Sri GurbhyO NamH SrI Parama GurubhyO NamaH Sri ParamEsHthi GurubhyO namaH
We are familiar with Sri Lalita Sahasranama from Brahmanda Purana. There is a version of Sri Lalita Sahasranama from Naradeeya Maha Purana where in Sanatkumara will tell this Sahasranama to Narada. The Special significance of this Sahasranama is that Sahasranama is combined with Lalita Kavacha.
It is interesting to know that Chapter 84 to 89 of Naradeeya Purana is the Mantra Prakarana explaining Mantras including that of Shakti Mantras.
Another very important content of Naradeeya Purana is Chapter 92 to 109 depicting the contents of all 18 Mahapuranas. By reading these chapters one can easily know the contents of all 18 Puranas and thus easy to choose the Purana or a part of Purana according to the individual’s interest and needs.
Devi Mahatme or Durga Saptashati said to be part of the Markandeya purana is not mentioned in the contents of Markandeya Purana as well Lalitopakhyana said to be part of Brahmanda Purana is also not mentioned in the contents of Brahmanda Purana and hence it may be concluded that Devi Mahatme in Markandeya Purana and lalitopakhyana in Brahmanada Purana are the insertions to these Puranas after writing Naradeeya maha Purana. If this opinion holds good the Lalita Sahasranama in Naradeeya Maha Purana seems to be older than Sahasranama in Brahmanda Purana.
43 and 44 the Verse of the sahasranama reads that the sahasranama itself is mantra and one should chant this as Mantra only.
I also find it necessary to brief on Sri Naradeeya Maha Purana. Like most of the Puranas, Sri Naradeeya Maha purana also has poorva Bhaga and Uttara bhaga. Poorva bhaga has four Divisions having 125 chapters in total where as Uttara bhaga has 82 chapters. The first division of poorva bhaga having 41 chapters is also known as Bruhannadareeya Purana, a upa purana, but with a difference. The first division of Sri Naradeeya Purana is Sanatkumara is telling Narada where as same 41 chapters with no change in the contents is depicted as Narada telling Sanatkumara in Bruhannadareeya Purana. This is a very good example for us to understand that we should only try to understand the purpose and contents of the Puranas, instead of enquiring on who told whom and when.
There is absolutely no similarity between Lalita sahasranama of Brahmanda Purana and that of Naradeeya Maha purana except a few names are seen in both the Sahasranamas but the series in which Shatchakras are described is the same in both sahasranamas which is very important to note. Sahasranama in Brahmanda Purana begins describing Shatchakras from Vishuddha Chakra Nilaya and proceed with Anahata, Manipura, SvadhiShthna, Mooladhara, Ajna and ends up in sahasrara. It is the same series in Sahasranama in Naradeeya Purana but ends at Ajna.
There is also another Lalita Sahasranama in Bhagavata Purana where Siva tells these Namas to Devi.
Tripurasundari, Rajarajeshwari, Shivakameshwari, Shodashi, names also refer to Lalita Mahatripurasundari.
Vamakeshwara Tantra has a Sahasranama which is called Shodashi Sahasranama as well Mahatripura Sundari Sahasranama.
Rudrayamala has two sahasranamas one named as Maharajnee Rajarajeshwari and the other as Sivakamasundari Sahasranama. I am of the opinion that those initiated into Shodashi and Mahashodashi may chant Sivakamasundari Sahasranama regularly because Dhyana Sloka for Sivakama Sundari Sahasranama is one of the Dhyanaslokas initiated along with Mahashodashi Mantra. I shall post all these Sahasranamas one by one in the blog.
Here is the attachment of Sri Lalita Sahasranama in Devanagari and English Transliteration from Naradeeya Purana and also youtube link of the same.
Sarve JanaH SukhinO Bhavantu Samasta Sanmangalani Bhavantu
OM SHANTIH SHANTIH SHANTIH
Naradeeya Purana lalita Sahasranama DEvanagari
Naradeeya Purana Lalita sahasranama English.docx
Atmananda lahari 
Sri Mathre Namah.
Dear Swamiji. I would like to point out something regarding Lalita Sahasranama of Brahmanda Purana. It seems you hold a view that Lalithopakhyanam and Chandi Mahatmyam aren’t parts of Brahmanda and Markandeya puranas, based on Naradiya purana. But it is wrong to assume that Lalita Sahasranama of Naradiya purana is older than that of Lalithopakhyanam, as Lalithopakhyanam may have existed separately for a very long time before being attached to Brahmanda Purana, as you claim. If you say that it is older, then solid proofs based on the scripture itself on when it was revealed to Narada should be explained instead of just referring to purana varnana of another scripture .
Besides, as per Srimad Devi Bhagavatam and even Naradiya Purana, Markandeya purana has 9000 verses but the current version only has 6900 verses. If Devi Mahatmyam is taken away, it becomes even lacking. So, just because one purana excludes Amba’s Mahatmyam as one of Markandeya purana’s content, that doesn’t mean it should be rejected.
There might be another very much possibility that the Naradiya purana’s description on other puranas was added later when several puranas existed in different versions. The description doesn’t include Shiva mahapurana while other puranas do. It doesn’t mean it didn’t exist because Adhi Shankara himself refers to it in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhasyam. Pre-existence of Lalithopakhyanam also can be traced to Shankara as he has done a commentary on Lalita Trishati. This shows that the description of puranas in Naradiya purana refers to selected versions, not aware of the others.
There might be another reason that this version didn’t include Chandi and Lalita Mahatmyam. This purana description may be a later addition to the purana, chosen to exclude praises devoted to Devi, which may be due to fanaticism against Shakta lore, which is visible from the very first part of this purana where forms of Devi are placed as just illusions of Vishnu. So, there is a possibility that this purana varnana is a later portion.
In conclusion, by all means, the view solely depends on the eyes of the viewer. I feel that, a website which promotes Srividya should never place Lalita Sahasranama of Lalithopakhyanam inferior to other Sahasranamas. Most importantly, we as devotees of Devi should never entertain those halfbaked westerners who wanted to date our scriptures based on their foolish understanding that Sruti, Smriti and Puranas as man-made. Comparatively, the rsi of Lalitha Sahasranama of Brahmanda Purana is none other than Paradevata herself through her Vaagsakthis while of the one from Naradiya purana is sanatkumara, who is just one of the devotees of Paradevata. Swami Bhaskararaya, an extremely profound acharya in Vedagamas Purana itihasas, though aware of all these various Sahasranamas of the same divine Mother, yet only chose Lalita Sahasranama of Brahmanda Purana for his bashyam, which he also explains clearly why it is much special compared to other Sahasranamas in his Saubaghya Bhaskaram.
Sri Mathre Namah
Sivayanama.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for enlghtening me. I shal go back to the article in the blog and make necessary corrections if need be. YES. IT IS VERY TRUE, We have meddled with many ancient texts to suit our needs and some times to satidsfy our EGO. It has become very dificult for a common man like me to differntate the concocted one with the original because the originals were meddled with. It is a sorry state of afafir.
LikeLike
Hreem
LikeLike