The genius of Tiruvaḷḷuvar consists in having produced a treatise on pure ethics which is the common property of all religions in the world. The moral code that has been presented to us contains nīti gems which would serve the world for all time to come. The maxims promulgated are of such universal application that they have evoked wide appreciation and approval as is seen from English and Latin translations of the book. The Kuṟaḷ which claims an age of 2000 years and more is still young and will be young, for it has been written for practical application for all time and in all places. The beauty of the work lies in its catering to the needs and desires of all religionists and creeds. Despite any serious and detailed study with regard to the religion of Vaḷḷuvar, it is difficult to arrive at some definite conclusion. Rather we are compelled to go back to where we started and to remain in a state of doubt as to the personal religion of the celebrated author. For, every religion including Christianity claims him.
Was he a Christian? The followers of Christianity identify (see studies in Saṅgam History, Ed., review, October 1929), without any justification whatever, Elelasinga with the apostle St. Thomas, and as Elela is said to be the patron of the poet-moralist, it may be that Vaḷḷuvar also embraced the same creed. European Tamiḻ scholars of the last century like Fr. Beschi and Pope were specially attracted by that incomparable ethical code and rendered it in European languages, Latin and English. It may be noted in passing that these scholars were mainly Christian ecclesiastics.
Was he a Jaina? It is again argues that he was a Jaina. The epithets (malarmicai yēkiṉāṉ, aindavittān aṟavaḻiyantaṇaṉ) are generally interpreted as denoting the Arhat and the philosophical ideas of the Arhats. The references to Indra and the doctrine of ahimsa are also urged in support of the same theory. How slippery is the foundation of this theory can be gauged from the following. The expression malarmicai yekiṉāṉ which means, “He who stands in the human heart,” is nothing more than the grand idea expressed in the Bhagavadgīta that the Lord God (īśvaraḥ sarva bhutānām hṛdeśe arjunas thiṣṭhati) is seated in the heart of all creatures. The aindavittāṉ is a common idea of the Hindus that he who conquered his five senses could become a yogin, and attain godhood. The term aṟavaḻiyantaṇaṉ may mean the law-giver, the law- administrator, or the law-maker. Again the cult of Indra worship is again common to all sects of Hinduism including Buddhism and Jainism. In fact Indra is one of the principal Vedic deities invoked in the sacred yajñas. The doctrine of ahimsa does not belong only to the Jaina cult. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Upaniṣads, the philosophical sections of the Vedic literature. As Parimēlaḻakar points out, we have to interpret his sayings broadly, and not narrow them down as a sectarian work. At the least it is not possible to make out a strong case for its sectarian character.
Was he a Buddhist? — That he was also a votary of Buddhism is again claimed by some scholars whose chief argument is based on the section entitled tuṟaviyal (Ch.35.st.341ff). The Kuṟaḷ 348 is specially quoted as prescribing renunciation as the cure for all ills (துறவறம் as against இல்லறம்). A corroborative clue is said to be afforded by the expression of the same ideas in the Maṇimekalai (canto vi.II.72-3). But renunciation is the ideal preached in all creeds. For example, the same Kuṟaḷ is quoted as expounding a concept of Śaiva Siddhānta (see — நெஞ்சு விடு தூது) being one of the fourteen Śaiva Siddhānta works cf.footnote.p.100 of the Kuṟaḷ ed.by., Arumuga Navalar, 11th edn.,)
Was he a Vaiṣnavite? That he embraced the Vaiṣnava creed and was a devotee of Viṣṇu is proved by the first Kuṟaḷ-veṇpā which finds a parallel in the Gīta (अक्षराणामकारोऽस्मि) where the Lord says that He was the first letter (अ) among the letters (1103 of the Kuṟaḻ ?). In another informing Kuṟaḷ-veṇpā more light is thrown on this topic. There is a distinct reference to the Vaikuṇṭha as the abode of tāmaraik-kaṇṇaṉ literally the lotus- eyed. The idea in this Kuṟaḷ-veṇpā is that righteous people, after death find their home in the abode of Viṣṇu who is said to be the lotus-eyed. Life after death in Vaikuṇṭha is clearly the Vaiṣṇava idea and this, when compared with the first verse of prayer with. which the Kuṟaḷ opens, may lend weight to the view that he was a follower of Vaiṣṇavism.
Was he a Śaiva? - There are again some Kuṟaḷ-veṇpās which go to demonstrate that the author was a Śaiva by religion. The phrase eṇguṇattān is generally quoted to show his adherence to Śaivism. It is significant to note that Śaiva saints like Appar and Sundaramūrti use the very term in their laudatory stanzas on Śiva. eṇguṇattān simple means the God with eight attributes (For a variant classification of these attributes, the reader is referred to the footnotes of the Kuṟaḷ pp 7-8, Eleventh Edition.). சாற்புண்ர்ந்து சார்புகெட ஒழுகின் மற்றழித்து சார் தரா சாந்தரு நோய். Again the Kuṟaḷ-veṇpā (359) is believed to be the Śaiva idea as it has been utilized in an accredited Śaiva Siddhānta work with approval (See Tirukkaliṟṟuppatiyar of Tirukkadavur Uyyavanda Devankyanir, ef. footnote on p. 104 of the Kuṟaḷ). To this may be added the Kuṟaḷ-veṇpā (348) which has been used in another Śaiva Siddhānta work as we have seen already.
Conclusion — The examination of the personal religion of Vaḷḷuvar does not give us any definite lead in the matter. The fact seems to be that the author, whatever his personal religion, did not wish to give his work a sectarian character (See the learned article of Vidvan R.Raghava Ayyangar in the Sen Tamiḻ, vol I, p. 4 quoted in the introduction to his edition of the Kuṟaḷ, by Pandit M.Raghava Ayyangar). If we can hazard a conjecture, Vaḷḷuvar who was acquainted with different creeds and faiths, took up the best in every creed and thus primarily intended to be a moralist rather than a religious teacher. The Kuṟaḷ is like the Bhagavadgīta which appeals to every faith, and which admits of any interpretation looked at from any point of view. In fact it is the correct estimate of poet Kalladanar who says “Among the six religious creeds, the followers of one creed will assert that there is only one eternal thing. The followers of a second creed will speak of another thing. The followers of the third creed will speak of yet another. But it is good that the followers of all creeds accept the pronounced prescriptions of Valluvar's muppal (ஒன்றே பொருள் எனின் வேற் என்பவேற் எனின் நன்றுஎன்ப வாறு சமயத்தார் - நன்று என வெப்பா லவரு மியைபவே வள்ளுவனார் - Thiruvalluvamalai. st.9).” As has been already indicated, if Parimēlaḻakar's views could be adopted, then the author of the Kuṟaḷ must have been familiar with Sanskrit literature and especially the Dharma Śāstra and the Artha Śāstra literature. If this position can be accepted, it is reasonable to assume that Tiruvaḷḷuvar follows mainly in his Aṟattuppāl the most popular Dharma Śāstra of Manu, in his Poruṭpāl the well known Artha Śāstra of Kauṭalya and in his Kāmattuppāl the Kāmasūtra of Vatsyāyana. To these may be added portions of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata and other allied literature. Whether Vaḷḷuva's muppāl is an independent growth or is indebted to Sanskrit literature, it is for future research to determine conclusively. As it is, there is a remarkable parallelism between the Kuṟaḷ and the Sanskrit books above referred to. We propose in the following pages to give a list of such of the Kuṛaḷ veṇpās which have a striking correspondence with those in the Sanskrit works devoted to subjects like Dharma, Artha and Kāma. This list does not, however, pretend to exhaust all the corresponding references.
