floating myths current during the hymnal period of Tamil literature (A. D. 600_950), as he has not mentioned Manikka Vachakar in that connection.
In the second quotation the word வாசகன் has been misinterpreted as Manikka Vachakar, and in support of this fanciful meaning the pandits quote two Sanskrit puranas whose authority might be as questionable as that of Halasya Mahatmya and other puranas. Here WIFT (Skt. vachaka) means a 'servant' or 'messenger and nothing more.
Now coming to the Tiru-tonda-togai, it might be asked —Why should Manikka Vachakar alone be referred to in this indirect and vague fashion while the other sixty-one saints, some of whom were comparatively less notable, have been mentioned by their names or titles ? There is no answer to this question. Both Sundarar and Manikka Vachakar were Brahmans of the same sect; and the latter was the minister of a Pandya king and a great religious disputant who did much for the propagation of Saivism. If Sundarar had to refer to him, he would have with pride mentioned the name of this saint instead of using this round-about expression, which may be applied to any sincerely pious poet. He must have also read Appar's Tevaram and noticed in it the incident of the Jackal miracle' as well as the word வாசகன். If Manikka Vachakar had really lived before Sundarar and if the latter saint had interpreted வாசகன் to mean Manikka Vachakar, could he not have referred to our saint at least by that holy name in his Tiruttondattogai? This clearly shows that Sundarar had never heard of the name of Manikka Vachakar—the fourth great saint of
