The sittannavasal inscription (A.R. No. 368 of 1904.) is the one that shows that the cave temple and its paintings could be pandiyan and not pallava (Mahendra) as earlier thought
It talks about ilam gauthaman, a teacher of madurai who - at the behest of pandiya king - repaired agamandapa and mukha mandapa.
The interesting point is that the inscription calls Pandiyan king srivallabha as srivalluvan. Being a jaina cave temple, it is quite possible that the inscription was done to show some kind of jaina influence of the king. or whether vallabha and valluva were interchangeable words - I am not sure
Point is it is probably the faintest epigraphic record suggesting that Thiruvalluvar could be a jaina.
Sometimes 'B' and 'V' are interchangably used. 'Brindha' of South becomes 'Vrindha' of North. 'Chakravarthy', becomes 'Chakraborthy'. This becomes more more predominant, between Bengalis. So 'Srimara Srivallavan' (Valluvan, is where I dont have a hold), could have been 'Srimara Srivallaban'.