The First Order of Business

Many years ago, I consulted an attorney who made his generically overpriced service (almost) worth it by teaching me the ‘Law of Holes.’ I now present it to you at no additional cost: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.”
My experience over the years since I received that lesson has confirmed its validity. “First do no harm” (or, “primum non nocere” if you prefer the original, Latin version), the primary ethics principle in medicine, is essentially the same rule. It may not seem like a big deal, but it is, and it is much more challenging to adhere to than most people realize. Indeed, it is always wise to verify that you are not unwittingly contributing to the problem you are trying to solve.

Hence: The first order of business is to make sure you are not making matters any worse than they absolutely have to be. It applies not only to legal and medical affairs — it is the first order of any business, and it is most relevant to the pursuit of happiness.

The logic behind this is simple and sound: before one can expect to make things better, they must make sure they are not making them worse. And as it turns out, in a given process — such as the pursuit of happiness, consistently refraining from making matters worse accumulates to the point that, before long, it amounts to a considerable improvement in the quality of that process.
The risk-benefit ratio of taking the idea seriously enough to practice is unquestionably favorable. The practice of ‘the first order of business’ takes place in two settings — routine and acute (both follow the same steps). As is generally the case, the purpose of the routine practice is to enable the application of relevant skills under pressure, when they are most needed. 

Before starting the actual practice (both routinely and acutely), it is important to “set the stage” and bring the underlying principle into sharp focus as a source of motivation for the subsequent practice. I find it useful to recite, like a ‘mantra’, a statement along the lines of “Before I do anything else, I must make sure I’m not making matters worse” (or a similar one using your wording).

Repeat the message in your mind until you are fully on board with it; you’ll know when you are there (it is imperative that you do get there; as is the case with all practice, it gets easier with repetition). Once the idea is firm and clear in your mind, proceed by following the practice protocol below.

The protocol is composed of three parts. Each part examines how your mind handles a facet of the reality you are dealing with: First, its essence; second, your perspective on it; and third, your influence over it.

Part 1: Determine the Essence of the Situation and Your Corresponding Mode of Operations (Survival vs. Thrival)

As mentioned at the beginning of this work, members of our species are interested in two pursuits: survival and happiness. By extension, our brains have two ‘modes’ of operation: a ‘survival mode’ and a ‘thrival’ mode. In both pursuits, optimal functioning hinges on correctly matching the essence of the situation at hand with the operative mental mode, i.e., survival mode for dealing with existential threats and thrival mode for dealing with everything else (that matters), namely, with the pursuit of happiness.

Verifying that one’s mind is in the correct mode for the situation at hand is always a reasonable initial management step. This step alone can spare you a lot of self-induced problems. To accomplish this, take a moment to deliberately (i.e., consciously) label both the nature of the process you are engaged with and the mode your mind is in.

It comes down to simply asking yourself two questions: What is the nature of the situation I’m facing? And, what is my mindset? (or, what is the mode my mind is in?) Developing the habit of checking these points (which will happen automatically, with enough repetition) is profoundly rewarding.

Answering the first question is very simple because survival situations are neither subtle nor ambiguous. In a survival situation, someone’s life is literally at risk — someone (you or another person) may die or suffer serious injury if you make a wrong choice. Situations that don’t meet this strict criterion — i.e., when no one’s life is at risk and a wrong choice may be costly but it is not going to result in existential catastrophe — are not bona fide survival situations.
Feeling that one is dealing with a survival threat when, in fact, it is not close to it is very common. Hence, you have to apply the criterion rationally and strictly. There’s no wiggle room around this question — it’s either a survival situation or it is not.
Keep in mind that while feelings are important data, they are not reliable guides. Feelings are particularly unreliable when it comes to assessing whether a situation is about survival or anything but. The ability to transcend the emotional pressure to see trivial threats as existential threats is a necessary part of maturing in general, and it is a particularly critical step in developing the ability to avoid making matters worse.

The second question — identifying the operative mode your mind is in, requires a moment of self-reflection to examine some specific details about how your mind is operating: Survival mode is characterized by quick judgments, rapid reactions, a narrow perspective, and a readiness to use force. Thrival mode essentially features opposite traits: Judgmentalism is replaced with curiosity and interest. Investment in speed is replaced with an investment in timing (i.e., in the pursuit of happiness, it is more important to arrive at the right moment than to arrive first). Reactivity is replaced with activity (the difference between these types of conduct is discussed in detail in the Calm chapter). A narrow perspective is replaced with a broad perspective. And lastly, since the application of force is invariably destructive, in thrival mode, the use of force is avoided in favor of reliance on strength, which supports creativity.

If introspection reveals that your mind is keyed up and ready for combat, specifically, that it is quick to judge and react, operating with a narrow perspective (i.e., it is difficult to think about anything else other than the problem you are facing) and ready to use force (even just wishing that you could use force to solve a problem), your mind is in survival mode.
Alternatively, if the introspection reveals that your mind is calm, curious, and interested in learning, your perspective is broad (i.e., that you can effortlessly shift your attention away from the immediate situation), and unequivocally rejecting the use of force (i.e., that your tolerance is secure), it is in thrival mode. 

If you identify a mismatch — most relevant to our discussion — if your mind is in survival mode but the situation is not a bona fide survival situation, the wisest and most effective course of action you can take is no action. In other words, if you realize that your mind is in survival mode but you are not facing an actual survival threat — pause all activity; sit or lie down, take some deep breaths, and focus on the benefit you will derive if you manage to refrain from making matters worse than they have to be.
This mismatch — being in survival mode during non-survival situations — is remarkably common. One of the most striking realizations from my decades of clinical work is how prevalent this is: People routinely attempt to pursue happiness while in survival mode, a highly costly strategic error that seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

[Sidebar: 1. Note that survival situations are not necessarily rare or drama-filled. For example, operating a vehicle (even a bicycle) meets the criteria for a survival situation, as a wrong choice can result in a loss of life or limb. Indeed, survival mode is the correct mental mode for operating a vehicle optimally, as it supports quick judgments, fast reactions, and a narrow perspective (i.e., focusing exclusively on driving, not on incoming texts or other distractions).
It goes without saying (which isn’t going to stop me) that if you are facing a bona fide survival situation, forget this discussion. This work is utterly irrelevant to the management of genuine existential threats. If you are facing a bona fide survival threat, take whatever steps you can to prevent a catastrophic outcome. Don’t just sit there in contemplation — do something, anything! React!
Aside from this vague advice, I have nothing of value to offer regarding the management of survival situations. If you need guidance in this realm, consult an appropriate expert — a trauma surgeon or an intensivist, a first responder, or a member of the special forces (or someone with specific training relevant to your situation, such as a driving instructor).
The explanation for why this mismatch is so common lies, at least in part, in evolution making survival mode the default setting. The fact that our species currently numbers around eight billion active participants is irrefutable evidence that setting survival mode as a default works remarkably well to support survival. The fact that most members of our species are not doing particularly well in the pursuit of happiness, to put it mildly, exposes the hierarchy of evolution’s priorities. The evolutionary default setting also explains why changing this habit requires significant effort. Overcoming any habit is hard; more often than not, it is well worth the effort.
The use of force in the pursuit of happiness — manifested through violent actions and violent speech — is futile if not self-defeating; in the relational domain, force can only be destructive. This fact of life was evident to Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King, and, more recently, Nelson Mandela. From my point of view, their rejection of violence, which to some seemed questionable, was not an expression of their elevated spiritual state. Their insistence on refraining from using force primarily expressed their rationality.]

Next, start working on the switch to thrival mode (which is what the rest of this protocol is about).

Part 2: Examine Your Perspective (Narrow vs. Broad)

Perspective is automatically set to narrow in survival mode and broad in thrival mode.
To illustrate what ‘perspective’ means in this context, consider, as a metaphor, a framed photograph of a single object: ‘Perspective’ is the ratio between the size of the object and the total area inside the frame.

The ‘frame’ represents the “screen of consciousness”, and the ‘object’ represents the issue one is dealing with. A ‘narrow perspective’ means that the object takes up all, or most, of the area inside the frame; i.e., there is little or no room inside the frame for anything else but that single object. A ‘broad perspective’ means that the object is small relative to the area inside the frame; i.e., the object’s size leaves plenty of room for other “stuff” inside the frame.
A narrow perspective then limits the amount of information that can appear in consciousness. It is effective in survival situations because limiting the amount of data within the frame of consciousness promotes focusing exclusively on the threat and minimizes potential distraction.

The hallmarks of a narrow perspective are intense focus on a single threat or problem (to a degree that it’s a struggle to shift attention to anything else), intense focus on the present (to a degree that it’s a struggle to shift attention to past events or future plans), and an oppressive sense of the gravity, or severity, of the issue being dealt with at the present moment (resulting in humorlessness that renders an attempt to inject levity into the moment offensive and irritating). Practically, if you notice that your mind treats humor as sacrilege (e.g., with thoughts such as “There is absolutely nothing funny in this situation” or “How dare this person make light of this situation”), you should realize that a crucial line of defense of your perspective is down.

Without a sense of humor, one is likely to operate with a narrow perspective, become overwhelmed, go into survival mode, and make matters worse than they have to be.

There are several reasons that explain why a narrow perspective is incompatible with an effective pursuit of happiness:

• A narrow perspective excludes data from consciousness, which is inevitably ignored. Ignorance, which in the Buddhist worldview is considered the root cause of suffering, hinders the pursuit of happiness.
• When the perspective is narrow, the frame of consciousness fills up quickly (typically, with a single object or issue). The sensation associated with a full screen of consciousness is referred to as ‘feeling overwhelmed.’ Being overwhelmed is problematic; it is an unpleasant sensation, but, more seriously, it interferes with rational thinking. It is virtually impossible to think rationally and analytically while feeling overwhelmed. (This is not a problem facing a survival threat in which the most effective behavior is reflexive {innate or acquired}, rather than contemplative or analytic (consistently, professional managers of survival situations. e.g., trauma surgeons, first responders, etc., rely on automatically using skills acquired in their intense training, not on thinking and figuring things out).)
• A narrow perspective is, ultimately, in the service of protecting the Self. It is therefore associated with an intensely self-centered point of view. Self-centeredness (as discussed in detail in the Intent chapter) is incompatible with an effective pursuit of happiness.     

[Sidebar: Given the humorlessness inherent to narrow perspectives and survival situations, it is a good idea to keep an eye on the state of one’s sense of humor. A sense of humor is a unique, defining human feature. It is innate and universally present in early childhood; however, it can be neglected, repressed, and lost, temporarily or even permanently. Losing one’s sense of humor seems to negate one’s pursuit of happiness.
Functionally, humor is a psychological defense mechanism designed to protect the ability to maintain a broad perspective and, by extension, protect one from getting overwhelmed.
When the sense of humor is turned off (even temporarily), to my knowledge, there is no way to command it to turn back on. Still, the mere awareness that it is “off” is valuable — it signals that one is at a greater than normal risk of perceiving non-survival threats as if they were existential and, therefore, at a greater risk of making matters worse.]

Given the crucial role of a broad perspective in the pursuit of happiness, cultivating it is well worth the effort of a regular practice. A regular practice in this case means repeating some or all of the five mental drills below daily, or several times a week. Practicing regularly can lead to setting a broad perspective as the default, which, in and of itself, is a mental status upgrade. Moreover, regular practice enables turning on a broad perspective under pressure, when the need for it arises suddenly or unexpectedly, which, in turn, enables shifting from survival mode to thrival mode. Here are the drills: 

1. Contemplating the suffering of others: Sincerely paying attention to others’ suffering doesn’t typically happen automatically; it usually requires some effort, especially when one is struggling with their own hardship. This effort is well worth making because paying attention to others’ suffering amounts to “making room” within one’s own frame of consciousness, allowing more than just one’s own story to appear within it.
   That “someone else” to pay attention to can be a person close to you or someone you only know of, from afar (e.g., through the media); their suffering may be happening now or may have occurred in the distant past. These details are largely irrelevant. As long as you sincerely attend to their circumstances (without thinking about yourself), your effort is likely to help you develop and maintain a broad perspective, which, in turn, is likely to benefit your process.

[Sidebar: 1. Cultivating the ability to deliberately shift attention away from one’s own suffering to someone else’s has nothing to do with being a particularly kind or a “nice person.” It is practical: The beneficiary is the person making the effort (not the person whose suffering receives the attention) — it’s an example of a concept the Dalai Lama refers to as ‘wise selfishness’ (sometimes ‘enlightened selfishness’). Of course, wise selfishness is not selfishness at all; it may appear to be because the ‘self’ is the primary beneficiary, but it is not an expression of selfishness because it is not motivated by a self-centered intent.
2. Note that attending to others’ suffering is not an attempt to diminish the apparent magnitude of your suffering by comparison. Your brain is likely to resist attempts to portray your own suffering as less impactful by comparing it to someone else’s.
At least that’s how my brain works. For example, when I have a cold, I don’t experience it any differently as a result of thinking about someone who’s dealing with terminal cancer. To be honest (which I am capable of, if I absolutely have to), my level of enthusiasm about my cold remains abysmal even when I pay attention to people afflicted by severe medical conditions. Moreover, my mind resents any attempt (my own or anybody else’s) to trivialize my suffering, which, indeed, is not the point. Paying attention to the suffering of others is not for the sake of comparison. The purpose of doing it is to broaden one’s perspective by including more data in one’s frame of consciousness. In other words, it is not about shrinking the size of the object inside the frame; it is about enlarging the frame around the object.
As a general rule, there is no point in comparing the suffering of different people (or the same person in different times). To quote Dr. Victor Frankl: “A man’s suffering is similar to the behavior of gas. If a certain quantity of gas is pumped into an empty chamber, it will fill the chamber completely and evenly, no matter how big the chamber. Thus suffering completely fills the human soul and conscious mind, no matter whether the suffering is great or little (Frankl, 2006).”]

2. Maintaining a wide time frame: A broad perspective generally includes data beyond just that of the present moment. Conversely, a narrow perspective automatically and thoroughly excludes information about the past and the future (to the extent that it is irrelevant to the management of a perceived present survival threat).
   Even under normal conditions, i.e., when one is fully aware that they are not facing an existential threat, the brain’s data processing algorithms tend to exclude data deemed irrelevant to the management of the present (because, as discussed elsewhere, attention is a finite resource; the brain has only so much of it). But when the operative mode is set on thrival, it is relatively easy to choose to shift the temporal focus such that consciousness includes information about the past (recalling memories) and the future (activating the imagination). A similar shift becomes hard under duress.
   In other words, “stretching” the time frame of the screen of consciousness “on demand” isn’t particularly challenging, as long as one doesn’t feel like they are facing an immediate existential threat.

Incorporating this understanding into a routine mindfulness practice comes down to deliberately shifting the focus of attention in time. In other words, taking a minute to deliberately reflect on the past, followed by a similarly brief contemplation of the future. In both cases, the key is to bring attention to data that has nothing to do with the present, to things you wouldn’t automatically think of. For example, you might focus on a grade school teacher you admire and the valuable lessons you learned from them, or on a past birthday that stands out as special. Examples of future topics to bring attention to include planning your next birthday or the suggestions John Lennon makes in his song “Imagine.”
Consistent with the overarching principle, a regular practice of bringing past and future data into the present frame of consciousness “on demand” pays off when a pressing need for a broad perspective arises, i.e., when the mind “gets stuck” in survival mode in a situation that has nothing to do with survival.

3. Reflecting on the validity of different points of view: A narrow perspective automatically excludes different points of view, permitting awareness only of one’s own point of view, as it appears to be in the present moment.
   In reality, however, the same object or process appears differently when it is observed from different points of view. Therefore, radically different perceptions of the same reality can be, and often are, equally valid. It is a fact of life that one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure, and one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

As a practice, it is worthwhile to contemplate (specifically, to search for) the validity of opposing views from your own. Issues such as abortion rights and gun control (if you live in the USA) immediately come to mind as examples of topics for this practice, but just about any controversial issue — small or large, will do. (Dismissing an opposing point of view as “crazy” or “idiotic” is extremely unlikely to be realistic; it’s very unlikely that everyone on the other side of a controversy is crazy and/or less intelligent than you.)
The goal is to reveal to yourself how an opposing point of view is valid and, simultaneously, recognize that the validity of a very different point of view does not pose a threat to the validity of your own.
Routinely reflecting on the potential equal validity of radically different takes (on the same reality) helps establish and maintain a broad perspective at baseline. As such, it enhances the quality of one’s mental functioning and reduces the risk of unnecessarily worsening the situation.

[sidebar: 1. Acknowledging that radically different beliefs from one’s own can be equally valid is typically challenging. Whether or not one can accomplish it depends on one’s fundamental understanding of the nature of Reality: It comes down to choosing one of two general approaches about the nature of Reality: One is that for every facet of Reality, there is an ultimate interpretation that is superior to all others in its validity — the Supreme view. The alternative approach is that everything in Reality (with a few rare exceptions) can be perceived in more than one accurate way, i.e., that Reality can be perceived in different but equally valid ways. Or, in other words, there is no Superior view; there are multiple equally right views.
The former is incompatible with mindfulness and the pursuit of happiness. It readily leads to fanaticism and the legitimization of the use of force. The latter view, which allows for different positions to be equally valuable, is more flexible, inclusive, and secure. It is based on the understanding that the validity of one point of view does not necessarily challenge or undermine the validity of different views, because there is no ultimate, single “Right” view. As such, it fits well with mindfulness and the effective pursuit of happiness.
2. The ability and willingness to consider an opposing point of view as equally valid (even just potentially) is particularly useful in preventing disagreements and interpersonal conflicts from deteriorating into what feels like a duel for survival (or worse, actually approximating one). In a confrontation, the mere willingness to consider the opposing point of view as valid has a powerful anti-inflammatory effect, even when the gap between the different positions remains unbridged.]

4. Reflecting on the distinction between ‘caring’ and ‘matterness’: Caring deeply about something that, sooner or later, turns out not to matter at all is a universal experience. (Remember what you cared about in high school? How much of it would you presently say matters?) In other words, that which you care about is not automatically that which matters (and vice versa). Caring and matterness are entirely different attributes, yet the distinction between them is easily overlooked, and it often is. (The difference between caring and matterness and the ability and willingness to separate them are critically important issues in the pursuit of happiness and are therefore discussed in detail elsewhere.)
   Briefly, familiarity with and understanding of the definitions of these two attributes form the foundation for keeping them apart. Caring is defined as the intensity of one’s emotional experience. ‘Matterness’ is defined as the assessed potential of a ‘thing’ (e.g., an object, event, or idea) to cause a measurable and enduring change in a defined system.
   The belief that what you care about automatically matters supports maintaining a narrow perspective (it aligns well with the aforementioned position that there is a single Right point of view). Conversely, a solid appreciation of the inherent difference between these two attributes helps maintain a broad perspective. Developing the required appreciation takes some practice, i.e., repeatedly contemplating the definitions and their applicability to real-life situations. Separating caring from matterness amounts to giving oneself the permission to care about things that do not necessarily matter and, conversely, not care about things that do matter.

[Sidebar: For example, mature sports fans are well aware of the benefits of separating caring and matterness. The ability to do so frees one to care deeply about a team or a player while keeping in mind that whether the team wins or loses doesn’t really matter — it’s just a game.
Losing sight of the distinction (i.e., when caring about the team’s performance automatically injects it with great importance) undermines maintaining a broad perspective and renders caring dangerous. When caring equals matterness, even the most trivial challenge is easily misperceived and mismanaged as if it were an existential threat.]

5. Comparing the severity of the present situation to the intensity of the emotional response it elicits: It is essential to be able to separate the intensity of one’s emotional response from the gravity of the issue one is responding to (it can be considered an extension of separating caring and matterness). I’ll explain:
   The brain attributes a severity, or gravity, to everything it notices. It’s an automatic step in data processing designed to prioritize resource utilization, ensuring that more severe or “weighty” events receive more resources, starting with attention.
   A strong emotional response can distort this assessment. An intense emotional response tends to falsely raise the severity that the brain attributes to the event behind it.

For example, imagine that you lost your wallet. Objectively, the severity of losing your wallet might only be rated at 3 out of 10 (10 being the most severe event that can conceivably happen to you). However, the intensity of your emotional response at the moment you realize it is lost may be measured at an 8 out of 10 (10 being the maximum intensity, duh).

A discrepancy between these two parameters causes tension, even if only subconsciously. The brain can resolve this tension in one of two ways: It can raise the severity it attributes to the loss of your wallet to an 8 (i.e., bring it in line with the intensity of the emotional response), or it can lower the intensity of the emotional response to a 3 (i.e., bring the emotional response down to fit the actual severity of the event).
The former option is the automatic choice — by default, the brain raises its severity rating of an event so that it is in line with the intensity of the emotions it elicits. To return to our example, therefore, in your subjective reality (at least until your emotional response cools down), the loss of the wallet registers as close to the most severe experience you can have in life — 8 out of 10. The latter option — lowering the intensity of the emotional response to match the actual severity of the event — does not happen spontaneously. Making it happen volitionally is possible, but it requires considerable practice.

An intense emotional response tends to reflexively narrow one’s perspective, causing relatively trivial events to seem severe enough to be treated as a survival threat. Uncoupling the intensity of the emotional response from the severity attributed to an issue may be all that is needed to correct this error and maintain a broad perspective.

The practice of developing the ability to separate these parameters comes down to repeatedly applying the two 1 to 10 scales mentioned above in tandem, a few times a day, until it becomes second nature. For example, when you are running late to a meeting and can’t find a parking spot, when you discover that what you had in the oven got charred while you were on the phone, or when you realize you just missed the bus/train/plane — rate the intensity of your emotional response (on a 1 to 10 scale). Next, rate the severity of the event you are responding to (on the parallel 1 to 10 scale).

Bringing the discrepancy between the ratings on these two scales into conscious awareness can, in and of itself, prevent automatically raising the severity attributed to an event. It is an essential skill because the alternative — automatically inflating the gravity of situations that elicit an intense emotional response, typically leads to a narrow perspective, survival mode, and ultimately, suboptimal management of non-survival situations. 

[Sidebar: In my professional and personal experiences, this simple exercise can be remarkably effective. Here are a few additional relevant points to help you make the most of it.
Firstly, it is best to start this practice by focusing on past events, even distant ones. Reflecting on events that took place years ago is very effective for developing the relevant skill: Recall the event, rate the intensity of your emotional response to it at the time it occurred (on a 1-10 scale), then rate the severity of the event as you perceive it in the present (on the adjacent 1-10 scale).
Rating the emotional intensity is fairly easy. While your 1 to 10 rating of the emotional response is likely to differ from others, with repetition, you are likely to develop a consistency that will make the scale increasingly meaningful to you. If a 1-10 scale is not your thing, consider dividing your emotional-intensity spectrum into three sections — low, medium, and high; it should be equally effective as a practice.
Regarding the event-severity rating, it is useful to define some predetermined fixed points on your 1-10 scale. I suggest giving the severity of a paper cut a rating of ‘1.’ (i.e., anything less severe than a paper cut doesn’t deserve to be on the severity scale at all). ‘Ten’ should mark the worst thing you can imagine happening to you
(For example, and at the risk of appearing overly dramatic, my own  ’10’ on the severity scale is the nightmarish scenario in which the people I love are trapped in a burning building and I’m being held outside by the firefighters. Thankfully, such horrific scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen, but they are not impossible; unfortunately, rare as they are, they do occur. Keep in mind that the point of the exercise is to protect a broad perspective, which requires acknowledging the worst-case scenario possible). I suggest rating the most severe experience you have had in your life so far at a ‘7’, which leaves plenty of necessary room for life’s curve balls. (In my opinion, a problem that can be fixed with money typically doesn’t deserve a severity rating above a ‘5’: even if the money to fix it is unavailable; I think that problems that can be fixed with money are inherently less severe than problems to which all the money in the world is irrelevant).
Lastly, there are two stumbling blocks to watch out for practicing this exercise: The first is to make sure you deal with just a single event at a time — piling up a number of stressful events as if they were a single event, even if they are happening at the same time, defeats the purpose of the exercise; rating each problem, or issue, individually serves the goal of maintaining a broad perspective (e.g., don’t rate the severity of running late to a meeting, a burnt meal, and the lost wallet as if they were a single issue; approach them separately, one at a time).
The second potential pitfall in this practice is the normal tendency to speculate and rate the severity of events that may happen but haven’t yet, instead of the event that actually happened (e.g., running late may get you fired and result in bankruptcy; the burnt meal may lead to a breakup with your significant other; the lost wallet may result in your identity being stolen and years of hassle — but until any of these things happen they are just speculations and don’t deserve attention in this exercise). Only the actual facts should be allowed onto the severity scale, no speculations.

In my experience, after a few weeks of daily practice, the real-time application of these 1-10 scales becomes a second nature; once that happens, it becomes a remarkably useful mental tool.]

Part 3: Verify the Nature of Your Influence (Positive vs. Negative)

One cannot be involved in a process without influencing it. It means that any level of participation in a given reality (arguably, even just observing it) exerts some influence on it. Since zero influence, or no influence, is not an option, if we are involved in a process, we will exert either a positive or a negative influence over it. Obviously, the goal is to refrain from exerting a negative influence.

Human influence occurs at three levels, i.e., through acting, speaking, and thinking. The goal is to refrain from exerting negative influence at all three levels.

The process of moving toward this goal begins by scanning the actions you are considering, the words you are about to say, and the content of the thoughts you are entertaining.
Specifically, you want to identify any actions, words, and thoughts that aim to cause harm. I.e., actions, words, and thoughts whose purpose is to hurt someone. Reliance on force at any of these levels is indicative, if not synonymous with, permission of violence. The consideration of violence — in actions, speech, and even imagining acting violently — meets the criteria for influence with an intent to harm, i.e., negative influence.

If your scan reveals evidence of a harmful intent, you must hit ‘pause’ and fix it. It can be difficult to pause and reach for the fix, especially when the habit of reacting is strong. It may help to remind yourself that while doing and saying nothing may not advance your cause, it is far preferable to taking the wrong action or saying the wrong thing, which amounts to negative influence that will undermine it.
Acts of violence, using force and intent to harm, are referred to in Buddhism as “wrong actions.” It is better to act less than to act wrongfully. Sit on your hands if you must — until you devise a course of action that amounts to positive influence.
Similarly, saying things that are designed to hurt is referred to in Buddhism as “wrong speech.” It is better to say less than to say the wrong things. Bite your tongue if you must — until you come up with something to say that stands a chance of exerting a positive influence.

Things are slightly different when it comes to refraining from negative influence by wrong thinking. Wrong thinking falls into two categories: First, thoughts that aim to cause harm (violent thoughts). Second, thoughts that disregard the laws of nature (most relevant to this discussion, laws governing the pursuit of happiness).
To avoid violent thinking, it would make sense to think less — in pattern with avoiding wrong action and speech. However, “thinking less” is different from acting and speaking less, because it is next to impossible to command the mind to ‘think less’ (there’s nothing to sit on and nothing to bite). Hence, in practice, instead of thinking less, one aims to shift one’s thoughts to different topics, i.e., to distract the mind away from violent thoughts onto just about anything else. For example, if you realize your mind is entertaining violent thoughts, call a friend and discuss something unrelated, watch a movie, read, work out, meditate, or pray. Whatever works to shift your thoughts away from violence is likely to reduce your risk of making matters worse through wrong thinking.

Given the guaranteed regrettable consequences of negative influence, do less, say less, and “think less” for as long as it takes you to let go of your attachment to wrong action, wrong speech, and wrong thinking. It reduces your immediate influence over the situation at hand, but it always makes sense to exert less influence when it is suspected of being negative.

[Sidebar: The principle — reduce your influence if you suspect it could be negative — is very simple. Yet, simple as it may be, it can be hard to implement. (Simple does not mean easy, as any weight-lifter could testify.) It is particularly challenging in the face of strong emotions. The emotions that are most difficult to transcend and therefore are the most dangerous are hatred, anger, greed, lust, arrogance, and jealousy. (In Tibetan Buddhism, they are referred to as the “intoxicating emotions”; they significantly overlap the seven Capital vices of Catholicism.) In my clinical experience, the most common intoxicating emotion, by far, is anger, an extremely common cause of negative influence in the human condition. Anger is particularly dangerous because it legitimizes, even glorifies, the use of violence. Anger and its precursor, frustration, are discussed in detail in the Anger chapter. It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of cultivating mindful skills for the management of frustration and anger (which doesn’t deter me from trying).]

Refraining from the second type of wrong thinking calls for an additional important step. Thoughts that are blind to the laws of nature are useless when dealing with Reality; such thoughts can be considered wrong. To refrain from wrong thinking through this kind of ignorance, one must verify that they are consciously aware of the relevant laws to the process they are in.
Dealing with any aspect of Reality while disregarding the laws of nature inevitably leads to problems. Regardless of the specifics of the situation, a management plan that ignores any natural law is unsound and will eventually fail (even if the relevant law of nature has not yet been elucidated; that’s the thing about the laws of nature that distinguishes them from laws of man — they can’t be broken, they are not negotiable, and ignoring them unavoidably results in negative consequences; these negative consequences are not punishment for breaking the law, they are the law in action.)
In practice, it comes down to checking a short list of the laws of nature that are particularly relevant to the pursuit of happiness, to ensure that your mind operates with full awareness and a clear understanding of them.
Operating in Reality (as opposed to using the imagination) without awareness of these laws is synonymous with ‘wrong thinking’; it is guaranteed to translate into negative influence and violation of the first order of business, i.e., it will lead to making matters worse than they must be.

The checklist is composed of the following three laws (which are discussed in detail in The Laws chapter):

• The Law of Impermanence
• The Law of Sameness
• The Law of Causality (also known as the Law of Karma)

To refrain from negative influence through wrong thinking, one must make sure they are fully aware of the impermanence of everything (especially the impermanence of feelings), the core sameness we all share (especially, the sameness one shares with their antagonists), and the role of intent (as the source of meaning for all volitional actions).

It is useful to practice scanning your thoughts for evidence of overlooking any of these laws of nature, especially in heated moments. If a mental scan reveals thoughts that are contrary to, or ignorant of, these rules, it is imperative to make an effort to correct them, to rid your mind of them. For example, thoughts along the lines of “I will always feel the way I do”, “I am so different from this person I will never understand how they operate”, or “the meaning of this action is so obvious there’s no need to think about the intent behind it” manifest wrong thinking. If you notice such thoughts, keep in mind — as an incentive to change them — that the laws of nature are not negotiable, they don’t change, and violating them is always costly.

‘Mindfulness’ requires close familiarity with each of these three laws and their irrefutable logic. A regular mindfulness practice should include enough reflection on these three laws to ensure they are fully appreciated and solidly incorporated into one’s fundamental understanding of Reality (routinely reflecting on each of these laws for 2-3 minutes helps to anchor them in mind and is a reasonable component of a meditation practice).

In summary: The Law of Holes (i.e., stop digging when you’re in one) may seem obvious, yet it captures something profound about the pursuit of happiness: before we can make things better, we must stop making them worse. The above presents a practical protocol for honoring that principle.

The practice presented above (and elsewhere) is not about achieving perfection or never making mistakes. It’s about developing the capacity to pause, assess, and correct course before negative influence accumulates. Like any skill worth having, it requires repetition — ideally, daily reflection on the principles outlined here, so they become second nature — which pays off especially when facing unexpected high-pressure situations.

Seemingly paradoxically, doing less — acting less, speaking less, thinking less — often accomplishes more than frantic activity that fits operating in survival mode. When you’re uncertain whether your influence is positive or negative, restraint is wisdom. The cumulative effect of consistently refraining from making matters worse is, in itself, a considerable improvement in the quality of any process, especially the pursuit of happiness.

The practice steps are conceptually simple. Their execution is challenging, particularly under emotional pressure. But the inherent risk-benefit ratio is overwhelmingly favorable: Imagine what the world would look like if everyone simply stopped making matters worse, even for a day? Doubtlessly, it would be a better world. Your personal world could not be an exception.

 

REFERENCES 

Dalai Lama XIV. (n.d.). Compassion and the individual. The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama. https://www.dalailama.com/messages/compassion-and-human-values/compassion

Dalai Lama XIV. (2011). Beyond religion: Ethics for a whole world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Dalai Lama XIV, Tutu, D., & Abrams, D. C. (2016). The book of joy: Lasting happiness in a changing world. Avery.

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946)

Gandhi, M. K. (1961). Non-violent resistance (Satyagraha). Schocken Books.

Gandhi, M. K., & Dalton, D. (Ed.). (1996). Gandhi: Selected political writings. Hackett Publishing.

King, M. L., Jr. (1958). Stride toward freedom: The Montgomery story. Harper & Row.

King, M. L., Jr. (1964). Why we can’t wait. Harper & Row.

King, M. L., Jr., & Washington, J. M. (Ed.). (1986). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. HarperSanFrancisco.

Mandela, N. (1964, April 20). I am prepared to die [Statement at Rivonia Trial]. Pretoria Supreme Court, South Africa.

Mandela, N. (1994). Long walk to freedom: The autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Little, Brown and Company.

← Previous   Next →