so. This text again is not intended

to be for Jains alone.

 

> It is not even necessary that the sage has to be EITHER a

>Hindu OR a Jain when there is no clearcut distinction between

>Hindus and Jains in large parts of India even today.

 

Historically the term "Hindu" has meant Indian. Only in 19th century

it came to be used for popular Hindu religion with the exclusion of

Jains.

 

In this context it may be useful to look at the discussion on

definition of the term Hindu given by Elst at

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm

I would largely agree with his conclusion there.

 

When Tirukkural was composed, neither the term "Hindu" nor any

equivalent term existed that would exclude Jainism or Buddhism. The

state of religious traditions present in Tamilnadu (and in India) at

that time is fairly accurately reflected on Manimekhalai, another

tamil classic. It mentions and describes these sects: Pramanavadi,

Shaiva-vadi, Brahma-vadi, Vaishnava, Vedism, Ajivikism, Jainism,

Samkhya, Vaisheshika, materialism and finally Buddhism.

 

Yashant