Post 1/2
[quote name='Husky' date='10 September 2011 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1315667119' post='112814']the Hindu epic Cilappadikaaram[/quote]The partially-historic work ends with Kannagi going off to her divine abode and then I think the Hindu Raja Cenguttuvan (sp?, brother of Cilappadikaaram's author Ilango Adigal, the Royal Yati) built a temple to her and she is worshipped.
There are bits in Cilappadikaaram on Devi, IIRC Shiva and Murugan, as well as Vishnu (e.g. MSS famously sang the epic's verses on Vishnu's avataaras).
Cilappadikaaram's author and even his work are these days often referred to as Buddhist or Jain or even "Buddhist or Jain". I've never seen evidence accompanying such supposition. And in the case of the "Jain OR Buddhist" supposition, it is obvious that even the ones making the suggestion have insufficient indicators to enable them to work out which of the two it would be.
Cenguttuvan's brother renounced his royal chance and became an ascetic, but that is obviously not an uncommon path in Hindus' own religion either and does not imply he converted to Jainism or Buddhism to be one. (Adigal/Adigar is no less applicable for Hindu ascetics than it is for Buddhist monks and Jain ascetics. It is simply the Tamizh equivalent of Yati.)
People tend to state matter-of-factly that the author was a convert, yet never produce evidence for the author's Buddhism or Jainism (or conversion to either/or) from the work itself, although they find it easy enough to identify all the copious and extremely Hindu elements in the work - only to thereafter dismiss these as denoting no more than the "secularism" of the Buddhist or Jain (or "Buddhist or Jain") writer, and that such Hindu elements as exist in the work are "despite" their Buddhism or Jainism.
Yet, in contrast, "Manimeghalai" is not secular, nor indistinct as to which of the two religions (Buddhist or Jain) authored it: this Buddhist work, with the form of a sequel to the Cilappadikaaram, reused the backdrop and the surviving characters of the Hindu work as a framing story for advancing the primacy of the Buddhist viewpoint: in Manimeghalai, both Jain and Hindu religious viewpoints are covered and contrasted with Buddhism, before Buddhism is shown superior to them. This is apparently nested within characters comparing religions, finding Buddhism superior and converting to it - like the eponymous heroine joining Buddhist monasticism. As I understand, next to Manimeghalai, her mother Madhavi (Kannagi's rival and Kovalan's other wife), as well as either Kannagi's or Kovalan's father and some other older male relatives all convert to Buddhism in "Manimeghalai". Within the strong limitation of my having only heard the Cilappadikaaram narrated when I was a kid, I am not aware of Cilappadikaaram speaking of these characters' conversion to Buddhism (even if it may know of the existence of Buddhism and Jainism). These characters' conversions to Buddhism therefore seem to me to be a particular contribution to character development made in the sequel Manimeghalai by its Buddhist authorship. (Kannagi of course had already disappeared in Cilappadikaaram and did not ...enjoy the same transformation: her character remained Hindu until the end.)
[On a separate matter. Cilappadikaaram poses a particular problem for *christianism*:
It may be a Tamizh-language work, but its geography is of Kerala (written by Hindus in Kerala). And regardless of what religion its author is donated to, the fact remains that Cilappadikaaram knows of Vedic religion including brahmanas, and that Hindu religion is the religion of the local laity (as is evidenced from how characters in the work sing elements from the Hindus' Puranas with religious purpose). Christianism has worked *hard* to peddle its favoured notion that until the 7th or was it 8th century CE, Kerala (and this miracle is intended to soon be repeated in TN - with neo-buddhist help) knows no brahmanas and no Vedic religion - "and hence no Hindu religion".
(And this date is now no longer just an upper limit that christianism sets on the Namboodiri brahmanas' presence in Kerala either. In the case of the Namboodiris, the 7th/8th century is when these last are ushered into the geography, at which point christianism would have the Adi Shankaracharya born almost immediately and changing what's known as the long-standing cremation rite of Namboodiris - all within the space of a century. And now they want Cilappadikaaram to be contemporaneous with that. Of course a mid-first century St Thomas in India is still peddled. For christianism to succeed in this particular goal, either Cilappadikaaram's date has to be changed, or it has to presented as "not actually Hindu and not speaking of Hindu religion after all".)]
The following is from a site on the "History of Digambara Jains". The dates for the works as mentioned are different from what was previously held about them (and different again from other dates being claimed for them now), but I'm pasting the excerpt for a different reason. Bits in purple are my own insertion:
http://indianjainism.blogspot.com/
I'm obviously not linking to the above site for its veracity on any other matter, only on what can be adduced from the above quoteblock regarding Cilappadikaaram - and certain other Tamizh-language works - w.r.t. Buddhism and Jainism.
[quote name='Husky' date='10 September 2011 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1315667119' post='112814']the Hindu epic Cilappadikaaram[/quote]The partially-historic work ends with Kannagi going off to her divine abode and then I think the Hindu Raja Cenguttuvan (sp?, brother of Cilappadikaaram's author Ilango Adigal, the Royal Yati) built a temple to her and she is worshipped.
There are bits in Cilappadikaaram on Devi, IIRC Shiva and Murugan, as well as Vishnu (e.g. MSS famously sang the epic's verses on Vishnu's avataaras).
Cilappadikaaram's author and even his work are these days often referred to as Buddhist or Jain or even "Buddhist or Jain". I've never seen evidence accompanying such supposition. And in the case of the "Jain OR Buddhist" supposition, it is obvious that even the ones making the suggestion have insufficient indicators to enable them to work out which of the two it would be.
Cenguttuvan's brother renounced his royal chance and became an ascetic, but that is obviously not an uncommon path in Hindus' own religion either and does not imply he converted to Jainism or Buddhism to be one. (Adigal/Adigar is no less applicable for Hindu ascetics than it is for Buddhist monks and Jain ascetics. It is simply the Tamizh equivalent of Yati.)
People tend to state matter-of-factly that the author was a convert, yet never produce evidence for the author's Buddhism or Jainism (or conversion to either/or) from the work itself, although they find it easy enough to identify all the copious and extremely Hindu elements in the work - only to thereafter dismiss these as denoting no more than the "secularism" of the Buddhist or Jain (or "Buddhist or Jain") writer, and that such Hindu elements as exist in the work are "despite" their Buddhism or Jainism.
Yet, in contrast, "Manimeghalai" is not secular, nor indistinct as to which of the two religions (Buddhist or Jain) authored it: this Buddhist work, with the form of a sequel to the Cilappadikaaram, reused the backdrop and the surviving characters of the Hindu work as a framing story for advancing the primacy of the Buddhist viewpoint: in Manimeghalai, both Jain and Hindu religious viewpoints are covered and contrasted with Buddhism, before Buddhism is shown superior to them. This is apparently nested within characters comparing religions, finding Buddhism superior and converting to it - like the eponymous heroine joining Buddhist monasticism. As I understand, next to Manimeghalai, her mother Madhavi (Kannagi's rival and Kovalan's other wife), as well as either Kannagi's or Kovalan's father and some other older male relatives all convert to Buddhism in "Manimeghalai". Within the strong limitation of my having only heard the Cilappadikaaram narrated when I was a kid, I am not aware of Cilappadikaaram speaking of these characters' conversion to Buddhism (even if it may know of the existence of Buddhism and Jainism). These characters' conversions to Buddhism therefore seem to me to be a particular contribution to character development made in the sequel Manimeghalai by its Buddhist authorship. (Kannagi of course had already disappeared in Cilappadikaaram and did not ...enjoy the same transformation: her character remained Hindu until the end.)
[On a separate matter. Cilappadikaaram poses a particular problem for *christianism*:
It may be a Tamizh-language work, but its geography is of Kerala (written by Hindus in Kerala). And regardless of what religion its author is donated to, the fact remains that Cilappadikaaram knows of Vedic religion including brahmanas, and that Hindu religion is the religion of the local laity (as is evidenced from how characters in the work sing elements from the Hindus' Puranas with religious purpose). Christianism has worked *hard* to peddle its favoured notion that until the 7th or was it 8th century CE, Kerala (and this miracle is intended to soon be repeated in TN - with neo-buddhist help) knows no brahmanas and no Vedic religion - "and hence no Hindu religion".
(And this date is now no longer just an upper limit that christianism sets on the Namboodiri brahmanas' presence in Kerala either. In the case of the Namboodiris, the 7th/8th century is when these last are ushered into the geography, at which point christianism would have the Adi Shankaracharya born almost immediately and changing what's known as the long-standing cremation rite of Namboodiris - all within the space of a century. And now they want Cilappadikaaram to be contemporaneous with that. Of course a mid-first century St Thomas in India is still peddled. For christianism to succeed in this particular goal, either Cilappadikaaram's date has to be changed, or it has to presented as "not actually Hindu and not speaking of Hindu religion after all".)]
The following is from a site on the "History of Digambara Jains". The dates for the works as mentioned are different from what was previously held about them (and different again from other dates being claimed for them now), but I'm pasting the excerpt for a different reason. Bits in purple are my own insertion:
http://indianjainism.blogspot.com/
Quote:Tamil Nadu: It has been surmised from the various references in the Tamil literature that Jainism was quite important in Tamil Nadu in the period 5th to 11th century. Jainism is not mentioned in the Sangam literature (4th century AD), but mention of the people professing Jainism is found in the two Tamil epics Silappadikaram and Manimekhalai. Both these epics belong to the 6th or 7th century AD. Manimekhalai is a Buddhist work and refers to the Jains as Ni ® granthas. It gives a reasonably good exposition of the Jain religious philosophy. But naturally, being a Buddhist work refutes it. Silappadikaaram is the story of a wife's devotion to her husband. It mentions Uraiyur a Chola capital, as a center of Jainism. Both the classics relate that the Ni ® granths lived outside the town in their cool cloisters. The walls of which were surrounded by small flower gardens. They also had monasteries for nuns. This description of Jain monasteries leads one to doubt its authenticity, for the Jains unlike the Buddhists do not favor living in monasteries. Also since the Jains of south India were Digambaras, there should not have been nuns among them, to say nothing of there being monasteries for them.
Another Tamil work, the Pattinapalai, speaks of the Jain and Buddhist temples being in one quarter of the city of Pugar, while in another quarter the Brahmans with plaited hair performed sacrifices and raised volumes of smoke. These references show that the number of Jains in Tamil Nadu was sufficiently large to be noticed in the popular literature of the period. One cannot avoid the suspicion, however, that there was a tendency on the part of these writers to mix up the Jains and the Buddhists. But Hiuen Tsang who was in Kanchi in the middle of the 7th century also reported that he saw numerous Nirgranthas at this place: and since he is not likely to have confused between the Buddhists and the Nirgranthas, is certain, that the Jain population of Tamil Nadu at that time was quite large.
(In the above para, "tendency of these writers (of mentioned and possibly unmentioned Tamizh works) to mix up the Jains and Buddhists" is being contrasted with how the Buddhist Hiuen Tsang is *not* likely to have mixed up Buddhists and Jains. Logical implication: Apparently some people thought Jain and Buddhist shramanas were all alike - enough to mix them up. And those Some People wrote the works alluded to with the phrase "these writers" <- back reference appears to be to Pattinapalai and Silapadhikaaram but not to Manimekhalai, since Manimekhalai is specifically described above as "giving a reasonably good exposition of the Jain religious philosophy" before it then Buddhistically refutes it. I.e. as per the owner of that blog, Manimekhalai - but not Silapadhikaaram - is able to tell Jains from Buddhists.)
The Jain population of Tamil Nadu was apparently larger in the 8th and 9th century than in the 7th century, for in the latter period there are very few Jain inscriptions. Most of the inscriptions in Tamil (about 80 or so), belong to the 8th and the 9th centuries, and these have been found mainly in the Madurai Tirunelveli area.
[...]
I'm obviously not linking to the above site for its veracity on any other matter, only on what can be adduced from the above quoteblock regarding Cilappadikaaram - and certain other Tamizh-language works - w.r.t. Buddhism and Jainism.