I can understand where you're going with that, he does seem to be quite devoted. Still, there are some aspects of shrI vaiShNavism that I just can't agree with. Why does he (and other shrI vaiShNava-s) accept AnDAl as an avatAra of bhUmIdevI, but not consider rAdhA to be an aMsha of shrI lakShmI (they view rAdhA as merely a gopI)? Their argument is that the latter is only mentioned in rAjasika purANam-s (like the padmapurANam) and "tAmasika" purANam-s (like the devi bhAgavatam), yet I've never, ever heard AnDAl mentioned in any shAstra-s. Isn't that kind of a double standard?
Very interesting question... Hope some learned men following Sri Vaishnava can throw light on this...