without being indebted in any way to the teachings of Jesus.
So again among Hindus, Buddhists and Jains and Shaivas are each fond of asserting that the sage belonged to their own particular persuasion. But if every one of these religions can claim many of his teachings as its own, none of them can deny that they also belong to its rivals. And each of them will find it difficult to reconcile some of his ideas with its orthodox doctrines. For instance, almost all the names by which Tiruvalluvar refers to the Lord in his first chapter apply distinctively to the Buddha and to the Arhat of the Jains. But the Jains have to find an explanation for his reference to a creator of the universe (1062), for the high regard that he has for the sacred character of the Brâhmans, their Gods, their sacrifices, and their Vedas (543, 560, 413, 134), for his Brâhman division of life into four states (41), and for his attributing of anger to ascetics (29). The Buddhists have to explain his reference to the five principles of matter (271) while they admit only four, his approval of self-mortification and austerities (Ch. 27), and his
