L Buddhism in Poland
Ifwe limit our considerations to Poland only, it should be noted that in comparison
Lama Rinchen [Waldemar Zych] (Jaktor6w)*
Inter~Religious Dialogue from the Buddhist Perspective
The 20 th century brought about' a huge progress in many domains of our life.
For instance, a rapid development of communications or medicine has facilitated
everyday life of many people. Mass migrations and globalisation have made everyday
contacts between adherents of different viewpoint much more frequent than ever in
the history. However, the century was also marked by exceptionally numerous conflicts
and wars. A pity to say, many of them were underlain by antagonisms nourished by
the emphasis put on ethnic or religious differences. All of us can point to so many
examples of ethnic-religious conflicts that there is no point in enumerating them.
People often raise the argument of religion in order to achieve aims contrary to
spiritual values, despite the fact that it belongs to the sphere of the most profound
human experience and emotions. Employing religious arguments to justifY conflicts
poses a threat of raising controversy among millions of people. Therefore, a harmonious
coexistence of different religions is of primary interest for the future of the world.
Cherishing mutual respect is the key to a real consensus. This, in turn, is made feasible
by mutual understanding. His Holiness the Dalai Lama often underlines that efforts
undertaken for the sake of our times becoming an era of dialogue belong to our
core responsibilities. We would not expect common people to assume this attitude if
priests - spiritual guides - could not give us a proper example of affectionfor another
man, also when the ways of his thought and faith differ from ours.
The dialogue between representatives of different religions is thus an essential
moral obligation arising from the sense of responsibility for the future of people of
the globe. Priests should be an example to follow in this regard and inspire people to
cherish respect for other traditions of spiritual development.
* President of the Polish Buddhist Union acting under auspices of His Holiness Dalai Lama, president
of the Karma Kamtzang Association in Poland; for over thirty years now a follower of the Tibetan
Buddhism; frequent visitor in Buddhist centres in Asia and Western Europe, a disciple of the Abbot
of Benchen Monastery; following graduation from relevant studies and preparatory courses spent
four and a half years in a traditional meditation retreat to obtain the title of a Lama or a Buddhist
priest; an ordained monk for ten years, he revoked his monastic vows (now is a lay Lama); a many-
year teacher of Buddhism in Western Europe and in Poland.
34
with Christianity, Judaism or Islam, Buddhism is a relative novelty in this country.
Those involved in this religion in Poland, both before and after World War II, were
bound by informal ties only. The first organised Buddhist groups appeared as late as
in mid-seventies of the last century. Their growth gradually led to the establishment
of a number of formally registered faith communities.
It is clear that at the beginning both influential circles - mass media or Catholic
clergy - and the majority of the society agreed that Buddhism was ont of the great
religions but somewhere in remote countries, while Buddhism in Poland was quite
another issue. "Our" Buddhism was therefore discussed at best in the context of "new
religious movements", quite frequently in the pejorative meaning.
Today, the growing-up children of the Polish Buddhism pioneers consciously
and voluntarily adhere to the religion of their parents. We can talk .::IOW at most
about the second generation of adherents to this religion. Five to ten thousand
Poles are estimated to be Buddhists. These are estimates only, since Buddhist faith
communities do not maintain detailed statistical records. Apart from that, there are
forty thousand Buddhists from Vietnam who have settled in Poland and immigrants
from traditionally Buddhist countries, such as Mongolia, Korea, China or Tibet. If
the existence of Buddhism in Poland has become an undeniable fact, there are reasons
to involve it in the dialogue between traditional Polish religions.
Of course, a dialogue is feasible only when both sides are willing to take part.
Based on my personal experience, I can confirm this willingness in some Catholic
circles. Most often these are academic and monastic societies. The former get involved,
perhaps, out of the natural scientific inquisitiveness. Taking into account that among
all religions Buddhism is supported on a monastic structure probably to the highest
extent and, apart from Christianity, has been the only to develop a comprehensive
monastic system, a search for dialogue via the latter appears fully justified as well. It
should be emphasised that despite essential philosophical and theological differences the
dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism is exceptionally smooth and constantly
develops. It is so probably because just as mercy is a key element in the teachings of
Christ, love and sympathy constitute the essence of the teachings of the Buddha.
2. Is interreligious Dialogue Feasible and Essential from the Buddhist Perspective?
As we all know, an encounter and talk become a dialogue only when the participants
assume certain attitudes. In questions of this importance as religious beliefs, the
observance of certain rules is particularly essential. They should be as follows.
35
 ® An honest intention to listen to and understand other viewpoints
There are not infrequent situations where interlocutors want only to inform others
of their own points of view or, in the worst case, impose them on each other. The
ground for a dialogue is our willingness to recognise the way others understand their
religion. If they resolve the key matters based on some religious system of values,
our understanding of their approach to the crucial questions will help grasp their
reactions and life choices. Fears and concerns that lead to hatred spring from the
insufficiency of the due knowledgqand information. It was the lack of knowledge that
led to superstitions so absurd and disastrous in their consequences as those of the Jews
hungry for blood of Christian children. Sometimes I hear opinions that Buddhism
means "sex and drugs" although sexual morality and mental soberness belong to the
five fundamental rules of the Buddhist ethics. It has happened that my talk with a
Christian was reduced to his informing me that I would not attain salvation until I
accepted Christ as the only Saviour. On the other hand, I have frequently succeeded in
II
binding a deep and inspiring discussion that allowed me to better understand certain
aspects of my own religion. Interlocutors' openness to a true exchange of thoughts is
thus pivotal.
I true way to the Absolute why should I not reject it even now?
.. Sourcing your knowledge from reliable sources
It must be pointed out that in order to comprehend a different viewpoint we
should source our knowledge from those who are correct in their own understanding.
If!, as a Buddhist, want to understand something about Christianity I should discuss
the issue with Christian priests and theologians and not base my knowledge on Marxist
religious studies, for instance. Moreov~r, sometimes even viewpoints of ordinary
adherents do not comply with the true teachings of a given religious tradition. I
remember a father years ago emotionally try to convince my Buddhist friends that
their son and his grandson died in a car accident because God wanted to punish
them for their conversion to Buddhism! As a man brought up according to the atheist
thought and unaware of the Christian principles I felt a huge relief that I did not serve
this cruel God who killed innocent children, even if! sympathised with the despaired
parents. Today, being enriched with the experience of the dialogue with Christians,
I know how much mistaken this man was about God. On the other hand, I have
heard about interreligious meetings in Poland, where people that do not represent
any authentic Buddhist tradition or even rejected by Buddhist centres due to their
controversial lifestyles actually spoke on behalf of Buddhists. By presenting a mixture
of thoughts sourced from books and their own ruminations, they gave the audience
an utterly mistaken idea of Buddhism. It is therefore essential that while studying
other viewpoints we base aur knowledge an the opinions of their true followers.
I consider our situation specific, since Buddhism in POlland is a relatively novel
phenomenon and there was no practical imperative that this religian be studied
36
scientifically in a more detailed way. Although relevant studies appeared in sporadic
cases, competent revisers were very hard tD find indeed. No single Buddhologist study
centre has been established either. The way that Polish religious study specialists present
the teachings of the Buddha frequently diametrically differs from that assumed by
Buddhist priests. Some academics present such views that, if these were true, I wDuld
not become or be a Buddhist for the whole tea of China and wauld ask a priest or
imam to accept me among their congregation.
Fortunately, there are also academic centres where reliable scientific research
is carried out into Buddhism. The religious study department at the Jagiellonian
University is the best example, perhaps.
" Acceptance that the partners are equal in the discussion
Every religion assumes that it is the authentic and ultimate path to the Highest
Truth. If! were not determinably canvinced that my spiritual tradition Dffers me this
In this context, it is worthwhile reconsidering the question of the attitude to
other religions. In general terms, there are three attitudes. The first approach excludes
any possibility to achieve salvation, liberation (or any other name of the aim of
spiritual practice) but within one's own religion. This approach frequently leads to a
forceful imposition of one's own version of the truth, which in the past brought about
multiple acts of violence and yielded sufferings inflicted in the name of the Lord and
love. The second approach assumes that the Highest Truth manifests itself in its mercy
to all people in various ways. All religions are consequently equally good and it does
not matter which one we actually follow. Followers of this approach frequently try
to combine elements of different religious teachings in their own way. There is an
inherent risk of rising one's own status above any religious systems to decide what is
most valuable in each if them. Conceit lies a step ahead. Meanwhile, it is humility and
not conceit that characterises every authentic spiritual path. Moreover, this approach is
contrary to the teachings of all the great religions. And all of them perceive themselves
as the special and exceptional way to salvation! The third approach acknowledges the
exceptionality and thus superiority of one's own religion but also accepts the holiness
of other paths. I have been told that the Roman Catholic Church today accepts the
possibility of salvation for adherents of other religions precisely because Christ died
for all of us.
What is then the Buddhist perspective? In order to grasp the Buddhist approach
to other religions, the perspective of the Trikaya concept must be assumed. A fully
perfect Buddha, according to the Mahayana Buddhism tradition, is a unity of the
three Kayas: Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. "Kaya" in Sanskrit means
literally "body", however in the context of the three Kayas the word is used not to mean
a physical body but an "aspect" of the enlightened Buddha Nature. Dharma,kaya is
37
the formless "Kaya of the Absolute Truth". The Absolute that cannot be known by any
of the senses or grasped by the intellect. It is eternal, unchangeable and fully perfect.
It can be experienced only by a direct realisation of enlightenment. Dharmakaya is
basically characterised by: absolute wisdom, ultimate enjoyment and perfect love. This
is Buddha Nature as such. Even if some similarities may be discerned to the notion of
the Absolute or God in theistic religions there are also essential differer,ces. The basic
one lies in the fact that the Buddha is not a creator. Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya
are referred to as Kayas appearing in perceivable forms. The Buddha emanates them
from Dharmakaya for the good of all living creatures. Sambhogakaya is the "Kaya
of Perfect Enjoyment" manifested in tlk indefinite Buddha forms. They reside in
Buddhafields (Pure Lands) and teach those who attained a high level of spiritual
enlightenment. Anyone who owing to their righteous and religious life is sufficiently
prepared for it, after death may revive in these heavenly lands, attend Sambhogakaya
teachings and gradually attain the full perfection - the Buddha Nature. If they attain
spiritual purity in their lives, they may receive from "Kaya of Perfect Enjoyment"
teachings during mystic visions. The history of Mahayana Buddhism has witnessed
many holy visionaries. Nirmanakaya is "Kaya of Emanation", which assumes shapes of
concrete figures, such as the historical Gautama Buddha (Shakyamuni), the founder
of Buddhism. The "Kayas of Emanation" return to life to show people the path to
liberation. They may manifest themselves in the form of spiritual teachers, rulers who
help their subjects or even ordinary people devoted to work for the good of their
neighbours. Also teachers of other religions may be perceived as emanations of the
Buddha's activity that popularise his teachings according to the varied level of ability
and ways of thinking of particular people. Therefore, respect for other religions is
inscribed into the spirit of the Buddhist teaching.
Non-Buddhists, while propagating Buddhism in the West, often present the
Buddha as a sage of the Shakya lineage, who lived over two and a half thousand
years ago. For Buddhist adherents to the Mahayana tradition, however, the Buddha
is something much more than just a man. Precisely like Christ to Christians. The
Buddha is Dharmakaya - the Absolute. And moreover a stream of indefinite forms
of Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakayai constantly springing from Dharmakaya for
the support of all living creatures. However, only one aspect of Nirmanakaya, the
historical Buddha, is the Teacher who fully demonstrated the complete and perfect
path to the unity with the Highest Truth.
To become a Buddhist means to take the "Triple Refuge" (Three Jewels). The first
one is taking Refuge in the Buddha. This is our acceptance that the historical Buddha
is the noblest spiritual Teacher and that the attainment of the Buddha Nature is the
ultimate end of our spiritual path. The second Jewel is Refuge in the Buddha's Teaching
referred to as the Dharma. Taking Refuge in the Dharma mans acknowledging that
the teaching is authentic and infallible. 'The third Jewel is the Sangha or the Buddhist
38
community. Taking Refuge in the Sangha means accepting that the Buddhist teachers
actually teach the authentic doctrine and are reliable guides on the path. By assuming
the Buddhist path we also pledge not to take refuge in worldly gods that are not
enlightened Buddhas.
The classic Buddhist scriptures agree that only the Buddha personalises the
Ultimate Truth. What leads to it is the "Middle Path", free from the extremes of
nihilism and eternalism. In this approach, those who honestly practise other religions
can reach a very high level on the spiritual path and thus attain the maturity on one
of the future lives, which will allow them to grasp the teachings of the Buddha and
achieve the perfect enlightenment.
This is the Buddhist perspective. How is it possible then to speak about the equal
position of the partners and enter into dialogue with representatives of other religions
from this perspective? I can see the authentic partnership in the acknowledgement
that their religious zeal and honesty in the search for the Highest Truth are just as
authentic as mine.
If we assume that we are equal in the authenticity and depth of our efforts it will
be feasible for us to meet and enter into a true dialogue. However, if were to recognise
the viewpoints of the others only to be more effective in proselytizing them, we would
not establish any dialogue. It would be a strategy only, aimed at an enforcement of
our own point of view. History bears witness to too many examples of the painful
consequences of such an attitude.
When I have a chance to talk to Christians I never try to convert them w Buddhism.
I am strongly convinced that it will be better for them, me and other people if they
stay good Christians and not become superficial Buddhists, who follow their spiritual
practice without earnestness and the deepest need.
Acknowledging the equality of the partners in dialogue does not mean denying
one's own religious identity. A profound dialo ue is sustained not "despite" the
adherence to our own positions but precisely beca se we do not have to fear the sense
of treason in relation to our own religion during uch an encounter. I do not expect
nor think that an authentic encounter will mean withdrawal from ow: positions to
ascertain the truth somewhere "in the middle". 0 r partners should not fear that we
will attempt to change their viewpoints. By such dialogue we will be able to cherish
and develop mutual respect and friendship.
4. Summary
It is a consequence of the above consideration hat interreligious dialogue is a must
due to the fact that what we are facing now is a soci transformation into multinational
and multi religious structures. Although in Polan the process is not as advanced as
39
in many other European countries there are conspicuous tendencies observed as the
state borders gradually open wide. Dialogue is the only reasonable response to this
situation and should not be perceived as a necessary evil. When we meet people of
different viewpoints, we must once again ask ourselves the fundamental questions
about our own beliefs, in order to strengthen our own faith. If we are certain about
our viewpoints we will not fear a confrontation with others and our faith will become
stronger and better founded owing to such an encounter.
Meeting people of different viewpoint may really inspire us to deepen our own
spirituality. This, however, does not mean borrowing elements of other religions to
establish a pan-religious conglomerate. As a Buddhist, I am strongly convinced that
Buddhism is the ultimate and infallible spiritual path. Therefore, even if dialogue with THE DIALOGUE
Christians is to me an inspiration to reconsider various aspects of my own life and
deepen my religious practice, I do not think I need to learn from Christians how I WITH MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS
should kneel or lie prostrate during prayer, or pray the Rosary. Neither do I expect
Christians to take the Eucharist while sitting in the lotus position! I believe that
Christianity can fulfil the spiritual needs of its adherents and that it lacks none of the
essential elements. If it were incomplete what would be the point in devoting one's
own life to practise a "defective" religion? Would it not be much more reasonable to
search for a complete faith to follow?
And on the other hand, if someone faithful to the principles of their own religion
and, most of all, according to common sense, assumes that certain aspects of the
Buddhist practice, for instance meditation to tranquilise the mind, could serve their
purposes, I will not feel robbed of my property if they use the Buddhist techniques in
their lives. The Buddha did not purchase the exclusive rights to tranquilise the mind
and the only aim of his teaching was to help all living creatures. Hence, there are no
grounds for envy if the Buddhist methods appear of use to a non-Buddhist.
To answer the question first posed: "Is interreligious dialogue feasible from the
Buddhist perspective?", it should be stated that of course it is, as it is perfectly in line
with the spirit of this religion.
The essential aim of the dialogue is a mutual understanding. This is a pivotal point
as it leads to the elimination of ignorance, phobias and prejudice and, consequently,
reluctance and hatred that usually derive from fear of the unknown. Giving a proper
example of the art of respect for different viewpoints cannot be overestimated in view
of the xenophobic attitudes of intolerance towards any otherness proliferating across
Europe.

*** Translation from the Polish language by Przemyslaw Os~kowski.

40