A school dedicated to teaching Atharva Veda.....

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:..... Extremelt brilliant Sikular scholars should condemn this Chaddization......

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/exclusive-school-for-atharva-veda/article7717315.ece?homepage=true?w=alstates

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:..... Extremelt brilliant Sikular scholars should condemn this Chaddization......

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/exclusive-school-for-atharva-veda/article7717315.ece?homepage=true?w=alstates

Atharva Veda is not a genuine Veda according to dynamic Sulekha and Such scholar Lamberdar-Seva.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:..... Extremelt brilliant Sikular scholars should condemn this Chaddization......

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/exclusive-school-for-atharva-veda/article7717315.ece?homepage=true?w=alstates

Atharva Veda is not a genuine Veda according to dynamic Sulekha and Such scholar Lamberdar-Seva.

Of course!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:..... Extremelt brilliant Sikular scholars should condemn this Chaddization......

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/exclusive-school-for-atharva-veda/article7717315.ece?homepage=true?w=alstates

Atharva Veda is not a genuine Veda according to dynamic Sulekha and Such scholar Lamberdar-Seva.

Of course!

Just because some garbage is dumped into Atharva by Sikularistic morons, the whole Atharva doesn't stop becoming authentic. In fact, quite a bit of Atharva (like Yajur) draws inspiration from Riks. Influential upanishads like Prasna, Mundaka and Mandukya are affiliated to Atharva. Charaka and Susruta also drew inspiration from Atharva.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:..... Extremelt brilliant Sikular scholars should condemn this Chaddization......

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/exclusive-school-for-atharva-veda/article7717315.ece?homepage=true?w=alstates

Atharva Veda is not a genuine Veda according to dynamic Sulekha and Such scholar Lamberdar-Seva.

Of course!

Just because some garbage is dumped into Atharva by Sikularistic morons, the whole Atharva doesn't stop becoming authentic. In fact, quite a bit of Atharva (like Yajur) draws inspiration from Riks. Influential upanishads like Prasna, Mundaka and Mandukya are affiliated to Atharva. Charaka and Susruta also drew inspiration from Atharva.

Vakavaka is right about Charaka and Susruta drawing inspiration from Atharva Veda. But what about the intense contempt for the Atharva Veda depicted in dharmasastras like the Manu Smriti which talk of trayi and recognize only the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, and Sama Veda as authoritative texts (amongst the four samhitas--Rig,Yajur,Sama, and Atharva).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:There is no mention of the Atharva Veda in the Bhagavat Gita etc., while Rik, Yajur and Sam (Vedas) are mentioned. Similarly, the famous acharyas (including Sankara) make no mention of Atharva Veda in their commentaries even though they talk about Rik, Yajur and Sam. That is a clear evidence that Atharva Veda does not have any support to consider it as a real Veda.

confuzzled dude wrote:Is it Athrava or AtharvaNa Veda? I always remember it as AtharvaNa Veda. What is the difference between the two? How do North Indians spell it, atarva or atharva? it is not hard 'T', is it?

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:There is no mention of the Atharva Veda in the Bhagavat Gita etc., while Rik, Yajur and Sam (Vedas) are mentioned. Similarly, the famous acharyas (including Sankara) make no mention of Atharva Veda in their commentaries even though they talk about Rik, Yajur and Sam. That is a clear evidence that Atharva Veda does not have any support to consider it as a real Veda.

but Ayurvedic texts like Charaka Samhita say that they owe allegiance to the Atharva Veda over and above the other three Samhitas: http://creative.sulekha.com/the-importance-of-atharva-veda_426927_blog

Seva Lamberdar wrote:There is no mention of the Atharva Veda in the Bhagavat Gita etc., while Rik, Yajur and Sam (Vedas) are mentioned. Similarly, the famous acharyas (including Sankara) make no mention of Atharva Veda in their commentaries even though they talk about Rik, Yajur and Sam. That is a clear evidence that Atharva Veda does not have any support to consider it as a real Veda.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:There is no mention of the Atharva Veda in the Bhagavat Gita etc., while Rik, Yajur and Sam (Vedas) are mentioned. Similarly, the famous acharyas (including Sankara) make no mention of Atharva Veda in their commentaries even though they talk about Rik, Yajur and Sam. That is a clear evidence that Atharva Veda does not have any support to consider it as a real Veda.

As I wrote long time ago, the real Veda is Riks. If Yajur and Sama vedas are proper vedas, Atharvana veda is also in the same category (have some Riks, elaborate on them with additional mantras and use for specific purposes). Just as there are upanishads attached to Rik, Yajur and Sama Vedas, there are 3 attached to Atharvana. In fact, both Gaudapada and Sankara attached a lot of importance to these three upanishads. A lot of Sankara's analysis in Advaita depends on these three upanishads.

The contamination and indiscriminate additions to "Atharvana" by crooks and morons (and loss of a significant section of the original work) created problems and doubts.