[page 2]
According to one tradition the author of this work is said to be one Tiruvalluvar about whom nothing is known except what is concocted by the imagination of a modern writer who is responsible for the fictitious story relating to Tiruvalluvar. That he is born of a chandala (untouchable) woman, that he was a brother and contemporary of almost all great Tamil writers are some of the absurd instances mentioned in this life of Tiruvalluvar. To mention it is enough is discredit it. But the more enthusiastic among the modern Tamil scholars and modern Tamils have elevated him into a Godhead and built temples in his name and conducted annual festivals analogous to the festivals associated with the other Hindu deities. And the author is claimed to be one of the Hindu deities and the work is considered to be the revelation by such a deitey . From such quarters one cannot ordinarily expect application of canons of historical criticism. So much so, whenever any hypothesis is suggested as a result of ciritical examination of the contents, it is rejected with a vehemence characteristic of uninstructed religious zial. Many so called critics who have written something or other about this great work have been careful to maintain that peculiar intellectual attitude which Samuel Johnson had when he had to report the proceedings of the House of Commons. He was particular to see that the Whigs had not the better of it. When such is the general mentality of the Tamil students and when the real spirit of research adopting the scientific and historical method is still in its infancy, it is no wonder that we have nothing worth the name in the research of Tamil literature. Hence we are handicapped in our own attempt in presenting anything like a historical account of Jaina literature.
Turning from this digression to an examination of our work, we have to mention certain facts contained in the book itself. The book contains three great topics, "Aram, Porul, Inbam", ie., Dharma, Artha and Kama. These three topics are so interpreted and expounded as to be in thorough conformity with the basic doctrine of Ahimsa. Hence it need not be emphasised that the terms here mean slightly different from what they imply in the oridinary Hindu religious work. Later Hindu religious systems, in as much they are resting on the Vedic sacrificial ritualism, cannot completely throw overboard the practice of animal sacrifice enjoned in the vedas. The term Dharma could mean, therefore, to them only Varnasrama Dharma based upon Vedas. Only three Indian systems were opposed to this doctrine of Vedic sacrifice: Jaina Darsna, Sankhya Darsana, Bauddha Darsna. Representatives of these three Darsanas were present in the Tamil land in the pre-revivalistic period. In the very beginning of the work, in the chapter on Dharma, the author gives this as his own view that it is far better and more virutuous to abstain from killing and eating any animan than to perform 1000 sacrifices. This one single verse in enough to point out that the author would not have acquiesced in any form of such sacrificial ritualism. The verse is nothing more than the paraphraseof the sanskrit words "Ahimsa paramo Dharmah". I was surprised to see this same verse quoted by a Saivite Tamil scholar to prove that the author had as his religion Vedic sacrificial ritualism.