Pranaam sir, Is the Beeja mantra aim. Pronounced as "aing" or as "aim"?

Well said

You must understand that at the highest level of Brahman, there is no masculine or feminine state of existence. It is simply Awareness/Consciousness alone in a true and complete blissful state of Paramānanda. It really does not matter what we call Brahman as. What is important, is achieving the state of communion with It. As I have stated earlier, you may offer your insight from a Śākteya perspective without belittling the viewpoints of other philosophies. It is okay to disagree with other philosophies and stick to what you believe in. Let us remember to be respectful to others and expect the same as well. If for any reason you cannot accept or tolerate other viewpoints, then we suggest that you please take your comments elsewhere to any forum of your choice and not use this website as a punching bag. It simply does not serve the purpose of what we are trying to do here. Instead of wasting our energy in fighting over these trivial matters, I suggest and also request that you please offer your perspective on the worship of the highest principles of Śakti, such as Nirvāṇa Sundarī, Guhya Ṣoḍaśī etc and bring to light all the hidden knowledge. Please try and contribute to the cause of Śākteyam by bringing to light various stotras, mantras and scriptures that are still hidden and kept away from sincere sādhakas. You are more than welcome to contact me directly and my email is listed on the initiations page. Together, let us work towards bringing the glory of the Divine Mother to the benefit of this world and all sincere sādhakas, instead of wasting our time bickering over extremely trivial matters. The supremacy of Śākteyam can only be established by revealing its content, the underlying philosophies and contributing to the benefit of all believers. Simply stating that we are great, does not make us great. That status must be bestowed by others upon us and not simply assumed by ourselves!

If you wish to reply to comments, then we request that you please be courteous. I cannot understand how a Śākteya, who by definition worships the Divine Feminine, can confront a woman and speak of breaking her nose? Please reflect on your statements and reform yourself. We will not accept such shameless conduct on this site. Please be warned.

History is based on historical accounts, descriptions that can be verified through means, carbon dating etc. The earliest surviving tantric literature in the context of our description, is definitely Śaivic to the best of my knowledge. Even though all the scriptures claim their sources to be Divine coming from Śiva, Śakti, Bhairava, Bhairavi, Viṣṇu etc., from a scientific basis we simply cannot establish the original dates of the transmission of this knowledge. Agreed, most of the transmission was oral and the written form came much later. Considering the largely untouched regions of Nepal, Tibet etc. the earliest scriptures present there are definitely not Śakteya, to the best of my knowledge. Even in South India, the literature that is found and preserved in the French Indological Institute, Saraswati Mahal etc. is Śaivic. To go further, you may look at the commentaries of Shri Adi Shankaracharya and note that he has not commented on the Śrī Lalita Sahasranāmam, but chose to write his own composition of Saundaryalahari, based on his divine experiences. Even in Śrī Vidyā, the Divyaughaguru lineage starts with Caryānandanātha (Lord Śiva) based on the Nityaṣoḍaśikārṇava. This statement can be variously interpreted, but the point I wish to state, is that the very first authoritative description of the Śrī Lalita Sahasranāmam has come to light only in the 18th century by Shri Bhaskararaya and no other descriptions or commentaries appear prior to this, even in the Śrīvidyārṇavatantram. If we consider this from a Matrilineal and Patrilineal perspectives, we do observe that most of the Indian Sub-continent persisted with the Patrilineal descent, except in the case of Kerala until the last 2 centuries. If Śākteyam preceded Śaivism, why didn't the Matrilineal descent persist in the Indian Sub-continent in most regions? Most of the Śākteya scriptures and their procedures are shrouded in great secrecy and until more scholarly and scientific verification of the same is conducted, it is difficult to claim that Śaktism originated before Śaivism. You may hold on to your beliefs and not necessarily believe what has gone through rigorous scholarly review. Lastly, being a Śākteya myself, I can assure you that we DO NOT disrespect any philosophy or disapprove or criticize other commentaries, leave alone disrespecting the Divine Mother by any means. You are welcome to provide your insight into the articles from the Śākteya perspective, without belittling any other philosophical stream of thought that may have been deployed to expound on the respective articles. Our main goal here is to strive for self-realization and further towards liberation. We do try our best to help people seeking to understand and utilize mantras for their own needs and towards betterment of the society in general.

Its funny to talk about rights, as you are as much as a third party to this website. Though I do not maintain the website I can say that I'm a sincere follower of this website from past many years. I don't mind to be called ignorant as it does not matter what people call. But your language is no way polite by using words like degradatory or mokery etc. I have personally seen many people's life changed here with the help of the people here. So I leave it at that. Again in some of the articles Shakthi is considered supreme based on the article context, more over its trivial to talk about this to someone who only thinks from one perspective. You are in argumentative mind set with the intention unknown. Funny thing is people talk of rights when they don't understand their own duty on how to behave when posting such things. Constructive criticism is one thing but this is out right maligning the website for personal satisfaction I suppose (constant use of derogatory words)? The only reason why posts are approved is that the intention here to take consideration of all view points given its civil. I agree that your posts should be blocked and nipped at the bud, rather to explain something which you don't or not ready to understand. God bless.

Dear Jayanth, just because you say that no single philosophy is followed here, not necessarily it is true, as you yourself previously stated you aren’t running this website. As said earlier, you have no authority to ask me and my students stop visiting this website. It is foolish to say too. I did not use any malignant language to criticize the author, rather was polite in expressing my criticism. If no criticism are welcome, then the comments section should be turned off. This comment of yours show you true color to mock anyone who speak from the side of Amba, while I pointed out how the principle of Shakti has been shown inferior here LOL. To be honest, those are your replies which seem so ignorant as you could not even prove my references wrong or disprove the mistakes which I pointed out. Thus, there will be no problem whatsoever if you either continue replying to my comments or stop rather than asking me to stop visiting. If so called really no single philosophy is followed here, I think Krishna ji’s latest comment shows how in sectarian perspectives articles have been classified and written. Thus, your argument goes null immediately. Hope you can understand this and don’t ask me to do something that you don’t hold authority over. May Devi bless you. Sri Mathre Namah.

Dear Shanti, I don’t need to understand nor accept any of your ad hominem towards me. We are very well aware that nothing is gonna change whether we visit or leave. Just that, I pointed out my views on several articles here. LMAO…. I did not claim to be a guru like how you are claiming to be evolved spiritually. Btw you hold no authority to ask me or disciples here not to visit this website, it seems funny. This website has many wonderful articles as I have pointed out many times in previous comments yet also do contain mistakes, which I pointed out as per Srividya perspective. So, you may kindly stay away from my comments, or continue to get your nose broken. May Devi bless you. Sri Mathre Namah.

Sir, it is funny how you falsely claim that historically Shaktism evolved from Shaivism as many historians have pointed out that both schools have heavily influenced each other, though has developed independently. There are also few historical accounts which state that Shaivism originated from Jainism, but does that mean it is acceptable? SriVaishnavas have many times established that Shaivism originated from Vaishnavism as per Ramanuja, Madhva and Vijayendra Tirtha, but does that mean it is true? Historical accounts NEVER trace Shaktism from Shaivism but directly from the Vedas and even older, the Paleolithic era. In reality, Shaivism has been shown to borrow many deities from Shaktism patheon, therefore it is never right to support the Shaiva origin theory, hence, this perspective is rendered null in this context. Being a Shakta as you said earlier, I leave it to you whether to believe in this theory or not. If there is nothing wrong in taking up trika advaita in explaining the Divine Mother, then no harm if anyone take up Srivaishnava and Gaudiya Vaishnava in explaining Shiva, whom is nowhere superior to Narayana at any cost as per their context. First, you claimed that Devi originated from Shiva and now Shaktism originated from Shaivism? Where are the evidences other than the very late Trika theory compared to evidences from Vedopanishads and Purana Itihasas, which I have provided to support your perspective? I leave this between you, your guru and Devi to think upon. If a self-realized person who really see all as one and the same, then no harm in writing up Lalita as Parabrahman, isn’t it? Again, I leave this to Devi to consider this as anti-feminism or something that is right. Anyone is free to pursue any school of thought for self-realization, but should never impose contradictory ideas on another school’s scriptures. Happy that you welcome polite criticisms but we here have now understood the real intention of this website from your first sentence itself. As followers of Srividya and Advaita Vedanta, we would never discriminate the school of thought propounded by your guru, just like how you discriminated us by your false origin theory. I really respect Sri Ravi swamigal hence I thought I could freely share my thoughts. Now I see what the articles have done as a few readers are asking us to stay away, which don’t really matter to us. Thanks for the views from you and your peers. May Devi Bless you. Sri Mathre namah.

As it has been told multiple times that no single philosophy is followed in this website. I really cant understand as to why the questions keeps popping up. As said earlier if you and your follower have a problem with the contents of the website then its very good that you and your students stop visiting the website. The language used to malign the author is not fit for a guru. Krishnaji has been patient enough in explaining things and then you just want to prove a point with an intention unknown. This type of comments shows your true color rather than this websites as it was never claimed to follow any single philosophy from start and you created the misdirection by introducing Shathi principle is being disrespected here. To be honest I think these comments now seems more malicious than simply pointing out the so called mistakes. There will be no problem whatsoever if you stop visiting this website. If your response is again going to that its against scriptures etc, keep in mind no single philosophy is followed here, so your argument drops immediately. Hope you can understand this.