*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

Since you have decided to stay and comment, I will urge you for the last time to maintain a proper decorum in posting comments. It reflects on you, your teachers and your own upbringing. The reason why Jayanth ji has expressed his frustration is based on your own imagination that you have been disrespected despite throwing mud at the author of this article and anyone who has argued against your comments and also making absurd claims about yourself and your followers. Lastly, Śrī Lalita Sahasranāmam is pure tantra and NOT Veda. You may interpret it as you wish and as directed by your guru lineage. You have mentioned that Adishankaracharya held only Lord Nārāyaṇa as Paradaivam. I suggest you study Lalita Triśati once again and understand the inner meaning. You may also wish to add Nirvāṇa Śatakam to your list to gain further insight into the works of the legendary saint and how he integrated all faiths under one umbrella. You may delve into Advaita, his masterpiece, if you wish to explore further. Anyway, I will refrain from commenting on your posts on this article. You may continue your relentless tirade and not expect any response from us. Let us agree to disagree and if you wish to claim a glorious victory over me, then I gladly offer it to you. May the Divine Mother shower Her blessings upon everyone!

Dear Jayanth, it seems like the author wants to listen to your degradatory words and disallow my previous message for you. Therefore, I would summarise what I have to say in a very simple manner. Since the beginning you haven't shared any useful information from the scriptures or anything, rather than demeaning and chasing us away, which seems to be welcomed here. You can ask them to nip my comments at the bud itself, but it's funny that you can never snip off anything that we have learnt and our devotion towards Devi. May Devi bless all. Sri Mathre Namah.

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.