Owh lets see what you have to clarify here about Lalita Sahasranama. As I have statued earlier, Lalita Sahasranama is primarily vedic as well as tantric, which also traces from vedic sources. Even those scholars whom you mentioned have also stated that even the tantric origins can be traced back to the vedic ones. Not a few, there are ample of evidences of it being Vedic, more than ones that I have pointed out. For this, Saubagya Bhaskaram would be a very good example. Regarding the matter of Adi Shankaracharya, you yourself agreed that Adi Shankaracharya left his human body at 32 then contradict yourself stating the other 80-90 years story. There are many works attributed to Shankaracharya, which some believe to have been written by later Acharyas while some believe to have been from the master himself. So who has to authorize this?? Definitely not you, me, or western scholars who just research for papers' sake. That's where we need true insights from great Acharyas. If you wanna know about someone, would you ask a random person who has been observing that someone or directly to the person's close relatives? Wonderful acharyas from Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, Kanchi Paramacharya, Sri Bharati Tirtha Mahasannidhanam, and many more has expounded what it true and false. Just because SOME (NOT ALL) of the summarised version or part translation do not contain Lalita Sahasranama or Lalita Trishati, it doesn't mean the puranas lack those. The famous Sri Bhaskararayar has clearly pointed out that it is directly from the Lalithopakhyana, Brahmanda Purana, compiled by Sri Veda vyasa. If some parts are currently missing, that doesn't mean the scripture cannot be trusted. That's where the roles of Guru/Acharya comes in. That's why I pointed out that all Chaturamnaya peetam accept Lalita Sahasranama. Not only this purana, as per your so called great western definition, way many puranas were traced only after the medieval era. So does that mean these scriptures do not come from compilation of Krishna Dvaipayana? This is where the concept of overtime adaptation of theories comes in. Nobody knows which was added later or has been existing since the beginning, other than the lineage of Jagadgurus, who have spent and dedicated their whole life in establishing Advaita from Sruti, Smriti and Purana. If you say Shaktism is based mostly on tantrism, then it shows that you only focus on tantric scriptures, forgetting the Vedopanishads, Itihasas and Puranas. Even the Tantras are traced back to the vedas, which directly establishes firmly that Shaktism is from Vedism. Tantric Shaktism may have been kept hidden as stated by you but the Vedic Shaktism has been there since time immemorial. The valuable efforts of Acharyas and Scholars who follow the path of Shaktism have contributed a lot for our benefits currently and that's why I say claiming superiority of other philosophies over Shaktism is naive. It might not matter to you if someone says Shaktism came late or Shaivism came late. But for a person who sees both as two eyes with one sight, would never abandon or place one over the other. It DOES MATTER when someone induce a superiority complex between my Mata and Pita. If you say Shaivism and Vaisnavism focus directly on spiritual matters or mukti, then you should really study more about the schools within them, like Shaiva Siddhantam and Sri Vaishnavam. When all darshanas from Bauddha, Saura, Vaidika, Vaishnava, Shakta, Shaiva and finally Shambhava darshanas merge into Srividya, Ambal is Bhogamoksha Pradayini. Lastly, regarding the efforts from Sringeri and Kanchi mutts, I think they have been doing great efforts in sharing knowledge on Devi throughout their websites, Facebook pages, Youtube, all full of Anugraha Bhashanam of Shankaracharyas, translation of holy scriptures, clarification on misunderstandings about vedas and many more. For mutts which follow more on Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy, it wasn't necessary for them shedding light much on Tantras, as they clearly establish a solid foundation of Shaktism from Vedas, Puranas and Itihasas. Whatever that has been written in Tantras are already existant in our Shankara Advaita Vedantic tradition. Since it seems that you weren't much aware of the priceless contribution of our mutts, claiming that these are only for privileged ones is not practical. Therefore, I suggest you to go through Deivathin Kural by Kanchi Mahaswamigal, to just get a glimpse of our Shankara tradition. Aum Sri Mathre Namah.

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