freinds, what iam trying to say is that saivism was prevalent in sangam period. but it was not included in the 18 mel kanakku. this was due to the influence of jains. but they were classified into 11th thirumurai later in 12th century into the saiva canons. this is very much interesting. the works of kabilar,baranar and nakkeerar were excluded from sangam literature on religious bias.
saivism during sangam period is -for obvious political reasons prevailing now in tamilnadu -being sidelined or not projected at all.
11 th thirumurai is a telling example of saivism in sangam age.
> what iam trying to say is that saivism was prevalent in sangam period. > but it was not included in the 18 mel kanakku. this was due to the > influence of jains.
Keep aside the anthologies and other influence. The question is use of language and other pointers. Every literature has internal evidence.
Tamil Nadu government declares Thiruvalluvar to be born 50 years before Christ, but the language and the internal evidence point Thirukural to be written around 4-5 th century. Kalithokai and Paripatal have been found of later classical age because of the language usage and internal evidence. Same thing with Thirumurgatrupadai of Nakeerer. It was found to be a very late work? (around 7-8th century AD).
There are clear cut evidence to prove that there are different Auvaiyar, Nakkirar and Agathiyar. There is also evidence of two Kapilars,Patinathar. This is my understanding based on works of Dr.Kamil Zvelebil. I would be happy to provide reference on any question you have on my notes.
In a similar way it would be helpful for all other members if you can give the reference book based on which you have come to your conclusion. After all this a discussion board , so this would be great on your side if you can enlighten us with the books which have shaped your ideas.
> Keep aside the anthologies and other influence. The question is use of > language and other pointers. Every literature has internal evidence. > > Tamil Nadu government declares Thiruvalluvar to be born 50 years > before Christ, but the language and the internal evidence point > Thirukural to be written around 4-5 th century. Kalithokai and > Paripatal have been found of later classical age because of the > language usage and internal evidence. Same thing with > Thirumurgatrupadai of Nakeerer. It was found to be a very late work? > (around 7-8th century AD). > > There are clear cut evidence to prove that there are different > Auvaiyar, Nakkirar and Agathiyar. There is also evidence of two > Kapilars,Patinathar. This is my understanding based on works of > Dr.Kamil Zvelebil. I would be happy to provide reference on any > question you have on my notes.
re: thank you so much sir, all along i was in the mistaken idea that 11th thirumurai authors were sangam age poets. i am now clarified.
> In a similar way it would be helpful for all other members if you can > give the reference book based on which you have come to your > conclusion. After all this a discussion board , so this would be great > on your side if you can enlighten us with the books which have shaped > your ideas.
re: i was reading the thiru-avadu-thurai adheenam publications. in fact they also have cleared that the authors of the 11th thirumurai may not be the sangam age poets.
"......Tamil Nadu government declares Thiruvalluvar to be born 50 years before Christ, but the language and the internal evidence point Thirukural to be written around 4-5 th century...."
I am very much interested in knowing the internal evidence that you have detected in Thirukkural, which proves the work of Thiruvalluver was of the period 4-5 th century.
Two couplets of Thirukkkural have been used by Poets Ilango Adikal and Saththanaar in their epic poems, namely the Silappathikaaram and Manimekalai.
Sillapathikaarem and Manimekalai - both were composed during the same period by these two poets from Vanji Nagar, the capital city of the Chera king Cheran Senguttuvan - the present Kodungallur of Kerala.
Silappathikarem specifically mentions that "....kadal sool Ilankai Kayavaahu venthan..." was there at the consecration ceremony of the newly built Kannahi Temple by Cheran Senguttuvan at Vanji Nagar.
The Kayavahu Venthan was the king Gajabahu - 1 of Sri Lanka who has been positively dated as ruling during the years A.D.171-193
Hence it is clear that the Silappathikarem and Manimekalai with stories inter-related to each other, one speaking of Kovalan and Kannaki and the other of Manimekalai the daughter of Kovalan by Mathavi belongs to the period of A.D.171-193, the period the Kovalan Kannaki episode took place.
Now what is interesting is both these poets have made use of the Thiruvalluvar's couplets in their epic poems.
We shall first see the work Silappathikaarem which has made use of Thirukkural at two places.
In Manimekalai we find the Thirukkural made use of is as follows.
(1) " Theivam tholaa al kolunat trolutheluvaal peiyennap peiyum peru malai .." yentravap poiyyil pulavan porulurai therai. (refer Sirai sei kaathai of Manimekalai)
very clear the period of composition of Thirukkural was earlier than the period A.D.171, and not of the 4th or 5th century.
The 4th or 5th century was the dawn of the Pallava perion in Tamil Nadu.
Further a reference in "Kallaadam" a Saiva religious work in Tamil composed by poet Kallaadanaar - dated to the period of eleventh century TamilNadu - have mentioned about Thiruvalluvar as follows:
".....The Valluvan 'without' stating in the line of thinking of the Religious Saints, preached (the) Universal (Code of) Ethics and explained what (they) meant - to him amidst the poets "developing poetic tradition"(Thamil Sangam) the Mukkan Perumaan(God Siva) appeared with Maathu(Shakthi) and composed the first poem (of praise) and brightened the Koodal(Mathurai).
Sangam period, which falls in line with the "......Tamil Nadu government declaration that the Sage/Poet Thiruvalluvar was born 50 years before Christ,
Please read the following blog of mine for dating of Silapadikaram...it is a very brief out line... for more detailed version I can mail you Dr. Zvelebil's essays on dating of Thirukural and Silapadikaram, which has details of internal evidence. http://karkanirka.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/silapadikaramessay1/
And for Thirukural Dating there are various papers available and this is part of my personal communication with Dr. S. Palaniappan Ph.D. President South Asia Research and Information Institute
"As regards teaching of history, it is pathetic. If you read Zvelebil, he will date Tiruvalluvar to ca. 4th century AD. I consider that to be right. Tirukkural shows the spread of Jain principles as the ideal throughout the society even though they might not have been followed in practice. Also, the attitude towards meateating in TK is very different from that found in Purananuru, etc. But Tamil enthusiasts push back the date of Tiruvalluvar. In 2005, I was one of the editors of the souvenir for the FETNA convention. A person/friend who wrote an article refused to change the date of Tiruvalluvar. So we had to add a disclaimer in the front stating that the contents of the articles reflect the opinions of authors and not the opinions of the editors."
You say that since Thirukkural is embedded with a lot of Jain principles, thisis a4th century work andso you feel this as the correctdating.A wild question???Why could not have the Jains copied the meateating (I meanno meateating) principles. How sure are you that it was theso called Hindus who copied from the Jains? Just curious.
I read your article regarding the dating of Silappathikaaram, in which many of your statements are in agreement with me, which finally boils down to the fact that you are inline with what I have mentioned about the two epics as belonging to the period between A.D.171-193.
To any one who have studied the Silappathikarem & Manimekalai it is very clear that their authors (poets)Ilango Adihal - younger brother of Cheran Senguttuvan and Sattanaar lived during the period of this episode. Hence the date of these two epics too falls within this period.
Regarding Thirukkural being earlier than A.D.171 I have pointed out "positive references" in these two Epics itself, to prove my point that Thirukkural is earlier than A.D.171.
Hence I very kindly request you to re-study same and provide "your own independent views" - without relying on other Scholar's views to support you, which may be correct or "may not be correct" in the opinion of many others.
Also did you read my reference to Thirukkural in Kalladam ??? What it is your views on same. Also remember 5th century was the dawn of Pallava period. The third Sangam period ended with the Kalabhra invasion around A.D.350(4th century), and Jainism gained a "strong position" in Tamil Nadu, which prevailed in a lesser way during the Sangam period
Regarding Scholars using linguistic variation in the ancient literary works - to date them, I have "my own views" which are as follows:
"....The poets of the Sangam Tamil Acadamy composed literary works to the grammetical norms set in the Agastiyam, Tholkaappiam and other ancient grammetical works, and the Tamil Sangam too was set up with many scholarly poets in Tamil, with the sole intention of devoloping Tamil and producing high standard Tamil literary works of esteem.
Do you think either during Sangam period or post-Sangam period, any other countrymen outside the fold of Sangam Tamil Academy, would have spoken, written, or composed Literary works in Tamil to the same norms set up by Agastiyam & Tholkaappiam linguistically, in high class Tamil.
Hence could we say a literary or religious work composed by them during either of these two periods doesnot fall to that period, simply because they are not in align to Sangam Literary works liguistically, even though many other evidences "point" to such literary or religious work - to be of the above mentioned periods.
Even in a Tamil University of today, a student doing a specialised degee course in Tamil Lanuage will get accustomed to writing or composing Literary work of scholarly Tamil than the others who didnot have any such specialised study, but the average knowledge of Tamil in their schools and colleges.
Kavignar Vairamutthu and any average laymen of today, composing a poem each, could both be of the same linguistic scholarship. Could people many centuries later point to the poem composed by the average layman and say he doesnot belong the period of Kavignar Vairamutthu being year 2009.
Today we hear of Chennai Tamil, Thirutchi Tamil, Thirunelveli Tamil, Mathurai Tamil, Koyaamuththoor Tamil, which are not only linguistically slight different - as spoken and written Tamil, but even some words used too are different. Can the people centuries later taking the composition of the Thirutchi Tamils as yardstick and say the composition of the people of the other regions of today's TamilNadu, doesnot belong to year 2009.
Hence trying to estimate the period of a Literary or Religious compositions "purly" on the linguistic basis or etymological basis by Scholars cannot always be taken as the positive guidance in estimating the period of a work. It could be a "rough guidance" in the absense of any other evidences, but not in the face of many other evidences which are already available.
One question, the spread of Jain is around 4 CE - agreed. How does this related to Thirkural? I have heard it has traces of Jainism in it, Thirukural itself need not to be written when Jainism spread in TN. Jainism orginated in India around 6BCE, it could have spread in TN in 4th CE, but people might have started following it much earlier than that right? So, only the spread of Jainism is the basis to put Thirukural as 4CE?
On Thirukural Dating, Internal evidence which suggest later age of Thirukkural according to Dr.Zvelebil in his most famous book ' Smile of Murugan'.
" A number of important grammatical innovations occur in the language of this text when compared with early old Tamil of classical period: the plural suffis -kal is used with bouth nouns of higher and lower class(cf.263 marraiyavarkal,9191 puriyarkal); the conditional suffix - el occurs frequently (368 untel,655 ceyvanel , 566 inrel etc.) negative forms in -amal belong to invotations too (101,103 ceyyamal, 1024 culamal) there are more of such features which show that , Thirukkural cannot be contemporaneous with (or older than) the "Cankam" poems but later."
"There is definitely a hiher percentage of sanskrit loan words in Thirukkural than in Tolkappiyam and in the "Cankam" works. A compelete list is given in S.Vaiyapuri pillai's Tamilccutarmanikal pp 72-73."
Zvelebil goes on to list all these words and differs with Vayapuri's number of 137 words and rather suggest around 100 words. Which is still higher compared to Sangam age.
"A few of the metaphors in the text seem to be loan translations from Sanskrit, e.g.piravip perun katal " the ocean of rebirths": Sanskrit Samsarasagara - Just as there is a not negligible influence of sanskrit vocabulary on Thiruvalluvar's lexis, the author of the Kural is undoubtedly to some extent indebted to Sanskritic sources like Manavadharamasastra, Kautily's work etc. Thus Thirukural 43 is almost a Translation of Manav. iii . 72, Thirukkural 54 is vauge echo of Manav. ix.12. Thiruk. 58 od Manav. v.155, Thiruk. 396 about learning has a parallel in Manav. ii. 212. Thiruk. 501 (the method of testing candidates for ministerial office) is based undoubtedly on Kautilya I.10 (upadha-"the moral test"), Thiruk. 385 mentions the same four kinds of acts of a kind as those started in Manav. vii.99,100 and Kamandaka I.20 etc. How ever ,this is, in itself, of great importance,it would be foolish to deny Thiruvalluvar, a mind so universal,cultured,learned and eclectic, knew these basic Sanskritic sources on dharma and niti . He was without doubt a part of one great Indian ethical,didactic tradition. It is more important that he was also integral part of the non-Sanskritic and pre-Sanskritic Tamil Tradition; this fact is seen not only from his conception of "pleasure" which so typically a reflection of the akam genre, but also from the all prevading pragmatic, this -wordly, emperical and ,to agreat extent, humanisitic and universalistic character of his particular conception of Dharma and Niti."
Smile of Murugan page 169-171.
There are more details on Dating of Thirukkural in his "Tamil Literature" and "Companion study to History of Tamil Literature" books. Tired of Typing now will post the details in that book soon.
Further reading on Language of Thirukkural " FOr compelete Linguistic analysis of the text cf. J.J.Glazov,Morphemic Analysis of the language of Thirukkural, in Introduction to Historical Grammar of Tamil Language, Moscow,1967,113- 176."
Im very glad " VAIRAM" [ I salute you , sir! ] has stated that there were many ' Auvaiyaar' s and many ' Nakeerar's.
1) the Auvaiyaar who wrote those great tamil works lke aathi choodi, ? kondrai Ventan' etc, IS very different from the lady of Paari's era. (and is said to be 3rd Auvaiyar) 2 the TIRUMURUGAATRUPADAI mentions specifially the PRESENT AARU PADAI VEEDU GAL . I could never accept that a Sangam period Pulavar could be specific in that 1- 3 CE era can mention specific temples which preceded the stone temple era , started by Parameswara Pallavan - at Kuram- now completely lost[ father of Parameswaran the 2nd also known as Rajasimhan of ' shore temple and ' Kanchi Kailasanathar temple ' fame ]. BUT, a Nakkirar of 7- 9 CE can clearly discuss these 6 temples. By the way, much of these temples were improved by the late Sando Sinnapa Devar of movieland fame, BUT, in 1981, [when I first visited these 6 temples ], the temple of the 6th Padai veedu, Pazhamuthir Cholai was a mere shack- the instrangience of the administrators of Alagar Kovil [ ' the land / owners/ gaurdians] blocked every body , even S S Devar. Now of course things are improved... from Ellaar See ( L R C )
> >>.in 1981, [when I first visited > these 6 temples ], the temple of the 6th Padai veedu, Pazhamuthir > Cholai was a mere shack- > > > wasnt there always a doubt whether this was the 6th house. > whats the stus of kathirkamam then?
re: pazhamuthircholai is the present day azhagar koil. it was changed to a vaishnavite shrine by madurai nayaks. you can see vinayaka with "namam".namam for saivites !!
is Azhagar Koil one of the 108 thirupathis. also i saw another alagar koil in madurai city? whats the history?
venketesh
is mentioned even in Silappadhikaaram etc which is atleast 600 years before the Madurai Nayaks time. And it is mentioned as temple of Vishnu only. > > Vinayagar is very common in any temple. We can see a lot of Vishnu temples with Vinayagar. Thiruvallikkeni Parthasarathy Temple, Kanchipuram Varadarajar Temple, et al are just a few examples. > > Namam for Saivite deity in Vishnu temple or Sandhanam with Kunguma pottu for Vishnu in Saivite temples are just out of the local tradition of the temple. No other sanctity for it. > > > Regards, > Venkatesh > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http:// messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ >
An Approximate guess from my side...my answer would be on this point... Early Hindus/Aryans believed in Animal Sacrifice. Even in Ramayana you can see Brahmins performing animal sacrifice. Only after arrival one Upanishads close to the end of BC (probably 2bc or later)..(I forgot the Name of the Upanishads will verify it)...the animal sacrifice was replaced...replacement was that the Brahmin now presents his breath as a sacrifice to the fire. The Animal was substituted by the breath of the Brahmin. This was very late development and basically after Buddhism and Jainism.
As far as I remember from school History , Ashoka after converting to Buddhism asked his country men to become non meat eaters for at least a day in a week.
vegetarianism. Probably there was no major rule like that Hinduism about meat eating in those period.
Again this is my assumption based on few bits and pieces I have read. If any one can give a more clear picture it would be helpful.
And in case of Tamil Nadu... the Sangam Literature has no reference of strict adherence to vegetarianism. In fact meat eating and divinity never mixed to my knowledge. Animal sacrifice was major ritual in worship of Murugan. Ram/Goat was cut in prayers to him. Then suddenly you have literature which teaches you non meat eating principles i.e Thirukural. Some where there is a missing continuity. Which suggest Thirukural cannot be earlier (along with the language evidence). It is a known fact Jainism flourished in that period followed by the revival of Vedic Hinduism in South. The Two pointers here are, Indigenous religion or southern Hinduism (before Sanskritisation) didn't have anything against meat eating. Period of flourish of Jains before revival of Vedic Hinduism.
So either Vedic Hinduism influenced Southern Hinduism or Jainism did. But around 4th century -6th century(end of Early sangam era - era of least influence of any other culture on south) Jainism was flourishing. So the logic suggest that Jainism had influenced Tamils in vegetarianism.
Yes, it isone of the 108 divya desams. The one in Maduraicity is also a divya desam. It iscalled the Koodal-azhagar koil. In the pAsurams it is called as "thirukkUdal" while the KaLLazhagar kOil is always called "ThirumAlirunchOlai".
The one in the city is where Periyazhwar is said to have debated and established the supremity of Narayana and started singing "pallANdu pallANdu" which, even now, forms the first verses of recitalon any occasion.
Thanks for the clarification. But are we not confusing between AnimalSacrifice-Vegetarianism-Ahimsa here.
If you see, you say that AnimalSacrifice was done by Brahmins. Fine.But where does it say that Brahminsate meat in there? Again, I ask this question, only because I see that meat was adiscard for the Brahmins always.And if the Animal Sacrifice was stopped after the Jains influence,it is only the Ahimsa principle which wasenforced strongly by the Jains, as I see. Iwill even agree with this. Jains and Buddhists did emphasize a lot on Ahimsa and hence these sacrifices stopped.
Regarding Sangam literature nottalking any specifics aboutnon-meateating, this is precisely why I said that the Vedicreligion is somewhat different from theTamizh religion. Ihadwritten earlier about theusage of Thali in the marriage rituals.Thali is essential part of the Tamizh culture while the Vedic religion adopted it after the migration. (There was no invasion asit is being propagated purportedly now). Also the Vedics used to burn the dead while the Tamizhs use to bury the dead.
Soconsidering the dates of Jains influence on Tamizhs and thepossibility that Vedics would have influenced theTamizhs even before the change could have been brought about by the Vedic Brahmins first and lateremphasized by Jains a lot. Again I only see thisas another possibility as the"discontinuity", you pointed, is still a culprit in understanding the true history.
>> But where does it say that Brahmins ate meat in there? Again, I ask this question, only because I see that meat was a discard for the Brahmins always.
Are you sure about this? I was reading manusmriti last week and i could understand that brahmins were allowed to eat meat. But only of certain animals. Also, in 'Engey Brahmaman' by Cho, he opines that during the vedic times, it was not uncommon for the brahmins to hv meat. Now im confused :)
Then the most interesting question to be answered here is why Vedic brahmins/Aryans didn't eat meat? Jains mainly opposed it since it meant to murder of an living being. This principle of theirs can be tranced in them not eating anything grown down the ground and strict Jains wearing a cloth over their mouth. It is sort of well documented(Ramayana, Mahabaratha) that early Aryans/Vedic Brahmins killed animal for sacrifice. So in principle their non meat eating must have been different from that of the Jain principle of not killing any living being.
Another thing to consider is Jainism was popular even during Sangam age. There are lot of Jain mountain paintings and carvings which are dated in BC in Tamil Nadu. If I am right they brought down brahmi from north to spread their religion. Also thing to note is during Ashoka period lot of northern Bhuddist Monks would entered Tamil Nadu to spread their religion. At the same though Vedic Hinduism was brought down by Brahmins, it didn't receive much wide spread popularity(early Sangam period), though it was highly respected.
And again no one can be certain about unwritten history...all we can try to do is try to bring some logic and assume this must have happened.
But the biggest problem which hits Indian History is No culture /religion develops in Isolation. Each culture influences the other one in a direct or indirect way. What we have in present is amalgam of so many cultures. So when we try to trace the origin of something with current perspective of things it is surely going to mislead us some where.
Now at least one question seems to be solved, There seems to be a sure influence of Jains and Bhuddist in Strict Vegetarian principles of Hindus.
I remember some one writing about Hinduism. "The religion doesn't have any restrictions, it takes good out of every religion." Some thing like this basically ..dont remember the exact quote.
If that is what you read yesterday, I am sure you have enlightened me and also confused me now. Hi Hi. I havent read the manusmriti at all. Is it said clearly that the Brahmins were allowed to eat some meat? I yes, I stand changed on my views.
Then I see Vairams point in saying that the Jains influenced Vegetarianism.
Agreed. In fact Mouli's messagecorrected my viewson the Vegetarianism. If what he said was true (I believehim though) then Iagree to your views that Vegetarianismamongst theso called Hindus was the influence of Jains.
if alagar koil is a divya thesam then a switch over from a saivaite shrine during naik period is not possible.
> he one in Maduraicity is also a divya desam. It iscalled the Koodal-azhagar koil. In the pAsurams it is called as "thirukkUdal" while the KaLLazhagar kOil is alwayscalled "ThirumAlirunchOlai".
actually i once stayed in the hotel just behind it. infact members rahul and ananda natarajan and I had a meeting there.
Now you have placed me in a delicate position like koundamani says :-) I may be wrong..This was what i got from the net..Cho also talked about this in 'Engey Bramanan' in Jaya TV on wednesdays episode i guess.. members, pitch in and save me :)
I remember something about Agathiar's story. A asuran Vaathabi got the boon that he can regain his life even when cut into pieces. He used this to kill the sages living there. Vaathabi will change himself into a goat and his friend would cook him to food. Then he would call a sage for a feast that a sage should not deny(SIRARTHA BOJANAM). At last when Agathiar was trapped to it he digested the goat by calling the power of Lord Vinayaga. This story shows that even sages ate meat on those days. One question. Are sages the fore fathers of Brahmins?
Another thing to note here is we are not going totally into issue of meat eating of Brahmins. I just remember VJ telling me some time ago that Rama was meat eater in Ramayana. This simply means that Hinduism accepted meat eating, While Jains and Buddhists very strictly opposed it.
"The soma sacrifice was the most important and could last up to twelve years. Since the soma plant was imported from distant mountains, it had to be purchased. A ritual drama re-enacted this business and aggressive Aryan history by showing the buyer snatching back the calf, which was paid for the soma plant, after the transaction occurs. The soma plant was then placed in a cart and welcomed as an honored guest and king at the sacrifice. Animals were slain and cut up in the rites before their meat was eaten. After various offerings and other ceremonies the soma juice is poured and toasted to different gods, and finally the text lists the sacrificial fees, usually goats, cows, gold, clothes, and food." http://www.san.beck.org/EC7-Vedas.html
The above text I surutified from net , clearly shows that in Hinduism meat eating was accepted though might not been endorsed.
Whether Brahmins ate meat or not is not the topic here to my knowledge. Brahmins participated in such rituals as priests. And hence I feel strict vegetarianism principle should have been an influence outside of the religion.
Regarding the example of Rama, please note that He was a Kshatriya. Iknow for sure Hinduism, per se, did not prohibit meat-eating. Rama, as a Kshatriya,was indeed supposed to eat meat.
But as you say the topic is not on whether Brahmins ate meatearlier. Sorry for diverting the topic. Let us come back to dating ofThiruvalluvar.
Yeah VV thats my point, Though Rama was Kshtriya he was a Hindu. I pointed that out to say Hinduism accepted Meat eaters.
Thirukkural Dating - one thing for sure is, it is after Sangam due to language evidence. The next thing to note is, if its after Sangam then when was it actually written.
So when you probe it you get two sets of events, One th Didactic period in Tamil Literature. Inna Narpathu Iniyavai narpathu , naladiyar,naan mani kadigai etc etc... all telling what you should do and what you shouldn't next is the flourishing Jain religion under Kalabhras between end of Sangam and starting of Bakthi period.
Also there are lot references of Jain philosophies in TK ..(I am not going into the bigger topic of whether Valluvar was Jain or not )..Valluvar was knowledgeable in Sanskrit literature and Jain philosophies as well as all Tamil culture is a safer bet...
So Dr.Zvelebil and other scholars come to conclusion that it must be written in the didactic period i.e 4-6th century. There are many scholars who date it differently but none to my knowledge before BC. Some have dated it even to 10 AD.
But at present at scholars circle Dr.Zvelebil's dating is widely accepted since it makes more sense than any other dating and logic. If some one comes out with better reasoning then we should move on to that , but till that time Dr.Zvelebil's dating is a safer and considerably accurate dating!
Looks agreeable.But sorry, one more confusion.How did the TN government fix the date forThiruvalluvar as 50 years before the birth of Christ? Just Curious to see the other perspective.
Ahimsa was not new to Hinduism and it was very much preached by the vedas. Saying that Jainism and buddhism only taught Ahimsa is not true. But for sure these sects had a great influence on the Hindu way of life.
Hinduism was not against meat eating. As the members pointed, sacrifices were common. It might not seem right in today's context but on philosophical levels it had great inner meanings. Brahmins did consume meat, but not as food but only as prasadam from yagnas. Vedas specify what animal and what part exactly should be used and only a pepper sized meat from that particular part of the animals body was consumed, not eaten but directly swallowed by brahmins, as prasadam (source Maha periyava in 'Deivathin Kural')
Since Jainism and Bhuddism started taking prominence, Hindus way of life was influenced by these religion and slowly sacrifices were reduced. these should the period under discussion.
I am not sure about vedic Hinduism's influence in Tamil culture and definitely not during the 2 BC to 5AD, because, if I am correct, Tholkappiyam which is the oldest of sangam literature (some say it is from 2500 BC) has references to vedas and 'anthanars'. Experts can correct me if I am wrong.
Buddhist do eat meat. As per Buddhism, a monk should only eat by taking biksha and should not refuse anything that is offered. So even Buddha himself have consumed meat, when it is offered to him, as he should not say no to what is given to him as biksha. This concept was modified a bit and thats why we see the Chinese and Japanese Buddhist do eat everything that has life. :)
Influence of Jainism and Buddism on Tirukural - this is a highly debatable thing and I think there are lots of arguments and counter arguments for this. But the argument that its a hindu literature and not a jain literature has more plus points. I dont exactly remember the source but in 2004/05 when this was discussed in our group, one member - Priya vaishnava gave beautiful arguments that Tirukural is Hindu literature and not Jain.(I cannot forget her, as she was the one who inspired me to read Deivathin Kural).
My personal thought - when Jainism was preaching sanyasam extensively (Rajasimha had 'Somaskandha' in all the temples only to break this Jains influence on Sanyasa, to show the common man that even god is with family and so we should not get into sanyasa just like that) how can a jain write a 'kamathu paal' one among the 3 main divisions of Tirukural? Aram is ok, porul and inbam are definitely not Jains way of life? (atleast in those days. Today all Pawn brokers are Jains :) )
Ilavarasi - I have heard the story you said, but I think Agathiyar was not offered meat, but the asura was killed, burned and the ash was mixed in a drink (may be juice, I dont remember) and offered to the sage. I am not sure about which version is true but the crux is he entered the sage's stomach somehow and the sage digested him by his power.
As I mentioned in the post I would stick on to say Valluvar was knowledgeable in Jainism, Sanskrit Literature and Tamil indigenous culture. I surely wouldn't go into debate of which religion he belonged to. The greatness of the Literature that even after so many years every body from every culture wants to claim its theirs. G.U.Pope claimed it was Christian Literature. TK transcends all religions and is universal truth. To me only claim we can have on that Literature is as Tamilians since it was written in Tamil and we should be proud about it.
And VV, Thiruvalluvar dating by govt. is like Tamil New year decision. No one knows the Valid reason! The basic fact is due to the reason they wanted to project Tamil language as very old and before Christian era. But these days we have so many epigraphic proof to show Tamil was very very old.
And Satish on Tholkappiyam, The text is one of the most interpolated books in the whole world. The Ur text is dated around 100 BC but interpolations have taken place even in 6th 7th century AD. And no major critical study has been done on it. So it is really not safe to quote Tholkappiyam since it is never been accurately dated. All we know is the original Ur text is very old and many people have contributed in the interpolations. And again there is another big contreversy whether Tholkappiyar is Jain or not."Vaiyapuri Pillay has suggested that Tolkappiyanaar may have belonged to a heterodox Jaina grammatical tradition called aintiram(a view which other scholars like Burnell, Takanobu and Zvelebil share) "
Usaully when I explain people about one culture's influence over another I try to take this example....
Chilli was brought to India only by the British from South America. So technically we didn't have chillies before 1700s or even 1800s. But nearly we cannot cook with out chilli these days. This is an influence, a british influence in Tamil culture.
Still Sambar is our own dish, still kara poriyals are our dish but the influencing factor was Chilli. No one can say Chilli is British material hence Sambhar is British.
Same way we can find influences which totally shape a culture but still they are only influences. TK has a Jain, Saskrit,Tamil ingredients. As far as the food is good no need to probe into the master recipe!(it is also other way round...just because it is goos people want to know the recipe!)