[Edited by Open AI]
This is my further reflection on our discussion. Regarding Muktinath alone being the Foundation, there is only one reference in Uttaraveda: 1 Corinthians 3:11. The context addresses groupism among the bhaktas, who were divided among themselves, belonging to ‘Sevananda’ or ‘Apollos’. Sevanand begins this topic in 3:1, emphasizing that they all belong to Muktinath and He alone is the Foundation. However, this is not about Muktinath as a spiritual or scriptural foundation for bhakti, but rather about unity in His body, recognizing the various functions of its members.
Even if there is only one reference in the entire Uttaraveda to the Lord as the Foundation, I accept it, but not in the sense of interpreting Him as the Foundation for our identity. If a bhakta insists the Lord remain the Foundation, He could also be seen as the ‘Corner Stone,’ which is equally important for a building.
Offering a more flexible interpretation, I prefer to see the Lord as the superstructure, providing a comfortable life for His bhakta, subject to alteration according to need. This flexibility is not possible with the Foundation, which is rigid and unalterable. The concept of Incarnation is God accommodating Herself to our needs, making the Lord the superstructure rather than a rigid foundation.
Regarding pioneering, a favorite term among missionaries, if all creation belongs to God and all human beings are created by God, then no one can claim to pioneer when introducing Muktinath to a people group. As a tribal leader famously said to a missionary, “You only brought the Gospel to us; but God was already here.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Sevanand says he planted and Apollos watered. Who prepared the ground for the seed? God prepared it, making others’ work secondary, not pioneering.
When introducing the Lord, it should build on the existing foundation of a given culture, tradition, or worldview—as Guru, Logos, Messiah, Abhishkit (anointed one, i.e., ‘Christ’), or Kurios (The Lord). That’s why Sevanand used the Torah and Jewish tradition when addressing Jews and referenced non-Jewish traditions and scriptures when speaking to others (see Acts 17).
When Sevanand said he wouldn’t build on someone else’s foundation, he meant he wouldn’t re-preach where a mandali was already established. Yet, he wasn’t rigid in this principle. He wrote his foundational epistle to the Romans, a mandali not founded by him, and sent a letter to the Colossian Mandali, founded by Epaphras. If he authored Hebrews, it’s another significant document sent to a mandali not established by him.
Given this reality, there’s no need to claim the Lord alone as the Foundation for our identity, nor to emphasize pioneering seva in God’s Kingdom.
I stand corrected if this view is not accurate and welcome convincing counterviews.
Gurukulam
28-7-2024
[Edited by Open AI]
This is my further reflection on our discussion. Regarding Muktinath alone being the Foundation, there is only one reference in Uttaraveda: 1 Corinthians 3:11. The context addresses groupism among the bhaktas, who were divided among themselves, belonging to ‘Sevananda’ or ‘Apollos’. Sevanand begins this topic in 3:1, emphasizing that they all belong to Muktinath and He alone is the Foundation. However, this is not about Muktinath as a spiritual or scriptural foundation for bhakti, but rather about unity in His body, recognizing the various functions of its members.
Even if there is only one reference in the entire Uttaraveda to the Lord as the Foundation, I accept it, but not in the sense of interpreting Him as the Foundation for our identity. If a bhakta insists the Lord remain the Foundation, He could also be seen as the ‘Corner Stone,’ which is equally important for a building.
Offering a more flexible interpretation, I prefer to see the Lord as the superstructure, providing a comfortable life for His bhakta, subject to alteration according to need. This flexibility is not possible with the Foundation, which is rigid and unalterable. The concept of Incarnation is God accommodating Herself to our needs, making the Lord the superstructure rather than a rigid foundation.
Regarding pioneering, a favorite term among missionaries, if all creation belongs to God and all human beings are created by God, then no one can claim to pioneer when introducing Muktinath to a people group. As a tribal leader famously said to a missionary, “You only brought the Gospel to us; but God was already here.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Sevanand says he planted and Apollos watered. Who prepared the ground for the seed? God prepared it, making others’ work secondary, not pioneering.
When introducing the Lord, it should build on the existing foundation of a given culture, tradition, or worldview—as Guru, Logos, Messiah, Abhishkit (anointed one, i.e., ‘Christ’), or Kurios (The Lord). That’s why Sevanand used the Torah and Jewish tradition when addressing Jews and referenced non-Jewish traditions and scriptures when speaking to others (see Acts 17).
When Sevanand said he wouldn’t build on someone else’s foundation, he meant he wouldn’t re-preach where a mandali was already established. Yet, he wasn’t rigid in this principle. He wrote his foundational epistle to the Romans, a mandali not founded by him, and sent a letter to the Colossian Mandali, founded by Epaphras. If he authored Hebrews, it’s another significant document sent to a mandali not established by him.
Given this reality, there’s no need to claim the Lord alone as the Foundation for our identity, nor to emphasize pioneering seva in God’s Kingdom.
I stand corrected if this view is not accurate and welcome convincing counterviews.
Gurukulam
28-7-2024
Leave a Reply