Namaste. Through the grace of the divine mother I found information about the existence of the very rare "Vana Durga Saptashati" that consists of 362 māla mantras. The Vana Durga Saptashati consists of all the Mahā mūlams and māla mantras of Ugratārā, Bagalāmukhi, Kāli, Shakti peetha devatas, Bhrāmari mantras, Kārthaveeryārjuna vishaya, Asura vishaya, Kāli vishaya, Pratyangiha vishaya, and Shulini vishaya, many. It also has various astra (weapon) mantras like Pāshupatāstra , Vāyvāstra, Brahmāstra. Compared to other mantra prayogas (applications), the Vana Durga Saptashati is a collection of some important vedic mantras from Atharva Veda. More than 300 māla mantras are included in this precious text.A complete recitation of the Vana Durga Saptashati takes 7 hours. It is said that Agastya Mahārishi performed the upāsana of Shri Vana Durga Bhagavati. Where can I find Vana Durga Saptashati? This sacred text aroused great curiosity in me.

Dear brother, I understand the concepts of Prakasa and Vimarsa. If you say Prakasa reflects as Vimarsa, it is right. But claiming that Prakasa created Vimarsa and Devi is that Vimarsa which was created by Siva is completely wrong! It falsifies the holy names of Lalita Sahasranama itself, which this thought was used as explanation. I have already pointed out ample references on how Devi is Prakasa in the beginning, expanded herself as Vimarsa, hence I don't wanna repear it here again. It is also wrong to say that Prakasa created Vimarsa. Prakasa is the state where Siva and Sakthi are the same entity. Vimarsa is the state where Siva and Sakthi as co-dual tatvas to represent creation. Both these tatvas are of Lalita herself or Parasiva himself. If you say that Vimarsa cannot exist without prakasa, then can prakasa exist without vimarsa?? If can, then where did out of nowhere Vimarsa came into being? Many at this point say Vimarsa came from Prakasa. If yes, isn't Vimarsa a part of Prakasa? If yes, then how can we deny that Prakasa too has no existance without Vimarsa? We can adapt the reflection theory pointed out by you. If Vimarsa is a reflection of Prakasa, whatever that is Prakasa is what that is seen as Vimarsa. So when the reflection doesn't exist, how could you even say that there was something as prakasa? This theory will have a huge error if suddenly someone questions about the need of a mirror to show a reflection. In this case, where did this mirror out of nowhere suddenly came into being?When a reflection of a flower is seen, we would say that the reflection cannot exist without the flower. What if there is no reflection at all?? So where was it? It will only prove that there wasn't such flower at all. So, just as how Vimarsa's existance depends on Prakasa, Prakasa's existance solely depends on Vimarsa too. That's why, it is easier to put it that Prakasa itself becomes Vimarsa, which are both modes of Siva as per Saivism, either when he expands his energy/Sakti separately (Siva is known as Vimarsa or specifically known as Sakti as He/She takes incharge of energies released) or withdraws within himself (Siva as Prakasa when himself/herself is the symbol of unified energy). In Srividya, Ambal is not only the Sakti of Siva (Expanded external version known as Vimarsa), but also Siva himself (unified inherent version known as Prakasa). This Lalita=Parasiva is beyond all the 36 tatvas, in which Prakasa (Siva) and Vimarsa (Sakti) are the first two tatvas. If you say Vimarsa is responsible for srishti stithi vinashanam while prakasa Siva is beyond these, it automatically contradicts many scriptures as they show Siva himself does all this by himself. So, it is only right to put it that Siva itself becomes Sakti. Prakasa itself becomes Vimarsa and both are Parasiva/Lalita herself. As the possessor of the free will, Svatantryam, Prakasa is also Lalitambika as per the same Sahasranama (Svaprakasa, Svatantra). We need trika, Advaita and most importantly Srividya darshana to solely understand this. Dear brother, I am not a guru, well versed and expound like Ravi guruji but just wished to share my understanding as requested by some devotees of Ambal from my side. Whatever that has been said by any of us are revelations from Devi herself, depending on the level of understanding. So, if I have hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize for that. Other than that, we all are in the pathway of gaining Sivajnana or self knowledge and whatever I shared would be useful to some too. Aum Sri Mathre Namah.

Dear brother, I understand the concepts of Prakasa and Vimarsa. If you say Prakasa reflects as Vimarsa, it is right. But claiming that Prakasa created Vimarsa and Devi is that Vimarsa which was created by Siva is completely wrong! It falsifies the holy names of Lalita Sahasranama itself, which this thought was used as explanation. I have already pointed out ample references on how Devi is Prakasa in the beginning, expanded herself as Vimarsa, hence I don't wanna repear it here again. It is also wrong to say that Prakasa created Vimarsa. Prakasa is the state where Siva and Sakthi are the same entity. Vimarsa is the state where Siva and Sakthi as co-dual tatvas to represent creation. Both these tatvas are of Lalita herself or Parasiva himself. If you say that Vimarsa cannot exist without prakasa, then can prakasa exist without vimarsa?? If can, then where did out of nowhere Vimarsa came into being? Many at this point say Vimarsa came from Prakasa. If yes, isn't Vimarsa a part of Prakasa? If yes, then how can we deny that Prakasa too has no existance without Vimarsa? We can adapt the reflection theory pointed out by you. If Vimarsa is a reflection of Prakasa, whatever that is Prakasa is what that is seen as Vimarsa. So when the reflection doesn't exist, how could you even say that there was something as prakasa? This theory will have a huge error if suddenly someone questions about the need of a mirror to show a reflection. In this case, where did this mirror out of nowhere suddenly came into being?When a reflection of a flower is seen, we would say that the reflection cannot exist without the flower. What if there is no reflection at all?? So where was it? It will only prove that there wasn't such flower at all. So, just as how Vimarsa's existance depends on Prakasa, Prakasa's existance solely depends on Vimarsa too. That's why, it is easier to put it that Prakasa itself becomes Vimarsa, which are both modes of Siva as per Saivism, either when he expands his energy/Sakti separately (Siva is known as Vimarsa or specifically known as Sakti as He/She takes incharge of energies released) or withdraws within himself (Siva as Prakasa when himself/herself is the symbol of unified energy). In Srividya, Ambal is not only the Sakti of Siva (Expanded external version known as Vimarsa), but also Siva himself (unified inherent version known as Prakasa). This Lalita=Parasiva is beyond all the 36 tatvas, in which Prakasa (Siva) and Vimarsa (Sakti) are the first two tatvas. If you say Vimarsa is responsible for srishti stithi vinashanam while prakasa Siva is beyond these, it automatically contradicts many scriptures as they show Siva himself does all this by himself. So, it is only right to put it that Siva itself becomes Sakti. Prakasa itself becomes Vimarsa and both are Parasiva/Lalita herself. As the possessor of the free will, Svatantryam, Prakasa is also Lalitambika as per the same Sahasranama (Svaprakasa, Svatantra). We need trika, Advaita and most importantly Srividya darshana to solely understand this. Dear brother, I am not a guru, well versed and expound like Ravi guruji but just wished to share my understanding as requested by some devotees of Ambal from my side. Whatever that has been said by any of us are revelations from Devi herself, depending on the level of understanding. So, if I have hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize for that. Other than that, we all are in the pathway of gaining Sivajnana or self knowledge and whatever I shared would be useful to some too. Aum Sri Mathre Namah.

Dear Jayanth, if the comment was individually from you, then you don't even hold the authority to ask people to leave this website. You have said your point and I have said mine. I don't know many things which by the grace of Ambal would be made known. So, your comment was not necessary to me as it doesn't change the facts I pointed out. Thanks. Sri Mathre Namah

Dear sir, thank you for your valuable input as always! We encourage you to please participate in all the discussions and share your valuable knowledge and perspective for the benefit of all sādhakas. We have stated previously and would like to reiterate again that this site does not hold steadfast on to any one philosophy and efforts have been made especially by Shri Ravi guruji to explain the Trika and Advaita philosophies in a very simplified and easy to understand format. While the site is targeted towards all levels of spiritual seekers, the beginners and lay persons may especially benefit from the various articles presented here. I myself found maximum benefit and kickstarted my spiritual journey through the teachings of Shri Ravi guruji and his profound, yet lucidly presented perspectives on various subjects, ranging from Tantra to Advaita. Now coming to the perspective of prakāśa and vimarśa, the latter being a reflection of the former, cannot obviously exist without the former when seen from the perspective of a normal reflection. The reflection concept is easy to comprehend and further, we can disseminate the knowledge that the entire Creation comes from the vimarśa etc. In this scenario, the vimarśa Itself is endowed with all capabilities to Create, Preserve and Destroy and does not require the aid of prakāśa or anything else. At a much deeper level, keeping the Advaitic perspective in mind, the prakāśa and vimarśa are one and the same. The expression of free will of prakāśa seems to appear as vimarśa endowed with the free will and the further expression of vimarśa as prakṛti, paśu etc. may be seen as just an effect of māyā, which is also a part of vimarśa. It is simply infinite and contains everything, is everything and exists all the time. It is simply incomprehensible and cannot be explained in any manner, but may only be experienced as true bliss in the absence of all senses, which then makes it impossible to describe what It really is. Now coming into the arena of religions, darśanas, sampradāyas etc., we may name the entities such as prakāśa, vimarśa etc. as Śiva, Śakti or vice-versa etc. It really does not matter which tradition we follow. At the highest level of existence, they're all merged together and were never separated. It is only the cosmic illusion of māyā that creates a sense of separation. When we ascend spiritually and gain self-realization, everything will be revealed by Itself. This should be our goal. The path we follow is up to us and true gurus such as yourself, Shri Ravi guruji and various others are the torch bearers illuminating the path for all spiritual seekers. We bow reverently to all of you and may you all continue to lead us from darkness to light and alleviate our suffering completely.

Ego is the cause of the impediment that leads us to believe that our identity lies with the body and not the true consciousness - Kūṭastha. Until we transcend the ego, self-realization does not happen. We cannot get rid of the ego as long as we are in the physical body, but we can definitely transcend it with the negations specified in Vedanta and other scriptures, as well as other esoteric practices of tantra, meditation etc.

This comment was done by me on personal capacity so dont blanket your statement to website maintenance personnel that they are rude. I have said my point on what I wanted to convey by reading many of the comments posted from your end and there is no benefit in discussing further as you know everything. Hence I stop at this point. God Bless

I have already explained that Brahman is everything beyond the label of specific gender in my comment hence you don't have to emphasize on it. Isn't it funny?? Vedanta and Trika have slightly different set of theories to explain creation by Brahmam. Vedanta doesn't actually need to touch on Siva and Sakti. Even in Trika, Sakti is the inherent energy of Siva thus never a separate entity that is created. Sakti cannot be created... Siva itself becomes Sakti. If you cannot even understand this simple concept, don't educate or support this page without providing me solid explanation. Just because you think there aren't any discriminatory articles about Devi, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Some articles are very contradictory to the scripture discussed in the article itself! Just go ahead reading through about Lalita Sahasranama, then you will know. Even this topic on Finding God itself has many contradictory fallacies. Just because someone asks or points out out something, you can't chase them away from visiting the website... That shows how rude the upasakas who maintain this webpage are. Good discussions always yield beneficial knowledge. No one has hatred towards this website, as I stated above, many look great about this website, just wanted to clarify something that arose in the minds of fellow upasakas. It would be only useful if such questions and clarifications rise. It is totally useless and pathetic to ask them stop visiting... So think before replying... May Sivasakthyatmaka Amba Raja Rajeswari bless you...

Firstly everything is Brahman and once we understand this then there is no masculine or feminine. How do you explain concepts of Vedanta or Trika without drilling it down to Shiva and Shakti? I don't think there is any article here which is discriminatory, it all depends on individuals perception. So if anyone has hatred towards the articles posted here they better stop visiting this website, it will be useful for all.

An article which is very potential yet contains a lot of fallacies. Throughout all scriptures like Upanishads, Puranas and Tantras, Shakti is said to be anadhi along with Shiva hence can never be created. If you say Shiva's only creation was Shakti, then where did he get the power to create? First of all, why fix notation of He or She to Shiva, the Brahmam? Fixing these terms are faulty as it discriminate the position of femininity below masculinity. Shakti was never created by Shiva, but separated out of it for the Sake of creation. Together both Tatvas generate other tatvas. Shakti tatva was inherent within Shiva tatva before creation, therefore did not exist as a separate entity. This state is called Shiva Shaktyaikyam, which is referred as Lalithambika in her ultimate Nirguna Brahmam mode. We both have discussed previously how Devi is both Shiva and Shakti as per various scriptures. If you emphasize more on oneness or advaitam, then Prakasha Shiva and Vimarsa Shakti can never be different entities. Prakasha itself expands itself as Vimarsha. Shiva himself assumes the role of Shakti. This is confirmed as per many puranas and Tantras too. Devi herself says She is Brahman and Brahma Shakti, Purusa and Prakriti, Paramatma and Parasakthi as per Devi Atharvasirsham, Lalithopakhyanam, Srimad Devi Bhagavatam, Yogini Hridayam, Tripura Rahasyam and many more scriptures, most importantly as per the most revered Lalita Sahasranamam. I understand it is not my job to change anyone's perspective but I was asked by many about the articles of Manblunder, which become inspiration for many Srividya upasakas. When I looked through the articles here, I was really impressed on many but when it comes to Lalithambika, this website is so discriminative. For a website which promotes Srividya yet place Devi inferior is a very bad example. Brahmam is not 'Him' or 'Her' in specific. Brahmam is Lalita, which you have missed throughout the articles yet place her as Maya, the perishable. So, I commented as a Srividya practitioner and as a devoted child of Amba so that followers under me use this website without growing hatred towards Manblunder.