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?

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!