Its actually frustrating to do Lakshmi Saadhna. (Not because of Maa ofcourse!)
I decided to try going a route similar to Shree Vaishanavism and was reciting her hymns for evening aarti.
I went from Mahalakshmi Ashtakam, to Lakshmi Chalisa, to Lakshmi aarti.
The transition of the contents of the successive hymns is such a good example of how view of Lakshmi maa has evolved with our civilisation.
The Ashtakam, which is in Sanskrit, praises her as God. It refers to her with multiple names which refer to her attributes (such as one with mace, chakra and conch, slayer of kolhasur, vishnu's beloved) the same way Gods are generally reffered to in their hymns.
Then, there is the Chalisa, which is in an older, seemingly medivial version of Awadhi. This one does not refer to her attributes as God as much, but refers to her as a goddess of prosperity and companion of Vishnu ji (which is a beautiful thing! I am the biggest Lakshmi Narayan maniac their is, but it refers to her in a way that makes her sound more like Prabhu's subordinate rather than his Shakti).
And finally, the aarti which is more or less in old hindi. There is little mention of her attribute outside her role in providing prosperity. This is where the faith has completely leaned on recognising her DhanLakshmi aspect over her other aspects.
Again, DhanLakshmi saadhna is a good thing! That is still Maa. But her primary form is MahaLakshmi, which should be recieving more reverence than it does now, as is the case with primary aspects of other Gods.
But instead if that, her iconography or lore as MahaLakshmi is rarely present in modern Hindu households or media, replaced by just DhanLakshmi aspect. The religious loss of confining the Mother Goddess to the aspect that benifits humans the most (wealth) needs to be studied.
