It will not be of much value to do so. But you can give it a try with seeking Her permission first with a prayer. If you notice any untoward results, then stop reciting the kavacam and considering obtaining an initiation into any of Her mantras, from a practicing guru.

can someone who is not initiated into Tara mantras chant this?

Exactly! I stick to mine and you stick to yours, without chasing people away! Just because the topic is trivial to you, it doesn't mean it is to others, like a blind person assuming world is full of darkness. First of all, I didn't even request you to agree with me, as I knew since the beginning that it is useless to put a torch for the sake of blinds, and it is not my job. You were not in this picture at all, as I have said earlier. So, you may just end this as you said and do something progressive. May Amba bless all. Sri Mathre Namah.

I had decided not to comment any further extending this conversation or replying to any accusations, but felt a need to clarify a few important points. Śrī Lalita Sahasranāmam is a tantric treatise and a mantra in itself. It is verily, the essence of Śrīvidyā. Agreed, it does pull in a few Vedic references to help us understand that She pervades everything. Moving to another topic, It is agreed by most scholars that Shri Adishankaracharya died at the age of 32. The most important of his contributions are the doctrine of Advaita, commentaries on the Brahma Sūtras, Upaniṣads etc. There are 100s of voluminous works attributed to him. It is an established fact that Shri Adishankara spent a considerable amount of time travelling on foot throughout the length and breadth of the Indian sub-continent debating with scholars to establish his doctrine as well as to unify all Vedantic religions, which had been reduced to less than 20% amongst the population of that day and age. Had he lived upto 80-90 years and spent most of his time in writing the commentaries, then all of his works could be firmly established to him. Various scholars are of the opinion, from a logical standpoint, that many of his works especially related to the tantra, such as Saundarya Lahari, Prapañcasārā, Śrī Lalitā Triśati etc. could be attributed to other Shankaracharyas that followed him, or to various other scholars who dedicated their works to their esteemed guru Shri Adishankara. Opinions differ among scholars and I am no expert to either agree or disagree. In my own personal opinion, it could have been another scholar or scholars of great merit who has/have attributed the works to the great master. Now shifting our focus to the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇā, you may be aware that there are many versions of it, some of which DO NOT contain the Śrī Lalitā Triśati, Śrī Lalita Sahasranāmam, Lalitopākhyāna etc. There are versions that contain Ādhyātmika Rāmāyaṇa also, which is essentially Advaita combined with Bhakti of Śrī Rāmā. The point I am trying to make, is that this Purāṇā has gone through several editions and some portions of it, that have been quoted in other texts are now entirely missing. There is no known copy of this Purāṇā, discovered as yet, that can be traced back prior to the 10th Century, although the original dates of its composition in written format could be traced back to the 4th Century C.E. It remains a fact that Śaktism based mostly on tantra, has remained well hidden to this day and age. It has only come to light with the works of Shri Vidyaranya Yeti, Shri Bhaskararaya, Shri Mahidhara, Shri Deshikendra etc. and more recently by the yeoman efforts of various scholars such as Sir John Woodroofe, Shri S.K. Ramachandra Rao, Shri S.V. Radhakrishna Sastri, Shri Raviji etc. It honestly does not matter if Śaktism came later or Śaivism came first. One may choose whichever doctrine appeals the most or is followed in the tradition that one chooses to follow. As I said previously, all the paths from the base of the mountain may help in reaching the summit. In my personal opinion, I find Śaktism to be most suitable for the accomplishment of all material and spiritual desires, while Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism etc. are directly focused on spiritual emancipation - mokṣa. Lastly, from an appeal standpoint, It would be of great help if Mutts such as Shringeri, Dwaraka etc. who seem to be flushed with a treasure trove of manuscripts associated with Śākteyam, take the necessary steps to publish these documents for the benefit of all. This may probably bring more light to the fascinating doctrine of Śaktism and Tantra in general and be of immense value to the sādhaka community. It should be regarded as a world heritage and not restricted to a privileged few.

*Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal of Sringeri.

You can continue, so you stick with your point and I will with mine. I don't agree with you and you don't with me. It really doesn't matter on these trivial topics for me. I'm ending this from my side. God bless

Dear Jayanth, just because you claim that the arguments are going on useless, doesn't mean they really are. I neither requested nor chased you away from proving whether right or wrong. But you simply asking me to go away since the beginning from previous articles has no effect on me, infact doesn't help anyone. If you felt and still feel not right from my point of view, then you can either choose to look back from the scriptural references from my previous comments, provide solid proofs against my references, or may continue to chase me away. Btw, arguments aren't useless, unless they have something to point out, which makes a difference. If it doesn't ring a bell to you, no harm. I am not forcing anyone to accept my understanding. So, it is up to you to continue this, which I am always up to. May Devi bless you. Sri Mathre Namah.

It's not that I decided to stay and comment. It just happens as you kept on continuing the argument. So far, I guess I have been maintaining a good manner in publishing my comments, concerning Devi's fame. I will not do like what some of your supporters have been doing since my previous comments. So far, my upbringing and Guru parampara has not been diminished by my attitude. Talking about decency and supporting jayanth who has been since the beginning mocking me and my people? Well, that itself shows who is living in an imaginary world. Nowhere I threw mud on the author unlike how you did it on Shaktism from your previous comments! Jayanth's frustration has no values on my book. I guess I have shared many times that I respect Sri Ravi guruji and just wanted to add some points regarding Devi paratvam. It is funny that you said I am making absurd claims on my people, as anyone with an open mind who reads through the comments here would understand who is being absurd here. Lastly, claiming Lalita Sahasranama as pure tantric itself is too ABSURD and funny, as Lalita Sahasranama itself in many namas refer to the Vedas ( Sruti Seemanta Sindhoori krutha padhabja dhoolika, Veda Vedya, Veda Janani, Gayatri, Thrayi, Vedya varjita, Sruti, Smriti, Sarva Vedanta Samvedya, etc...) And also the tantras ( Sarvatantresi, Sarva Tantraroopa, Dakshinamurthi roopini, Svaprakasa, Vimarsarupini, Mahatantra, etc..). Don't forget that Lalita Sahasranama comes from a purana, which is based mainly on Vedopanishads, not tantras. (don't really care about what the westerners has to say as it was confirmed by many Shankaracharyas of chaturamnaya peetas). Something similar like this happened during the time of Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri, for which he easily pointed out how Lalita Sahasranama is Advaita Vedantam. Regarding Adi Shankaracharya, I was referring to his main works concerned on bhasyams related to Advaita Vedanta, consisting of Bhashyam of Mukyopanishads, Brahmasutra, Bhagavat Gita, and Vishnu Sahasranama. Why I stated that because, as per the same western culture you uphold, Lalita Trishati bhashyam is not included as his main work, though I believe the words of Kanchi Mahaswamigal that it is authoritative too. Some scholars even question whether he wrote all the stotras on different forms of God and Nirvana Shatakam, which I still hold strongly that their assumptions are false. So, that comment is for you to decide which side to trust. To me, Shankara saw oneness of God in all forms, but personally accepted Narayana Paratvam. Therefore, He later glorified all deities equally, but emphasized on Narayana paratvam before his first 16 years, showing devotion to Vishnu. Thus, it is up to you to swim inside Lalita Trishati bhashyam and Advaita Vedantam of Shankara to understand the truth. You can choose to comment and refrain brother. I am at nowhere to ask you to do anything. You may consider my efforts relentless but I consider them as offering to show oneness of Parasiva and Lalita, hence very beneficial. I never wanted to prove my victory over anyone but if there is any, all victory are only towards the holy feet of Parabrahma Svarupini Sivasakthyatmaka Lalitha Mahatripura Sundari. May She bless us all. Sri Mathre Namah.It's not that I decided to stay and comment. It just happens as you kept on continuing the argument. So far, I guess I have been maintaining a good manner in publishing my comments, concerning Devi's fame. I will not do like what some of your supporters have been doing since my previous comments. So far, my upbringing and Guru parampara has not been diminished by my attitude. Talking about decency and supporting jayanth who has been since the beginning mocking me and my people? Well, that itself shows who is living in an imaginary world. Nowhere I threw mud on the author unlike how you did it on Shaktism from your previous comments! Jayanth's frustration has no values on my book. I guess I have shared many times that I respect Sri Ravi guruji and just wanted to add some points regarding Devi paratvam. It is funny that you said I am making absurd claims on my people, as anyone with an open mind who reads through the comments here would understand who is being absurd here. Lastly, claiming Lalita Sahasranama as pure tantric itself is too ABSURD and funny, as Lalita Sahasranama itself in many namas refer to the Vedas ( Sruti Seemanta Sindhoori krutha padhabja dhoolika, Veda Vedya, Veda Janani, Gayatri, Thrayi, Vedya varjita, Sruti, Smriti, Sarva Vedanta Samvedya, etc...) And also the tantras ( Sarvatantresi, Sarva Tantraroopa, Dakshinamurthi roopini, Svaprakasa, Vimarsarupini, Mahatantra, etc..). Don't forget that Lalita Sahasranama comes from a purana, which is based mainly on Vedopanishads, not tantras. (don't really care about what the westerners has to say as it was confirmed by many Shankaracharyas of chaturamnaya peetas). Something similar like this happened during the time of Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswati Swamigal of Sringeri, for which he easily pointed out how Lalita Sahasranama is Advaita Vedantam. Regarding Adi Shankaracharya, I was referring to his main works concerned on bhasyams related to Advaita Vedanta, consisting of Bhashyam of Mukyopanishads, Brahmasutra, Bhagavat Gita, and Vishnu Sahasranama. Why I stated that because, as per the same western culture you uphold, Lalita Trishati bhashyam is not included as his main work, though I believe the words of Kanchi Mahaswamigal that it is authoritative too. Some scholars even question whether he wrote all the stotras on different forms of God and Nirvana Shatakam, which I still hold strongly that their assumptions are false. So, that comment is for you to decide which side to trust. To me, Shankara saw oneness of God in all forms, but personally accepted Narayana Paratvam. Therefore, He later glorified all deities equally, but emphasized on Narayana paratvam before his first 16 years, showing devotion to Vishnu. Thus, it is up to you to swim inside Lalita Trishati bhashyam and Advaita Vedantam of Shankara to understand the truth. You can choose to comment and refrain brother. I am at nowhere to ask you to do anything. You may consider my efforts relentless but I consider them as offering to show oneness of Parasiva and Lalita, hence very beneficial. I never wanted to prove my victory over anyone but if there is any, all victory are only towards the holy feet of Parabrahma Svarupini Sivasakthyatmaka Lalitha Mahatripura Sundari. May She bless us all. Sri Mathre Namah.

The only reason I'm not sharing details or references is that already the arguments are going on without being useful to anyone. It really does not matter for me to prove whether I'm right or wrong. I spoke based on the comments which I felt and still feel is not in the right spirit from your end. I looked at the aspect of comments and getting scriptural references and arguing is useless as it will not help anyone

Since you have decided to stay and comment, I will urge you for the last time to maintain a proper decorum in posting comments. It reflects on you, your teachers and your own upbringing. The reason why Jayanth ji has expressed his frustration is based on your own imagination that you have been disrespected despite throwing mud at the author of this article and anyone who has argued against your comments and also making absurd claims about yourself and your followers. Lastly, Śrī Lalita Sahasranāmam is pure tantra and NOT Veda. You may interpret it as you wish and as directed by your guru lineage. You have mentioned that Adishankaracharya held only Lord Nārāyaṇa as Paradaivam. I suggest you study Lalita Triśati once again and understand the inner meaning. You may also wish to add Nirvāṇa Śatakam to your list to gain further insight into the works of the legendary saint and how he integrated all faiths under one umbrella. You may delve into Advaita, his masterpiece, if you wish to explore further. Anyway, I will refrain from commenting on your posts on this article. You may continue your relentless tirade and not expect any response from us. Let us agree to disagree and if you wish to claim a glorious victory over me, then I gladly offer it to you. May the Divine Mother shower Her blessings upon everyone!