4. I have read the translation of the commentary of Sankara in my mother tongue (Telugu). Your interpretations deviate from the commentary of Sankara. Therefore your interpretations deviate from the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita. Then how do you justify them?
5. You say that Ramanuja is the re-incarnation of Sankara. Sankara said that any individual who is interested in the Lord is eligible for the spiritual effort. Ramanuja said that only a Brahmana, (commonly means a member of the priest caste) who has studied the Veda is eligible for spiritual path. How can you solve this contradiction?
9. The Vedic mantra 'na karmana na prajaya dhanena tyagenaike amrtatvam anasuh', is explained by You as "Not by action, nor by progeny, but by sacrificing wealth alone, can one achieve Immortality". Therefore you say that the Lord is pleased by the sacrifice of wealth or karmaphala tyaga. However in interpreting this statement, an additional word 'na' (not) can be added before the word dhanena (wealth) according to a rule in Sanskrit grammar. The rule says that a negative used for one noun can be extended to subsequent nouns in a list (ekatra padam...). This interpretation changes the meaning of the above line significantly. It now means "Not by action, nor by progeny, nor by wealth but by sacrifice alone, can one get Immortality." Then the Lord cannot be pleased by sacrificing action (work), issues (progeny) and wealth. Only by sacrifice can one please the Lord. This interpretation contradicts your theory of karmaphala tyaga (sacrificing the fruit of work). Could you please explain?
10. The Vedic statement "na karmana" says that you should not do work while another Vedic statement "kurvanneveha" says that you should constantly work. How do you reconcile these two mutually opposing statements in the Veda?
Browser Compatibility: Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome and IE8+ on all Desktops, Mobiles and Tablets