Comments on: Chaplains go multi-religious

By: Areem

Areem — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:19:34 +0000

...there is one at University of Toronto...

Actually, there are two Hindu chaplains. The present structure of the Chaplaincy at the U of T, however, is not very conducive to students' spiritual guidance. Chaplains are currently not given regular office space or hours, and their affiliation with the University is not widely publicized among the student body.

By: vimalakirti

vimalakirti — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:06:02 +0000

The Sanskrit word "nastika" did not mean the same as the Hindi "nastik" ("atheist"). In fact, several so-called "Hindu" schools of philosophy, including Samkhya and Vaisesika, were atheistic in part or whole (meaning they denied the existence of an Iswara, Bhagavan, etc. who created the universe). But they were not nastikas.

Probably the oldest meaning of "nastika" is "one who denies the existence of worlds after death", while an "astika" was "one who accepts the existence of worlds after death" (This according to the 7th c. grammatical text Kasikavrtti). For this reason, the Buddhists and Jains considered themselves "astikas" (see, for instance, the Jain author Haribhadra's 8th c. Saddarsanasamuccaya).

And I know there are more Hindu chaplains in the U.S. than the one you mentioned at UMass (there's Swami Tyagananda at Harvard, for instance).

By: Elihu Yale

Elihu Yale — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:20:36 +0000

Regarding your reference to Yale’s University’s Muslim chaplain, Mahan Mizra whom you highlighted is the MUSLIM FELLOW with the Muslim Student Association at Yale University. He is NOT the chaplain. The Muslim chaplain is Sister Shamshad Sheikh. Her bio is at http://www.yale.edu/chaplain/staff.html and she is also the Associate Chaplain of the University and responsible for multi-faith initiatives.

By: jyotsana

jyotsana — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:05:55 +0000

The Jina teachings stress personal responsibility for one’s jiva mistranslated as soul – a very different thing. There is no supreme being that must be ‘worshipped’ and ‘prayed’ to. There are Jain Mandirs and now what we see in the US; Hindu-Jain or Jain-Hindu Mandirs. Intermarriage among Hindus in Jains within a region happen all the time. An agnostic or an atheist cannot exist but outside the Abrahamic tradition (where even it is not quite so simple). Indifference or disinterest in the existence of God; or rejection of God’s authority are not relevant to a tradition that has no place for such an entity. Every tradition in India has interpreted karma, dharma, rta, differently. Whether there is an ishvara or not is less interesting. Western scholarship unfortunately obsessed with casting every new tradition into the religious mould has completely lost its way in the study of dharmic or taoic traditions.

By: hoi polloi

hoi polloi — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:47:32 +0000

23

"Buddhists are atheists, as far as I have come to understand in my conversations with them, and my limited readings. Don't know what the concept of "Ishwar" is in Jainism, if it even exists at all. At least in labeling the Buddhists as "nastik" the Hindus are not wrong. Don't know about the Jains. Any Jains on this site? What is the concept of "ishwar" in your religion, if any?"

Swami Vivekananda said somewhere that Buddism is agnostic and Jainism is atheistic.

By: SP

SP — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:13:18 +0000

P.S. Even the more devout Christians I’ve known in my many years on American campuses pretty much never went to the college chapel. They tended to go to local churches of their denomination. I get the impression that university-appointed chaplains, in trying to be all things to all people (usually liberal, non-denominational) end up not really satisfying anyone.

By: Sp

Sp — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:09:28 +0000

Razib, I was thinking of my Pakistani and indian friends in college - they went to Islamic Society meetings and met other muslims in the community, possibly because there wasn't really a space on campus, but then again, would you really want to do juma'a prayers on campus?

Most universities provide information about local houses of worship, and I think that's fine. I don't see that it's their job to provide for every religious group, and I think it's fine for private universities to hold on to their Christian chapels and acknowledge that they are Christian houses of worship (instead of trying to put silly symbolic flags up to deny it), though it's a bit off-putting when graduation ceremonies have Christian chaplains and prayers, it's not a huge deal. One can overlook it, esp those of us who went to Christian-run schools in India.

Public universities shouldn't have religious institutions on campus, IMO - no matter how much multifaith earnestness is involved, I can't think of anyone who uses such sites and it's all about symbolism and making everyone feel nice and liberal, when in reality those who are devout are probably not going to want to use a multifaith site. If a Muslim group or Hindu group or Christian group wants to use university halls and public spaces on particular days for prayer, they should be allowed to, just like any other group on campus. But I'm not comfortable with university-appointed religious counsellors.

By: portmanteau

portmanteau — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:25:09 +0000

Portmanteau: My family does not need your pat on the head.

then why bring them up to bolster a point you make? you make your arguments well enough as is, right?

By: Ennis

Ennis — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:23:13 +0000

Since when were universities secular? Georgetown is an openly religious university, run by the Jesuits. The army has chaplains for morale, for a long time they were the only shrinks around. As for the Senate – that’s a good question. Although it’s funny that the Chaplain is from a group that most Christians would hardly consider Christian at all.

By: Charlie 'Chaplain'

Charlie 'Chaplain' — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:05:38 +0000

OK, I get it. But why would the so-called 'secular' institutions in the Christian west, like the army, universities, Congress, senate et al be concerned about ministering and progressive liberals consider it natural, while they and their counterparts will howl and cry foul at the hint of the 'almost unconscious use of Hindu religious symbolism and practices in fora where religion should have no entry'.