शिवज्ञानबोध (मेय्कण्डार - शैव सिद्धान्त का आधारभूत दार्शनिक सूत्र ग्रन्थ)

NOTE ON THE AUTHOR. xv
on Logic, yet an advance is made in a new classification of logical
methods, predicates, &c. And this I might say of the genius of
Tamil writers generally, though they have borrowed largely
from Sanskrit, the subject receives altogether an independent and
original treatment. As my old teacher used to observe, no doubt
Gold from Sanskrit source is taken but before it becomes current
coin, it receives the stamp or impress of the Tamil writer's genius.
Then about the date of these works, there is no data avail-
able to fix the exact time of these works. But that they must
have been very old is manifest from the fact that they have sup-
plied the form and even the language for nearly all the Tamil
writers on philosophy and religion, excepting in Thevaram and
Thiruvachakam and other works included in the Saiva Thirumurai.
And there are also clear data to show that these works were
anterior to the establishment of any of the great Saiva Adhinams
or Mutts in Southern India and the great Namasivaya Desikar,
who founded the Thiruvavaduthurai Adhinam about 600 years ago
claimed to be the fifth or sixth in succession from Meikanda
Deva and the disciples of this Mutt and Saivas generally call
themselves as belonging to Meikandan Santhathi. One other
fact which fixes this much more approximately, I must mention.
Umapathi Sivachariar who is fourth in succession from Meikanda
Deva, gives the date of his work, Sankarpanirakaranam in the
preface of the work itself as 1235 of Salivahana Era. This will
make the work therefore 582 or 583 years old and giving a period
of 25 or 30 years for each of the Acharyas, the date of Meikanda
Deva will be about A. D. 1192 or 1212 or say about A. D. 1200.
These facts therefore furnish us with a positive data that these
works could not have been at least less than 650 years old. I
have not been however able to investigate the matter with all
the available sources of information, for want of time and oppor-
tunity and I must leave the subject here.
A few words about the commentators on these works are also
necessary. There are two short commentaries published on Siva-