________________
274
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
point out a few of the many inaccuracies of statements, inconsistencies, exaggerations and wrong conclusions that have unfortunately crept into a critical work like this, representing as it does the inaugural research work of the Vizianagram College. We do so in no spirit of disparagement to the author, but entirely in the interests of genuine historical research, the cause of which the work, as it is, does not seem to advance. We hope that these will be removed in a subsequent edition.
may
no
Among the conclusions of the author that remain unsubstantiated by positive evidence we mention his view that Tiruvalluvar, Tolkåppiyar and the author of the Kalingattuparani were Jains. It is well-known that every religionist has claimed the author of Kural as belonging to his religion, and expressions like (p. 41) Malarmisai-Ehinân and, Engupattan' and the evidence of the commentator of Nilakési (p. 43) by no means finally establish that 'Kural Was certainly composed by a Jain' (p. 89). There is also evidence to agree with the author and those who identify the author of the Kural with Kundakunda alias Elâcharya, the contemporary and instructor of Sivaskanda of Kâñchi in the first century A.D. (P. 43). But the way in which Tiruvalluvar alludes to the Brahmans in certain of his couplets 'ஆபயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூன்ம puur' gives us the impression that he regarded the maintenance of the Brahmanical-Veda 88 indispensable to the well-being of the state, a notion which no Jain author would care to lay stress on. Moreover, attributes to Vishnu in such expressions as தாமரைக்கண்ணான், and அறவாழி
or to Siva have been found in the work Altogether it seems to be correct to concur with Professor S. K. Aiyangar, who after a minute examination of the Kural has concluded that its author, though undoubtedly belonging to a lower caste, was Brahminical in religion rather than Jain (p. 131. Some Contributions of South India to Indian Culture.') As regards Tolkåppiyar the author quotes a reference to him by a contemporary, PanambarapAr, பல்புகழ் நிறுத்தபடி மையோன், which in his opinion is sufficient to prove that he was a Jain. (P. 39.) But, as the author of Tolkappiyam is believed to have been the son of Jamadagni, and as he lived at a time much anterior to the advent of Jainism in the Tamil land, it is improbable that he was a Jain. In the case of Kalingattu parani's author, Mr. Ramaswami Aiyengar quotes a stanza attributed to him by tradition, composed in reply to a question by Apayan, in support of the author being a Jain. But apart from the dubious nature of this evidence there is nothing in support of the author's view, On the other hand it is preposterous to suggest
[DECEMBER, 1924
that the author of a work professedly devoted to the description of bloodshed, as this work is could have been a Jain, the fundamental conception of whose religion is Ahimsa.
The section on the Siva Nayanmars and Vaishnava Alvars is unfortunately marred by a series of inconsistent and wrong conclusions and misquotations. The author's lack of consistency exhibits. itself in such views as the following:-He regards (p. 61) the Tamil work Periyapuranam as being 'replete with fanciful accounts of miraculous incidents which no modern student of history would care to accept', and almost immediately after this indictment, he relies upon the testimony of this work for historical information for several aspects of Jain and otherhistory, such as the persecution of the Jains, the identification of the Kalabhras and others. The most prominent blunder in this section is met with in the attempt made by our author to break new ground in identifying Mahendravarman II as the actual Pallava king converted by Appar, (p. 66). Earlier in the section (p. 65) he says that the first half of the seventh century A.D. was the period of the three saints Appar, Sambandar and Siruttondar, Almost immediately, he contradicts this by his statement that TilakaParaméévaravarman I, and her husband fought vati, sister of Appar, was a contemporary of this king's battles against the Chalukyas. It is well-known that this king lived far into the second half of the 7th century. The author adds to the confusion by stating that the Pallava king converted by Appar was Mahendravarman II. If, as the author says, Appar was yet a Jain spending his life in the Jain-cloisters at Tirupâpuliyúr at the time of the death of his sister's husband in the wars of Paraméévaravarman I against the Chalukyas, we are unable to understand how it would have been possible for the saint to have converted Mahendravarman II, who was the father of Paramavaravarman and must have been dead when Paramêévaravarman I began to rule. Apart from this confusion, into which the author has been evidently led by his ignorance of Pallava genealogy, there is no evidence that Mahendravarman II was a Jain in the early part of his reign; whereas in the case of Mahendravarman I, who is usually supposed to have been converted to Sivaism by Appar, his inscription at Trichinopoly appears to contain a clear allusion to this event. (South Ind. Ins., Vol. I, p. 28-30.)
As an instance of the author's tendency to arrive at conclusions without evidence, we might point out his view on the prevalence of religious persecution in the Tamil country. He appears to believe in the story of the Jain persecution described in the Siva traditional accounts, including the impalement of the 8,000 Jains. (P. 67.) For this
