had to be regarded together (as the
ubhaya
-
Ved
nta
, ‘the twofold Vedic heritage’) and as fulfilling orthodoxy, not as cancelling it. He implicitly objected to a one-sided emphasis on a locally restricted, vernacular tradition (namely, the
lv
rs
, as interpreted by the Lok
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
c
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
rya). Grace had to be ‘earned’ through at least a minimum of human co-operation, which must include orthodox behaviour. His opponents viewed things differently. They regarded the
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
lv
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
r heritage as supreme and produced a vast commentarial literature on the N
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
l
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
yira-divya-prabandham in Tamil. Not only did they read R
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
m
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
nuja's theology into the poems, but their exegesis derived from them also the blueprint of a totally novel form of religion. The novelty lay in the assumption of the unconditional availability of grace, with two important corollaries. First, no restrictions (as through
caste
, etc.) must be imposed on it; and secondly, ‘orthodox behaviour’ was seen as creating the delusion of being able to merit divine grace. Through the teaching and organizing of Ma
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00026.jpg)
av
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00006.jpg)
![](/files/02/59/75/f025975/public/00033.jpg)