The cognitive dissonance of Zen

The human mind cannot hold two opposing and contradictory beliefs at the same time, for example, I believe in God and I don’t believe in God.  When this happens it is called “cognitive dissonance.”  At all costs the human mind has to rid itself of the dissonance.  This could include the suppression of information and unconscious denial.  A more elaborate unpacking of what cognitive dissonance means is here presented.

A theory first postulated by Leon Festinger ( 1957), which holds that when an individual finds himself in a situation where he is expected to believe two mutually exclusive things, the subsequent tension and discomfort generate activity designed to reduce the disharmony. Festinger presents two basic hypotheses: (1) the existence of dissonance (inconsistency) is psychologically uncomfortable, which motivates a person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance (consistency); and (2) when dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, a person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.

Festinger further explains cognitive dissonance by defining the meaning of the two words "cognitive" and "dissonance." Cognition (the noun form of cognitive) is "any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior." Dissonance is "the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions" ( Festinger, 1957, p. 3). Cognitive dissonance, then, can best be understood as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward reducing dissonance.

Festinger's concept of cognitive dissonance suggests that the human organism will always try to establish internal harmony, consistency, or congruity among his opinions, attitudes, knowledge, and values (i.e., a drive toward consonance among cognitions). He conceptualizes cognition to be decomposable into elements or clusters of elements. When confronted with some contradiction to a strongly held belief, people tend to try (either consciously or unconsciously) to find some element of the contradictory input with which they can identify” (Jay M. Shafritz, ed., International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: A-C, vol. 1, p. 414).

Maintaining consonance at all costs to avoid dissonance can be a risky undertaking in more ways than one.  Maintaing cultural consonance is at the heart of paradigm wars, government’s not-so-convincing-explanations, conspiracy theories—and yes, even UFO disclosure.  A lie, in other words, is better than the truth if truth means rocking our secure boat.  

In Buddhism, the process of maintaining consonance in the face of cognitive dissonance with regard to Zen’s mythology such as the patriarchal lineage, seated meditation, etc., cannot be underestimated or ignored.  Teaching Zen mythology to Zen newbies for the sake of consonance is a major function of pop Zen. 

The effort of The Zennist blog has been to hammer away at the artificially created consonance—the Zen myth—by showing that institutionalized Zen, including pop Zen, does not have much real Buddhism as a basis.  The so-called Zen lineage, for example, has more to do with Confucianism than Buddhism (The Zennist, “The Confucian Zen lineage”).  The institution of Zen we have in place has largely been a concession to Chinese, Korean and Japanese culture.  Its present form has very little if anything to do with real Buddhism. 

On the other hand the literature of Zen, like philosophical Taoism, is of great value.  Zen’s grasp of pure Mind is exemplary and very helpful for the adept who wants to see what the Buddha saw.  It is not off the track with regard to the Nikayas or the Mahayana canon.  But where cognitive dissonance is met with involves the institution of Zen, itself, which has nothing really to do with awakening to pure Mind; with first achieving Bodhicitta so the Bodhisattva path can commence.  The institutional Zennies are going to protect their turf no matter what the cost, attacking those who are exposing the myth of Zen for what it really is.  

What this portends for modern Zen is a Zen without Buddhism; a Zen of rituals, not a single one having been taught by the Buddha.  Is it any wonder that in Japan Zen is regarded as the “funeral religion”?

 

Comments

[Kojizen]

"The Bodhisattva in Shurangamasamadhi does not pledge himself to morality, but does not avoid it." — Shurangamasamadhi Sutra

[clyde]

“The sutras of the Buddha are true. But long ago, when that great bodhisattva was cultivating the seed of enlightenment, it was to counter the three poisons that he made his three vows. Practicing moral prohibitions to counter the poison of greed, he vowed to put an end to all evils. Practicing meditation to Counter the poison of anger, he vowed to cultivate all virtues. And practicing wisdom to counter the poison of delusion, he vowed to liberate all beings. Because he persevered in these three pure practices of morality, meditation, and wisdom, he was able to overcome the three poisons and reach enlightenment. By overcoming the three poisons he wiped out everything sinful and thus put an end to evil. By observing the three sets of precepts he did nothing but good and thus cultivated virtue. And by putting an end to evil and cultivating virtue lie consummate all practices, benefited himself as well as others, and rescued mortals everywhere. Thus he liberated beings.”

Bodhidharma, The Breakthrough Sermon, translated by Red Pine

[Azanshi]

"The Buddha and Bodhidharma both taught a path comprised of morality, meditation and wisdom.

So what is the fuss?

clyde"

Your carefully designed and built house is burning Clyde, and like the homegrown village idiot you are, you have decided it is safer staying inside, until the presumed Buddhas fire brigade is coming knocking on your door (which it wont) .

[Bob]

The cognitive dissonance of Zen is a wonderful blog and its keep the wonderful informative that is informative and useful for the users too.

[clyde]

Dear Zennist;

While I agree that Zen has its fair share of mythology, rites and rituals, and I agree that the single focus of Zen is “seeing into one’s true Nature”, as Bodhidharma, the legendary founder of the Zen tradition, is reported to have said:

"A special transmission beyond Scriptures,
Not depending on words or letters,
But pointing directly to the Mind,
Seeing into one's true Nature,
And realizing one's own Enlightenment."

This is clearly not a focus on the suttas, sutras, or “the literature of Zen”, nor doctrine or philosophy, nor any intellectual understanding – but of direct experience.

The Buddha and Bodhidharma both taught a path comprised of morality, meditation and wisdom.

So what is the fuss?

clyde