Please understand that "created" simply means a part of the same prakāśa appearing as vimarśa. Just like an ocean forming a sea by jutting into a peninsula. We are simply qualifying that part of the ocean as a sea, but it is the ocean only. It is only for our own easier understanding that we are qualifying an active part of the prakāśa as vimarśa. For Śaivas, especially the Kashmir Trika followers, prakāśa is Śiva and a portion or "self-relection" of the vimarśa is Śakti as Parā, Aparā and Parāparā. When we go higher up in the space, we only see Earth. The land and oceans merge into the heavenly body. Likewise, the entire theory of Creation is explained in various ways by the Śaivas, Vaiṣṇavas, Śakteyas, Gaṇapatyas and adherents of other faiths. What you have pointed out is a Śakteya point of view, which is not necessarily followed in the articles posted on this site. I follow the Śakteya mārga and agree with your viewpoint. To my understanding, we have to go beyond the states of Śiva and Śakti to understand the unconsciousness represented as Mahānirvāṇa Sundarī.

Same appearing as two can never be called created... In Srimad Devi Bhagavatam, MulaBhagavati Bhuvaneswari divided herself into two and became Siva, Bhuvaneswara Mahadeva. Does that mean Siva was created?? So, if you accept this theory of creation, then you have to also accept the theory which I pointed out too. I disagree to both as neither Siva or Sakthi created each other. Both are combos of Sivasakthi, while they just take incharge of those tatvas. In both ocean and sea, water is what that is present. Devi is that water, hence cannot be called either ocean or the sea separately. If you wanna follow Saiva understanding in this post, which is really vital, then no issues at all. But if you say all posts on this website would follow this theory, then it is extremely unfair and degradatory towards the worshippers of Devi. I have read your articles on Srihari and Bhagavat Gita where none of these theories are shown but Narayana is shown as Parabrahman. Then why none of your articles focusing on Lalita didn't actually pointed out the fact that She is Parabrahmam?? Why falsely portray Her as being created while She herself mentions that She is both the creator and creation? Isn't that some sort of fanaticism? If you only talk about Trika on this article, it is very true. But it is goes very contradictory and wrong for articles on Devi or Narayana paratvam. Or, you can easily say that this is a Saiva oriented website and not a Srividya website. I and my disciples would just walk away from a website where Devi's Parabrahma tatvam is made a mockery! If you really understand about the sampoorna tatvam of Nirvana Sundari who shines beyond the amakala, then you should have been concerned more than me regarding this matter. Anyways, thank you for showing the true colour and intention of this website.... Aum Sri Mathre Namah

Sir, you must understand that Śaktism has evolved from Śaivism based on all historical accounts. Given this perspective, there is nothing wrong in explaining about the Divine Mother from the perspective of Trika/Advaita etc. There is also nothing wrong in taking up the pure Śakteya view, which has been given full importance in the explanation of many Kavacas and Stotras on this site. The same view is also present in the Mantra explanations of the various forms of the Divine Mother. For a self-realized person like Shri Ravi guruji heading towards liberation, they're all one and the same. More than any theory or philosophy expounded in the scriptures of any particular tradition, the actual practice and gaining the treasure of self-realization is of utmost importance. We must understand that Buddhists or followers of various religions and those meditating on pure awareness and even atheists can gain self-realization. We can follow any philosophy that appeals to us and is harmonious with our spiritual growth and tolerant towards all other belief systems that profess in harmony with nature and mutual co-existence. That said, we are not forcing our views upon anyone nor are we holding steadfast upon any one single philosophy. Anybody is welcome to shun our website or the articles posted here. We just request that they be considerate in expressing their criticism and keeping it polite. We wish you and your disciples speedy spiritual progress and may the grace of the Divine Mother be showered upon you. Thank you for visiting us and sharing your perspectives for the benefit of everyone!

Mr. Murugan. you must understand that this website has more than 7.2 million readers. If you, along with your disciples leave this website, it is not going to have any impact. Further, you claim to be a guru, but you do not have the qualities of a good Good Guru. Please ask your disciples not to visit this website and in particular, you kindly do not visit this website. Many of us have evolved spiritually with this website, which is simple, straightforward and non-commercial. Kindly stay from this website.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Well said

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

*Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal of Sringeri.

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.

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.

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.

Dear MnX, thank you for providing your personal views, which you are free to do but mentioning me in specific, forgetting out the others who made a mockery out of Amba is definitely not right for someone who sees Shiva and Shakti as heart and soul. I am strong with my arguments and references, both scriptural and historical, thus it doesn't really matter to me or affect me if you mentioned my name. I agree that the supreme is to be experienced but productive debates are welcomed, in fact sometimes important for understanding the fundamental basic knowledge. No one of this era is equivalent to Jagadguru Shankaracharya in supreme spiritual experience. Yet, didn't he debate for the welfare of mankind? I understand that these articles were written long time ago but it doesn't mean I can't question about them now as I just got to see more of them. Previously, when similar issue was brought up on a different article, Sri Ravi guruji was very polite in answering, infact even agreed to my references and viewpoints. You were right that the original author, Sri Ravi guruji would have been very polite and wouldn't have mocked Shaktism like our fellow commenters here. Indeed Amba would be laughing at the words people have used towards her pathway and Herself in this page. If you believe that followers of this website (in facf all websites focused on spiritual empowerment) are guided by Devi, hence even my comments are also under Her guidance. Theory is 'just' a base. Theory is extremely important as how the base is extremely important for a building. Even I am very thankful towards Sri Ravi guruji as I have really learned a lot from his articles. There are in reality many more to learn which are not in this website. Only through Devi's blessings, all knowledge are known. Lalitambika who exists as both Shiva and Shakti is my cosmos. May Amba bless you too. Sri Mathre Namah.

It seems like you have decided to support on the website runner's side without really going through what the commenters have really said, thus no harm. Let's see what you have to say. Falsely stating that Shaktism was created from Shaivism, Devi was created by Shiva, Matrilineal decline shows Shaiva superiority, Lalita Sahasranama wasn't referred before 18th century, etc..., all no matter you agree or not, are mockeries towards Devi. It is not that no one dares as what I see from here, they did but so funny that all of their attempts are nothing in front of Devi. Just as how any dirt thrown at fire becomes Bhasma, Every mockery made towards my Amba just becomes holy bhasma which Brahma Vishnu Rudra adore as per Ananda Lahari. Thus, it is purely your misinterpretation to consider their acts as right, which again, you are free to do so. Not only Shiva Purana, Devi Bhagavatam, Visnu purana, Mudgala purana, Linga Purana, Agni Purana and the other Maha, Upa Puranas always glorify that one PARABRAHMAM in all different forms, even the tantras. No matter Devi, Shiva, Narayana, or Mahaganapati, claiming that one created another is only applicable in terms of maintaining pure devotion towards that specific form of the supreme, for specific focus. This supposed to aid individual progress towards Brahmam, not mock and form degradatory terms towards other schools. If we need to reach her, first we need belief, then jnana, and ultimately total surrenderness called Para Bhakti. At this stage, one achieves complete wisdom or paripurana jnana, in which one identifies themselves as Shiva, and finally merge with Amba, the ultimate, where She is the Atman or Brahman. This is the antaryagam as per sruti vakyam. Indeed, Tripurasundari is said to be only interested in Shiva at the ultimate state as only one who is Shiva, the completeness, could finally become one with Her. Amba as Parashakti guides the realization pathway of soul as Shiva, the embodiment of ultimate knowledge and finally by himself towards the ultimate satchitananda, Lalithambika. This ultimate satchitananda is recognised as Narayana, Krsna, Parasiva, Lalitambika, Mahakali, Purnachandi, Allah, Jehovah, Shunyam or anything as per their own schools and some may follow combined pathways which finally reach the same destination such as Mahashodashi (Lalita and Mahakali as one at final stage). So, it is for you to think who is sticking and why do they stick to a particular view and ridicule others' views. I didn't request anyone to show interest in replying here after a point. If there is any, concerning my interference, I will reply. Claiming that 'we' are only interested in spiritual advancement in whatever path seems like as though we from here are not in such mode, which is your own perception that doesn't affect us. To us, we ALL are somehow in a spiritual advancement and hence it is Amba as in all forms guiding us ALL. May Amba bless everyone. Sri Mathre Namah.