How do You justify Your interpretations which deviate from the commentary of Shankara, the Vedas and the Gita?

Swami replied:- You say that My interpretation deviates from Shankara. That is correct. How can you say that My interpretation deviates from the original text [Vedas and Gita]? Do you think that only the interpretation of Shankara is correct? If so, Ramanuja wrote a commentary deviating from Shankara. So according to you, Ramanuja also deviated from the original text. You have made two mistakes. The first mistake is to think that the commentary of Shankara alone is correct. The second mistake is that you have not read the original text since you do not know Sanskrit and the Shastras. Due to this you could not directly read the original text. If you see the commentary of Ramanuja, it is also correct because His commentary was according to all the Shastras. When you don’t know Sanskrit and the Shastras how can you say that Shankara is correct and Ramanuja is wrong? Now you say that I am wrong like Ramanuja. You can oppose my interpretation and blame me for deviating from the original text, provided you show any contradiction of My interpretation with the Shastras. But you don’t know the Shastras and you are not competent to say this.

Moreover, scholars as well as ignorant people do these translations. For example take the verse from the Gita “Karmajam Buddhi Yuktahi, Phalam Tyaktva….” In this verse when the translation was given word by word, it is written that wise scholars sacrifice the fruit of the work. But if you see the translation as a commentary below that, the translator writes that wise scholars sacrifice the desire for the fruit of the work. He contradicts his own [word-by-word] translation. Generally people do not read the translation word by word. They only read the translation below which is given as a commentary, which is wrong in this case. Therefore translators are misleading you.

My interpretation cannot coincide with Shankara or Ramanuja or Madhva. If it coincides with the interpretation of any Acharya I become the follower of that Acharya. My interpretation is the fourth path in which all the commentaries of the three Acharyaas are correlated. I want to prove that all the three Acharyaas are correct and their interpretations differed according to the circumstances in which they existed. Therefore I cannot be the follower of any one Acharya when my aim is to correlate all the three Acharyaas. Therefore the follower of Ramanuja and the follower of Madhva will also blame Me like you.