It is most likely because he believed that they could cause unnecessary conflict... that is just my educated guess
B is the answer to the question
The Bhakti Movement was a rapid growth of bhakti, the first departure in the later part of the 1st millennium CE, from Tamil Nadu in southern India with the Saiva Nayanars and the Vaisnavas Alvars. His ideas and practices inspired bhakti poetry and devotion throughout India throughout the 12th-18th CE century. The Alvars ("those immersed in God") were Vaishnavas poets-saints who roamed from temple to temple singing the praises of Vishnu. They established temple sites (Srirangam is one) and converted many people to Vaishnavism.
The movement has traditionally been regarded as a social reform, influential in Hinduism, and has provided an alternative individual pathway with a focus on spirituality, regardless of their birth caste or sex. Postmodern scholars question this traditional view and whether the Bhakti movement has always been a social reform or rebellion of any kind. They suggest Bhakti movement was a rebirth, rework and recontextualization of ancient Vedic traditions.
Bhakti includes the art of forgetting oneself and achieving liberation, but in this case it occurs through love for the divine world. A Bhakti apprentice does not have to believe this or that blindly. He doesn't slavishly adore this or that figure. Nor does he perform complicated rituals in order to obtain favors from "God". For him, the power of love is a concrete force that must be purified. It must be focused on the highest, and used for good. Furthermore, when used correctly, the energy of love goes hand in hand with adequate doses of rigor, severity and discipline.
