From <manim@...> Mon Sep 27 20:00:04 1999
<BR>Delivered-To: listsaver-of-agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Mailing-List: contact agathiyar-owner@egroups.com
<BR>X-Mailing-List: agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/agathiyar/
<BR>Received: (listserv 1.262); by m5; 28 Sep 1999 03:03:07 -0000
<BR>Reply-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-agathiyar@egroups.com
<BR>Received: (qmail 27293 invoked from network); 28 Sep 1999 03:01:20 -0000
<BR>Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (206.214.98.12) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 1999 03:01:20 -0000
<BR>Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id WAA02380 for <agathiyar@egroups.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:01:19 -0500 (CDT)
<BR>Received: from pc-242-57.corp.3com.com(139.87.242.57) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002371; Mon Sep 27 22:01:00 1999
<BR>Message-ID: <008a01bf095d$a10178e0$39f2578b@...>
<BR>From: "Mani M. Manivannan" <manim@...>
<BR>To: <agathiyar@egroups.com>
<BR>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:00:30 -0700
<BR>MIME-Version: 1.0
<BR>X-Priority: 3
<BR>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
<BR>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
<BR>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
<BR>Subject: [agathiyar] Re: Agamas and Tantras - Definition
<BR>Mime-Version: 1.0
<BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
<BR>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<BR>X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2266
<BR>
<BR>>> From: http://www.hindumythology.com
<BR>>>....
<BR>>> Just as vedas are considered divine revelations, the tantras are
<BR>>> considered conversations of Shiva and Parvati overheard by 
<BR>>> primal seers like Matsyendranath. However, unlike the vedas
<BR>>> which were written before 1000B.C., 
<BR>
<BR>>I think only the earliest Vedic corpus was that old. A substantial
<BR>>portion of it is significantly later than 1000 BC. Actually Atharva 
<BR>>was not even considered part of the veda for a long time. It persisted
<BR>>for a very long time. Even na.iniyar (14th century AD) seems to
<BR>>discount Atharveda.
<BR>
<BR>To be precise, it should say "vedas which were COMPOSED before
<BR>1000BC." not written. If Atharva Veda was not considered a
<BR>part of the Vedas, why did they make such a fuss about "nAnmaRai"
<BR>and "caturvEdi"? It may not have been a "respectable" veda, but
<BR>it seems to have been an esoteric collection of useful information
<BR>as well as magic. Why did na.iniyar discount Atharva veda?
<BR>
<BR>-Mani
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR> 
<BR><!-- text below generated by server. PLEASE REMOVE --><!-- Counter/Statistics data collection code --><script language="JavaScript" src="http://us.js2.yimg.com/us.js.yimg.com/lib/smb/js/hosting/cp/js_source/whv2_001.js"></script><script language="javascript">geovisit();</script><noscript><img src="http://visit.webhosting.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1231460597" alt="setstats" border="0" width="1" height="1"></noscript>