Respected Krishna ji, I agree that noble thoughts should be welcomed from all directions, and we should never advocat dismissing a teaching merely because it originates outside an established tradition or lacks universally accepted scriptural authority. My concern is not with the freedom to share one's revelations, but with how such revelations are presented to seekers. There is a difference between sharing a personal spiritual experience and asserting that a particular practice is superior to established traditional methods. The latter naturally invites questions about the grounds for such a claim. Openness to new ideas should go hand in hand with critical examination, not preclude it. We can respect a sādhaka's experiences without automatically accepting their interpretations as established truths. Indeed, the rich tradition of philosophical debate in Bhāratavarṣa demonstrates the importance of presenting arguments, examining evidence, and defending one's conclusions. My request is simply that claims be accompanied by their textual sources, reasoning, or an honest acknowledgment that they arise from personal experience. This would encourage genuine intellectual exchange while allowing readers to make informed judgements, rather than asking them to accept claims solely on the authority of the person making them.

I am going to interject briefly here. Regardless of the difference of opinions, thank you to Krishna for being respectful in the discussion. With regards to guru mandala in the parampara, I am not going to reveal what was spoken to me directly, as I believe that is sacred and not something to show off or argue. I realize now why some things are kept lesser known with regards to this, so they are not thrown around in the public. I would like to once again state that Uttara Nivesha is meant for those who have an alignment with the old foundational teachings. The goal is ultimately to be oriented around this and form a system which helps sadhakas to maintain a structured, foundationally strong lifestyle and spiritual practice. For those who disagree with our way of things, we encourage you not to come to the platform. Go where ever you feel happy. We have no desire for those who the platform is not meant for. If you disagree with anything we have to say, that is great too. All the best to you. Krishna, thank you once again for your services. As I have said before- and I cannot state this enough- although we have a difference of opinions, and I will fight according to my inherent nature for what I view as right, I still have utmost love and respect for you. I hope all the best to you and to the others. Best of luck

Respected Krishna ji, with due respect, I believe there is an important distinction between interpreting scriptures differently and proposing a philosophy without a scriptural foundation. Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, Rāmānujācārya, and Madhvācārya developed their philosophical systems through interpretations of authoritative texts such as the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras. Although their conclusions differ, their interpretations are traceable to scriptures regarded as authoritative for centuries. Therefore, describing their philosophies as lacking scriptural basis overlooks the very foundations of their respective arguments. The fact that they interpreted existing scriptures does not make their conclusions merely speculative. Similarly, Bhāskararāya's works cannot reasonably be characterised as lacking scriptural foundations. Saubhāgya-Bhāskara comments on the Śrī Lalitā Sahasranāma, Varivasyā-Rahasya expounds Śrīvidyā, Guptāvatī comments on the Devī Māhātmya, and Khaḍyotā explains the Mahāgaṇapati Sahasranāma. These works engage with established texts and traditions, even where the author offers distinctive interpretations. An interpretation need not be explicitly stated word for word in a source text to be grounded in it. I welcome differing interpretations, as respectful debate helps deepen our understanding. My concern is with metaphysical claims made by certain individuals without scriptural references, supporting reasoning, or any means of independent examination. The existence of untranslated manuscripts or the coded nature of Tantric texts does not, by itself, establish the validity of any particular claim. If a teaching is presented as superior to established traditions, its proponents should explain the textual, philosophical, or experiential grounds for that assertion. Otherwise, how can readers distinguish genuine insight from speculation? Personal spiritual attainment alone should not exempt claims from scrutiny. We can remain open to new perspectives without conflating personal revelations with established scriptural teachings. I believe providing relevant references and explaining the reasoning behind such claims would strengthen the credibility of the knowledge shared on this website.

Respected Prince. I am new to Arutperunjoti. Can you please say the exact places in Tirumantiram that speak about Sanmargam?Also, can you please give the links/access to the tantras that you have mentioned, along with the location of your said details, so that I can independently examine them myself? You also mentioned the revered Thevaram. Is arutperunjoti refereneced there, albeit indirectly? If so, please let me know its exact locations. It would be a great opportunity for me to learn more about Arutperunjoti. Thank you.

Dear Herodion, you are absolutely right that most articles written from 2018 onwards are authored by me (I believe it to be the grace of Shri Ravi ji and the Divine Mother and hence take no credit for them.) and you and other readers can certainly consider them to be deceptive or non-authoritative, as I am not self-realized like Shri Ravi ji nor do I have any form of siddhi or expertise whatsoever in any subject. As far as the lineage question goes, I have also referred to the email screenshot shared by Jayanth to some of us. I will certainly request him to provide his clarification on it. You may decide on the lineage hierarchy after his input or follow the guidance you have. Honestly, I have not bothered to research on the hierarchy beyond Aśvatthāma parameṣṭhi guruji, but thanks to you and Kuru Sandhyasa as well as Bam, I know a lot more now. Regarding the matter of Tivra, he is the same as the Divine Mother to me. I have stated this umpteen times and will reiterate the same once again. You are on the opposite side of the spectrum and feel that his insights are dubious and I respect your choice. You seem to think of him more often than I do and I consider that as a great merit on your end! Regarding Arut peruñjoti, I do not know if you have had the chance to interact with senior sādhakas who are followers of Vallalar and if you have had the chance to go through the two books that Tivra, Jothi, Tripuraghna and others have recommended previously? Lastly, I pray that the full grace of the Divine Mother be upon you and the site uttaranivesha.com. You, Kuru, Santosh and Janardana are doing a great job and I commend all of you! I also value your comments here and do not seem them negatively.

The Durvasa problematic is indeed something worth spending time on at times when scholarship is one's central concern. The formulation of the lineage on the website is not a recently sprung creation of ours, but it is something proven to be most apt for purposes of sadhana, as proven from our practice and personal attunements to the guru mandala. During one of my first comments here on Manblunder, I have claimed my lineage exactly as I have now written: Lord Datta to Parashurama to Ashvatthama to Satyajitanath to Anandanandanath. None of you corrected me then. If the omission of one auxilliary of the parampara remains our only sin, you are free to combat it, and we shall all grow a little wiser from it. But, Krishna, it is well known and attested that Raviji's last contribution to this site dates to 2018 (as explicitly written by Santoshji). Therefore, I don't follow why it would help your case to bring up an article I believe was written entirely by yourself and reminding us that Raviji was still here with us. Some may notice the hesitation in your wording and accuse you of deception. On the topic of Vallalar: I would never insult or disregard a sincere missionary of bhakti yoga who many consider to be a saint and who has unquestionably made the world a better place through his teachings. It was indeed not a hotel, but a rental cottage. I am simply questioning Tivra, who has arrived at the conclusion that the Vallalar mantra coupled with bhakti is an instantly acting panacea which supercharges shakti completely bypassing the need for pranayama or dhyana or nyasa or any other procedures which are generally accepted as necessary, and that, in his own words, "surrender allows the Light itself to achieve what technique cannot". This is part of my broader argument - and our fundamental disagreement - in which I postulate that he is promising various attainments at very quick speeds and through very unorthodox methods which I consider diluted. Raviji promised nothing more and nothing less than what he could give to a sincere seeker giving his all: liberation within this lifetime. What more could you possibly want? He turned the process of diksha from years of guru-shopping and spending thousands of dollars to a simple Skype call. This is unconceivable! Thousands of people from all over the globe have had their lives and fates changed thanks to his unmeasurable sacrifices. How could I ever bring myself to say that someone is even remotely close to his grace? Tens of shaktipats, given daily, for years on end, free of charge, just an endless spring of shakti in sheep's clothing, only for those with eyes to see. I myself see no reason to look for alternatives. If you do, I will not judge, but if you claim to be following in his tradition, I find myself impelled to act and offer my sincere suggestions. This might be perceived as harsh, but I try as much as humanly possible to answer as exhaustively and sincerely as I can and all my efforts are because I am deadly afraid of leaving Raviji's light.

This seems to be very much cherry picking and out of context. If it is stated Parashurama is the parama guru of Ashvatthama and also the guru of sage Durvasa, and if it said they had both initiated Ashvatthama into shakta worship, what is the point of still arguing fervently to say that Durvasa is the guru of Ashvatthama and not Parashurama? Parashurama would still be his guru or above in the guru mandala. And secondly, dakshinamurti is not a human incarnation. Dattatreya is the physical guru of Parashurama and this this is universally accepted.

Jayanth shared an email from Shri Ravi guruji that clearly enlists Śrī Durvāsa Mahaṛṣi as the guru of Śrī Aśvatthāma. The guru of Śrī Durvāsa is Śrī Paraśurāma. Shri Ravi ji lists Śrī Dakṣiṇāmūrti as the guru of Śrī Paraśurāma in line with Samayācāra and Dakṣiṇācāra traditions. The Kaulācāra traditions attribute Śrī Dattātreya as the Ādi guru and the guru of Śrī Paraśurāma and this is further validated in Tripura Rahasya. Curiously, the expansive Dakṣiṇāmūrti Saṃhitā and the concise Paraśurāma Kalpa Sūtras, the de-facto Śrī Cakra pūjā manual, are considered essential texts of Śrī Vidyā. The PKS is part of the Datta Saṃhitā, which probably is lost or hidden. The three traditions of Śrī Vidyās attribute the primary Ṛṣis to Hayagrīva, Ānanda Bhairava and Dakṣiṇāmūrti. Dattātreya does not figure in this list even though he is regarded as the Ādi guru of Kaula traditions by many Ānanda Bhairava is the primary Ṛṣi of Dakṣiṇācāra tradition and also followed by many Kaula traditions that I am aware of. Hayagrīva could be the Ṛṣi of Hādi vidyā as the Śrī Cakra used in His tradition does not contain the three circles. Dakṣiṇāmūrti is the primary Ṛṣi of the Uttara kaula traditions and the Śrī Cakra has ten āvaraṇās or sixteen based on the lineage.

Dear Kashik, please focus on the Caṇḍī mantra and Śrī Durgā Saptaśatī that has been initiated to you by your guru. Complete the Puraścaraṇā diligently and then proceed on to other mantras. Ensure that you are following the recommended Pañcāṅga procedures for this mantra.

The point I am trying to make is that, whether there is a purported scriptural basis or not and even if the scriptural basis is not universally agreed upon, we should still allow and not dismiss revelations and profound thoughts that sincere sādhakas wish to share on any platform of their choice. The quote from Ṛg veda - "āno bhadrāḥ kratavo yantu viśvataḥ", conveys a prayer for noble, positive, and virtuous thoughts, deeds, and knowledge to reach us from all directions, without discrimination or bias. Something I learnt in high school and is the foundation of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. For centuries India has been a melting pot of philosophical discourse with scholars and philosophers from across the world studying at various universities and exchanging ideas. The confluence of ideas must continue and we should continuously evaluate our understanding of the scriptures and update as needed. Anything that is forced upon us, may not be sustainable and stands on weak ground. This is just my personal opinion.