As I live in France can I be a virtual Buddhist Chaplain?
First, Tony, this question was addressed to Chris, and will have his response I'm sure.
Second, as a kalyana mitra - and not in any official capacity - I would refer you back to this statement from the 'Chaplaincy' page of the Kalyana Mitra website:
"Buddhist chaplaincy is a developing field with chaplains and volunteers - from many traditions - aiding and adding to their local communities, and active across many areas of society, including: The National Health Service, The Ministry of Defence, H.M. Prisons and Courts, Higher and Further education, Hospices, in the community and with youth and family, in Immigration centres, and acting on the local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE)."
"On our forums you will find out more about Buddhist chaplaincy at work in these different fields. Please feel free to explore and, if you want to become a part of this growing community, join our forums and gain the benefits of having a Sangha of others with whom you can communicate and share resources, look for guidance - or simply find out more about becoming a chaplain or volunteer and what that really means."I've italicised what, for you and indeed for all of us, may be salient issues at this point in an emergent process, a collaborative process, and a process in which answers are yet to be formulated not least because the questions themselves are not yet clear, and are yet to be articulated. This response of mine is not definitive, just a perspective in what is, it seems to me, a continuing dialogue. In such a dialogue your voice is of no less weight than any other - or so it seems to me.
Perhaps the most interesting and challenging question is "What does it really mean?" (to become a chaplain or volunteer, or to be a chaplain or volunteer). Answers to this question are going to hinge on what we understand "really" to mean, you may think. Some may dismiss discussions of reality a time-wasting diversion from 'getting the job done', 'getting chaplains into posts', and such-like. For serious dharma-practitioners, perhaps, ignorance of what is real - avidya - is not an option, it's a poison.
It might be argued that this process of dialogue can never be ended; as Buddhists we can accept that nothing is permanent or enduring, always contingent. Any 'answers' are necessarily only temporary and 'satisficing', 'good enough' (as in Winnicott's 'good-enough mother', chaplains can only ever be 'good enough' - perfection is not on offer).
Thank you for your thoughts, and for progressing what is going to be an interesting debate, leading to some worthwhile outcomes across a wide field of endeavour.
