Moola Mantra and effects!

To say that "Moola mantras create thought-energy waves" is to say the rather obvious, in that all spoken words having some semantic correlatives are thought-energy waves. Matter is but a dense and inert mode of energy dance, a particular vinyas of energy quanta, the reality of particles also being the reality of waves. All that is, is vibration. Including consciousness.

An unerring sense of 'sphota' vis-a-vis 'baikhari' is what the business of mantra -- of vocal/vibrational overlaying of consciousness -- requires. The quoted lines, especially the underlined ones, hold promise in that direction.

"The human consciousness is really a collection of states of consciousness, which distributively exist throughout the physical and subtle bodies. So individual organ consciousness is overlaid by system consciousness, overlaid again by subtle body counterparts and consciousness, and so ad infinitum. Moola mantras start a powerful vibration, which corresponds to both a specific spiritual energy frequency and a state of consciousness in seed form. Over time, the moola mantra process begins to override all of the other smaller vibrations, which eventually become absorbed by the moola mantra. After a length of time, which varies from individual to individual, the great wave of the moola mantra stills all other vibrations. Ultimately, the moola mantra produces a state where the organism vibrates at the rate completely in tune with the energy and spiritual state represented by and contained within the moola mantra..."

What remains to be tackled ahead is ascertaining the one-t0-one correspondance among 1. (particular) mantra, 2. aveesta, and 3. paatra.

Before all that, one feels like having certitude of unanimity with regard to points like, taking beeja mantra for example: "Hreem is the seed sound for the principle of abundance." Haven't we been told everywhere that 'hreem' is the 'maya beeja' or the beeja for the principle that that controls maya, while 'shreem' is the principle of abundance, penitude and grace? This view (what I say here) may be a rough-hewn one. Could you please refine and remove the vagueness surrounding these so that we can be on a precise footing.