Very interesting question... Hope some learned men following Sri Vaishnava can throw light on this...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?
Bookmarks