Are you sure you have never placed Shaktism inferior??? Well, I doubt that!!! Just look through your previous comments on falsely claiming Shakta origin from Shaiva! Remember what you spoke about Lalita Sahasranama! Remember what you told about Matrilineal descent and how it falsely show Shaiva origin! Would a Shakta ever do these? I think nobody here is seeing eye to eye on both sides. You can type out all negative things about Shaktism and finally say you never spoke negative about Devi? Hmmmm... If I didn't point out on Lalita Trishati, does that means my ground is unstable? Not at all as I have been continuously providing more and more references from scriptures throughout the beginning. You may disallow my comment targetted towards Jayanth but why didn't you disallow or delete comments which were degradatory towards me??? So, eventhough someone denigrate me yet support from your side, would you allow their comments? Wonderful! By right, if you deleted my comment, then you should delete theirs too. But, obviously I cannot expect this from such an anti-Devi superiority group. I suggest you to rethink about your statement "If anyone else attacks you personally, I will disallow that as well. ". Regarding the Trika philosophy, I agreed to it at the same time showing how Devi is all the three of the philosophy as per Lalita Sahasranama itself. Propounding the highest genderless Brahman, then many Devi related articles should have stated that Devi is Brahmam, not Shiva the Brahmam created Shakti. While I firmly assert Devi is both Brahmam and Brahma Shakti. I think you should first consider providing support for your Shaiva origin theory based on verified and published journals by so called eminent scholars. Then I will provide as much as valid evidence to show Shaktism comes from Vedism, definitely NOT shaivism, and how both Shakta and Shaiva schools have influenced each other and has evolved together. My perspective is not Sakteyam as I have many times stated Shakta is only one darshana of Srividya. You say no article demeaned others but when I pointed out some things, everyone started to demean me and my people? Well, I am no one to provide a Shakta certificate but it is upon you to consider that, based on all your statements about Shaktism. I render this solely to Devi. I understand that all these happen through the blessings of Devi. You welcomed differing viewpoints, which is good. You deleted my comment, claiming that it is directly attacking jayanth but failed to do so when they directly attacked me. I will not beg you to poat or delete my comments. If you disallow this comment too, go ahead! Talking about mature and respectful conversation but just look back at all those previous comments from Jayanth. If I have been really meditating upon the holy feet of my Divine Mother all the time, then I am sure She would do what is right! Remember that hurting just even one Devi devotee's heart and posting more articles about Devi has no effect. Devi is there guiding our spiritual journey, hence were here will not be affected by any of these. Sri Mathre Namah.

Dear Lorran, Nice quote. Similar quote is found from Devi Bhagavatam where Brahma praises Lalithambika who arose from Chidagnikundam. She is that fire which burns the hatred towards her devotees. If She has decided to bind everyone here into Her illusions, no one could escape. I think that's what has happened here since many souls who place Shakta inferior has come into this comments section. Well said. May Amba bless you all... Sri Mathre Namah.

If you have gone through the articles and our comments previously, you may find that we have NOT stated anywhere that Śaktism is inferior to Śaivism etc. I do not wish to take this any further, as we are simply NOT seeing eye to eye on this discussion. You have made your points and the reference to Lalita Triśati keeps you on firm ground and I commend you for that. I have only disallowed one of your comments directly attacking Jayanth ji, which I find as inappropriate for this website. Please don't indulge in personal attacks. If anyone else attacks you personally, I will disallow that as well. If you look at this post in a convoluted way, it may appear as an attack as well, but I assure you that it is not. Moving on, We have stated that Śakti is the Vimarśa (self-reflection) of Śiva as per the Trika philosophy. If you find that misogynistic, then I will not argue any further. Please do note that I have also stated that at the Highest principle of Brahman, there is no gender. If you would like to support your theories that have been verified and published by eminent scholars and researchers, then please do so. We hold all Darśanas, such as Śaivism, Śaktism, Vaiṣṇavism in equal esteem. No article on our website has demeaned any or chose one in favor of another. But perceptions may differ, as I can see from your reaction to various posts explained from a Trika perspective. We have NOT stated anywhere that your explanation from a Śākteya perspective is wrong. You can reach the summit of a mountain following any path of your choice. Reaching the summit is important, the choice of path is as per your desire and convenience. It is another matter, that we have individually made our own preferences, such as me choosing Śaktism. I am not looking for any certificate to ascertain myself as a Śākteya from anyone. I only translate and publish to the best of my understanding and knowledge. Without the blessings of the Divine Mother, it would have been impossible for me, given my background, to have found Śrīvidyā and also gain the favor of a divine soul, such as Shri Ravi ji, to continue his selfless work in publishing sacred knowledge for the benefit of all. Constructive criticism is most welcome on this site! Differing viewpoints are also welcome as most commentators have already pointed out. Let us try and keep the conversation civil, courteous, mature and spiritual. We wish you the best of luck in your spiritual journey.

Talking about respects and not belittling other philosophical thoughts? Bro, I think you should have to be aware of that very well too…. Throughout our conversation, I never criticized Shaiva or Shiva as I myself actually a Shaiva. If you notice, I would have never claimed that I am only a Shakta. I follow Srividya as per Shaiva Darshana hence, both Devi and Parasiva are the same entity to me, just as how Bhaskararaya states in the beginning of Saubagya Bhaskaram itself. It seems like you and others could not tolerate my viewpoints, hence ask me to comment elsewhere, which I think would be better as no point of discussing Devi Paratvam among people who wear sleeves of Devi upasakas while mock it in all ways (just read back your previous claiming-to-be “historical” comment). I respect your suggestion and request to offer perspective on principles of Nirvana Sundari, Guhya Shodashi, Para Shodashi , etc.., which I would do if it is necessary and also if I really know about it. I would love to share many of my previous articles on SRIVIDYA (in which Shakta is one of the dharshanangas), somewhere else where my comments are respected and my beliefs are welcomed; at least not belittled like what I saw from here. The supremacy of Srividya has been already established by many great souls from Paramatma to Kanchi Mahaswamigal. We just have to solely believe and surrender to those without talking great about the dating given by so called scientific western historians. No one has to bestow greatness to Srividya, which has always been there since time immemorial. At least, not making fun of it intentionally or unintentionally is more than enough. May Amba Bless you. Sri Mathre Namah.

I think respect comes from both sides. Broken nose there was a metaphor for getting back an ego-breaking reply. If you misunderstood my context, then I can assure that it was not about physical violence at all and most importantly, not gender based. My reply was such as that person was belittling my qualities and for also chasing me away. If I unintentionally hurt her feelings, I really apologize for not being clear on what I meant. Questioning my state as a Shakta? Bro, then what have you been doing since the beginning by saying Siva created Devi, Sakta came from Saiva, Lalita Sahasranama has no authoritative description before 18th century, Patrilineal over Matrilineal descend, etc…, ? This is what I call an actual shameless act while claiming to be a Shakta.

Owh seriously? I am very well aware of historical accounts and how dating of a scripture works, which many of them haven’t really undergone carbon dating. FYI the earliest surviving tantric literature is definitely not Shaivite based on many scholars. According to some historical sources, the earliest tantric scriptures are Buddhists, coeval with Shaiva. Some scholars have pointed out that a few Buddhist scriptures predate the Shaiva tantras. So, does that mean Shaiva scriptures borrowed from Buddhists?? I would say no. Even the earliest historically dated tantras from the regions you stated are Buddhist, not Saiva or Sakta. The sources preserved in South India are indeed mostly saivite, obviously for a Saiva Siddhanta dormant place. But does that mean other traditions were born from Saiva? Pancharatrins would laugh if you say that. So far, you have been only tracing the origin of Sakta from Tantras while the actual core comes from Vedopanishads. So if you say Sakta was born out of Saiva, I request you to prove it based on proper evidences from Vedas, rather than talking just based on your own knowledge. To go further into Adi Shankaracharya, not only Lalita Sahasranama but also Shiva Sahasranama fell out but he did write a commentary on Lalita Trishati. Moreover, Shankara infact never placed Siva as supreme in any of his bashyams but asserted Narayana Paratvam. So, your argument on Shankaracharya is rendered null. Even in Srividya, if Parameswara is the first guru, that itself shows its undeniable authority. Your point on Lalita Sahasranama is impractical as the Same Shankara has commented on Lalita Trishati, which also comes from the same purana that holds this holy Sahasranama, and this has been confirmed by all the amnaya peetams of Shankara and most importantly by my manasiga guru, the famous saint Sri Kanchi Mahaperiyava. Just Because no commentaries before Saubagya Bhaskaram or Vidyaranya didn’t mention Lalita Sahasranama, does that mean it was an later addition? Questioning the origin of the Sahasranama itself shows how negatively you think about it yet discuss its greatness in this website? Are you even aware of Kunjitangristavam of the famous 14th century saint Umapati Sivacharya which mentions about Lalita’s destruction of Bhandasura, which exclusively finds mention in the Sahasranama? Just because Patrilineal descent is more common in India than Matrilineal descent, does that mean women are inferior to men? Lol… how would that even relate to Sakta and Saiva superiority? This lineal descent is due to many reasons including male dominance since ages. If Shaivism really preceeded Shaktism, then why almost all Shaivite scriptures mention Devi as his consort while Shakta scriptures may or may not mention Shiva as consort? But this doesn’t mean Saiva originated from Shakta. Just as how it is difficult to claim that Shaktism originated from Shaivism, it is equally difficult to say vice versa. Scientifically, many has pointed out that Shaivism and Shaktism both sprout out of the earlier Vedic and non-vedic pantheons. Therefore, claiming any way round is wrong. So, my beliefs are based on intense scholarly reviews unlike you who is so fond of establishing Saiva superiority, which is impractical as per the same theories you pointed out. Lastly, you have clearly shown from the beginning on how discriminative you could act towards Devi from questioning the authority of her Sahasranama till arguing on origin of Shaktism. Therefore, I leave it upon Amba to decide as She knows better than any of us. FYI I did not belittle other philosophies unlike what you did but just added that more insights on the commentaries are necessary. You claim to help people seek self-realization but let others to belittle when someone points out something. Please go ahead. May Devi decide what’s right.

Well said. I have a perfect quote for this discussion: "Oh Mother, who really knows Your magic? You're a crazy girl driving us all crazy with these tricks. No one knows anyone else in a world of your illusions .... If she decides to be kind, this misery will pass." Blessings.

If you are initiated into Śrī Mahāgaṇapati mantras, then you are eligible to chant it.

It is pronounced exactly like how you would say " I'm " in English. The 'ng' form is practiced by the tantrics to redirect the verbal sound through the nasal stream vs the mouth, which would happen if 'ṁ' is pronounced instead of 'n'. When synchronized with breath and recited mentally, the 'aiṁ' sound should suffice. It is important that the bījas should be nasalized and the sound coming through the nasal bridge when pronounced outwardly. It is difficult to do so if the 'ng' does not replace the 'ṁ'. With some practice, you maybe able to do so without making these replacements. Please note that in the 'ng', the sound of the 'g' is almost silent and the stress is on the 'n' part only. The original pronunciation is the best way of recitation and it should be silent with breath alignment and slow breathing for maximum benefit.

Namaste sir, can I chant the kavacha mantra or should I be initiated into it?