In TM 63, there is reference to three names of ‘VyAmaLam’, ‘Uttiram’, and ‘Suppiram’. In the list of 28 AgamAs, these names are not there. I wonder as to whether these names could be AgamAs at all. Can you please clarify this on urgent basis?
A: The Agamaas listed out in TM63 are nine in toto which are given below: 1.KAranam 2.KAmigam 3.Veeram 4.Cindhiyam 5.VAdhulam 6.ViyAmalam 7.(Devi) KAlothiram 8.Suppiram and 9.Makutam. I have dealt with the meaning of this TM63 elaborately with that touch of research in AgamAs in my book namely, ‘Thirumanthira Cindhanaigal’. However, I will put it in succinct as this herein below: The list of 28 Agamaas found in Agamic literature now in Sanskrit is nothing short of concoction without understanding of related Thirumandhirams in Tamil. Only nine Agamaas were originally handed down from the Eternal source to Nandhi and in turn from Nandhi to Thirumoolar. This has been categorically spelt in TM 62. In the ultimate line of TM 62 Thirumoolar says that his guru Nandhi received only nine Agamaas in lineage. In that case there can be no Agamaa more than nine. How then 28 Agamaas are found to be listed in vogue? Thirumoolar has answer for this in TM1429. Each one of nine Agamaas is trifurcated on the basis of 1.KarmaGAndaa 2.UpAsanAGAndaa and 3.GnanaGAndaa. This classification of nine Agamaas ramifying into three folds comes to 27 in all. There is nother one added to it, which is quintessence of unfailing Gnanaa, putting together the number of Agamaas becomes 28. Not understanding this, the virtuoso of Sanskrit Agamaas, while translating the original Agamaas from Tamil to Sanskrit made a spurious list adjusting to the number 28 occurring in TM. That the list is concocted is testified by the fact that there is no other Agamaa is available at present than 6 of them. It is noteworthy that for this reason only ViyAmalam is not found in Sanskrit list, whereas, (Devi)Kalothiram is mistakenly relegated to the list of UpaAgamaa.