Categories
Practice Science

Calming our cravings

Cognac: Spot by Shaylor (flickr)

All around me today, it feels that many people find themselves immersed in craving. Much our consumer culture rests on a foundation of creating an urge to immediately purchase something or engage in an activity, encouraging impatience and baking craving into our culture. At the same time, many people are ambivalent about the impact of craving on our lives, and fear that that excessive desire will transition to dysfunction and addiction. Even so, many of us feel resigned, and do not see a path to calming our cravings.

While I have never personally struggled with an addiction, I’ve certainly felt intense desires, and found my life unsettled by the fever of craving. Perhaps the first time I noticed this was in high school, back in the 1990s. At that time, access to the internet was rare, but I attended a public residential school focused on science and math, and we had excellent internet access in our computer labs.

At some point, maybe in my junior year, a friend introduced me to a simple online text-based game (a multi-user dungeon, or MUD) based on the Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books. While it lacked the polish of modern video games, I found myself consumed by this fantasy world as I became more invested in my character, and enmeshed in the relatively small online community. Slowly, I became more and more preoccupied with the game, spending much of my time outside of class in the computer lab, and eventually entire days on weekends.

At some point, people around me recognized that I had fallen into an unhealthy rut. They staged an impromptu quasi-intervention, and I found myself physically carried out of the computer lab. I remember being very angry, mostly out of embarrassment, but that moment did bring into focus how dysfunctional my relationship to this game had become. I could see that my life felt off balance, but for a time I still struggled to make a change and disengage from the game. In the end, I gave it up entirely, as I found that it was too difficult for me to continue to play without being pulled into preoccupation and obsession.

Since high school, similar things have happened with a few other games. While still challenging, those periods were easier to deal with, in part because I had become more aware of my own susceptibility. Also, it helped that as I’ve grown older, I quite honestly feel that I don’t want to spend hours of my limited time playing these kinds of games.

As for other kinds of addictions, I have never experienced truly intense challenges, for which I am thankful. Though I enjoy the occasional drink, I’ve been fortunate to never experience a strong draw towards alcohol or drugs. I have experienced intense, usually transitory, desires in other areas, like cravings and urges around food or sex. Or less intense, and longer lasting cravings that can draw me in to binge an excessive number of episodes of a show, or eat most of the junk food in our house (or to waste money on lottery tickets).

While none of these areas ever became dysfunctional in my life, I do remember that in some of the more intense moments when I was younger, I wished for some way to silence these cravings. I wondered if there could be some kind of drug that could go in to my brain cut off craving at its roots.

This wish to be free of craving might be part of what helped me be open to Zen practice. I was very interested to encounter teachings that pointed to greed and craving as one of the key ingredients in our suffering, and offered a path to end craving. However, when I first encountered these teachings, I think that for a long time I struggled to really understand what a healthy life without craving looks like.

Reading respected texts in the Zen tradition, I came across advice to give up our worldly sentiments, including our preferences. Or in the advice to monks to even to give up their families, which called back to the image of Siddhartha Gautama leaving his home and his wife and child to pursue practice. It seemed that the path being recommended to truly cut off craving might include severing my affections to other people, which did not feel like a healthy way to live. So, while I had some faith in the practice, I was also uncertain about what these teachings were really pointing to, or what it would mean for me to live that path today.

More recently, I was glad to come across the recent book, The Roots of Goodness, which I was reading for a discussion group. This text is a translation of Kosho Uchiyama’s commentary on Dogen’s Hachi Dainin Gaku (the eight qualities of a “great person,” or in Uchiyama’s words, a true adult) has been a real treasure for me as we explore what it means to carry practice into our whole life. The two first qualities – “having few desires,” and “knowing one has enough” – touch directly on craving, and Uchiyama’s commentary resonated deeply with me as I chew on what it means for me to live today with “few desires.”

It has also been helpful for me to look at these teachings through the lens of psychology and neuroscience. Research in these areas have explained the origins of liking (our actual experience of pleasure) and wanting (our desire to move toward that which we think we like) in a way that I think complements Zen practice.

Liking and disliking seem to be given in our lives, just as immediate and direct to us as our experience of color, or sound, or taste. But in themselves, there is nothing in the world that is inherently pleasant or unpleasant. The quality of pleasure or displeasure is fundamentally about how an event or stimulus is interpreted, or about its value to us. Pleasure and displeasure depend on specialized circuits in the brain, especially on deep structures such as the nucleus accumbens, and the ventral pallidum. Neuroscience studies suggest that these areas are critical to processes that have been called “core liking,” the basic step that the brain has to take in order to point to an experience as pleasant or unpleasant.

In these areas, the brain’s own opioids are key in signaling pleasure and displeasure. These natural opioid systems are the same ones that are exploited by drugs like oxycontin or fentanyl. In studies of rats, tiny injections of opiate drugs that manipulate directly into these systems can dramatically affect measures of liking (often measured using facial reactions).

Depending on where these drugs are placed in the brain, activating opioid receptors can dramatically increase liking facial reactions (lip smacking, and turning toward the taste) to a somewhat sweet compound, or dramatically decrease aversive facial reactions (gaping facial expressions, and turning away from the taste) to a bitter one.

Humans have similar opioid systems, and our own opioids are likely constantly tuning our responsiveness to any given sensation. This subtle tuning of our brain’s pleasure circuits is probably an important part of why the amount of enjoyment that we get from any particular experience (say a bite of chocolate) can depend on many factors, such as the needs of our body, the context we are in, and even our expectations about chocolate.

While this variability in how the brain responds to a reward may feel a bit capricious, or even unfair, it is an important part of how the brain orients us to focus on what is valuable. We generally experience something as pleasant if it is (or, if we believe that it is) helpful to continue our existence as an individual (such as food) or as a species (such as sex). Even our more abstract pleasures are fundamentally rooted in our well-being, as the pleasure that we take in learning about the world around us and in the company of others are critical to our species, and our ability to cooperate together with others. The ability to tune our liking and disliking allows us to shift our focus towards what is most valuable to us in the moment.

Desire, or wanting, is closely connected to our likes and dislikes, and the experience of desire can be colored by feelings of pleasure or displeasure. We can feel anticipation as a pleasure as we feel we are drawing close to something that we want. We can also feel desire as unpleasant, as we are impatient or feel obstructed from the object of our desire.

But, desire is a fundamentally a motivation, which propels us to move toward that which we want, and to move away from that which we do not want. Desire, or the experience of wanting, is born out of the gap between where we are and where we want to be. Or, where we imagine that we could be. Our brain’s opioids are likely important for the feelings of pleasure and displeasure that can come with desire. Other systems, such as the dopamine released in areas such as the striatum or nucleus accumbens, seem more important for wanting than for liking.

Infusions of drugs that trigger dopamine receptors directly into the brain do not seem to have a strong impact on liking or disliking in rats (as measured by facial reactions). Rather, these drugs have a powerful effect on wanting, and can increase food consumption dramatically. This is one of the reasons that drugs which act on dopamine receptors, either directly (cocaine, methamphetamine) or indirectly (alcohol, nicotine) can be addictive: they can recruit the circuits in the brain that trigger our desire.

Craving can be seen as a very intense form of wanting, falling on the far end of a normal continuum of desire. If we are very much in need of food, then experiencing something like craving is very natural and normal, as we need to find sustenance to survive. More often, we may notice craving most clearly when we are drawn towards something that we don’t really need in order to live: playing a video game, placing a bet on a game, watching pornography, eating rich foods, and such. When I think about what it means to have few desires, or to know that I have enough, I am more concerned with these kinds of moments of feverish desire than with normal pangs of hunger.

What then is the path to calming unhealthy desire? Early in my practice, I did think that teachings around attachment and desire were pointing towards the elimination of liking and disliking, or even feelings in general. Technically, this would work to eliminate desire: if we don’t enjoy anything, or dislike anything, then we never need to seek out a different state. Generally, though, a total lack of pleasure or displeasure is not a settled, balanced position, but rather a symptom of psychological challenges, such as depression. The total extinction of liking and disliking can be a great hindrance in our ability to function skillfully in the world.

Without getting rid of pleasure, it can still be possible to work more skillfully with desires and to calm our cravings. Research on meditation, and especially mindfulness-based approaches, have shown promise in this area, and can reduce craving for individuals dealing with substance use. Some of the impacts of mindfulness on cravings seem to come from shifting how people experience rewards. One important practice comes from encouraging people to more directly attend to and savor everyday positive experiences. By opening up to noticing the pleasant aspects of ordinary experience, one can find that there is an opportunity to experience pleasure even in the moments that we often pass over.

And, by also becoming more open to noticing one’s actual experience when using a substance, one may have a direct insight that many of the effects of a drug are actually unpleasant, or fall short of one’s expectations. This combination of cultivating positive emotions for natural rewards and reshaping how drug rewards are perceived can shift how the brain responds to natural and drug rewards. And this process appears to be important in decreasing drug cravings in people struggling with opioid addiction.

The body of research in this area has been very helpful in identifying some of the important mechanisms for how meditation can be supportive in calming intense cravings. This kind of knowledge is interesting even to people who are not dealing with the challenges of addiction. And, this work can be helpful in our practice, by giving us a better sense of what the specific impacts of practice may be.

But I think that the deeper point for our practice is that having few desires goes hand in hand with knowing what is truly valuable.

Liking and disliking are grounded at their roots in that which supports life (our individual lives, and that of our species). So, it makes sense that cultivating pleasure for everyday, natural rewards over drugs is a healthy shift. We should not stop there, though, and we should continue to explore what is truly valuable in life. This is especially important when it seems so easy to be captured by the pursuit of money, influence, recognition and the lot. Each may be useful, but at their heart, they are not valuable in themselves.

As Uchiyama points out later in his commentary on Hachi Dainin Gaku, it is our very life that is most valuable:

… my life is what is most important – this must be our most fundamental value. This value is not something given to us by society. The living force that flows through me is a value this is more important than anything else. The living force that I am speaking of is of one life that is inclusive of all the dharmas, all the dharmas are identical with one life.

Uchiyama, The Roots of Goodness, p. 201

I’ve come to appreciate the importance of this point, and believe that it is one that is worth exploring closely and carefully. And, while I can’t express the subtleties of Uchiyama’s point here (or probably at all!), I do want to mention how much I trust very deeply in the point that life itself is most valuable. Not our individual, or personal life. And also not life in the abstract (some intellectual appreciation). From our position as living beings, what could be more valuable than life itself?

If we step out from the position of life, and consider that of the Earth, or our solar system, or the universe, there we find that nothing is valuable, and so is nothing good or bad. Good and bad depend on having something that you value, and value itself depends on the ability to have some kind of goal or preference. From the position of a rock, there are no preferences, and nothing has value. A rock sits with an indifference that is fully outside of the understanding of a living being.

As living beings, we do not find ourselves sitting in the position of a rock, and from our position, there is good and bad. And what is good, what is most valuable, is life itself. Life has an aim, toward continuing life. Not just the life of one individual, or one organism, or one cell. Life as an individual makes no sense at all, as each living being only exists in a set of relationships with other living beings.

We will sometimes talk about the “web of life” as if it were something abstract, or separate from us personally. But the connections between living beings are deep and connect every living thing on our planet. Take any single living being and place them on Mars, and they cannot survive. If life were to ever to truly flourish on Mars someday, it will not be as an individual, but as a community, working together to support life.

Life itself is most valuable to life, and we can truly be at peace if we understand this point. Not an understanding that is just in our thoughts or beliefs, but in our bodies and in our flesh and in our bones. If we truly appreciate living – not as an idea, but as this direct moment – then likes and dislikes will still be with us, but perhaps shifted a bit. If each moment of living is truly valuable, then the so-called ordinary moments may not feel as drab or mundane. Even unpleasant moments can be held a bit more kindly, with the appreciation that these are moments of life are precious.

Knowing that life is most valuable invites us to appreciate where we are. Craving evaporates in a moment that is truly savored. At the same time, this is not a path of complacency or stagnation. To truly value life is to treasure it, to take delight in living, and in the same moment to see clearly the need to care for life. To aim our efforts towards continue to allow life (our own, our communities, our world) to flourish in a healthy way. As we move toward what we value – supporting life – we will find desires still come and go, but perhaps with somewhat softer urgency, and we may find that cravings lose their heat.

Sign up for our newsletter to get our latest essays delivered to your inbox. We don’t spam! We will only use this address to send you our latest posts and news.

Categories
Mindfulness Science

What is the use of mindfulness?

Mindfulness has become very popular today, and for good reason. Over the past several decades, a wide body of research has shown that mindfulness-focused programs can be helpful for stress reduction and mental health.

With the increasing popularity of mindfulness programs, it is perhaps not surprising that we see stronger and stronger claims about the benefits of mindfulness. It is easy today to find that mindfulness can improve our decision-making, intelligence, and a range of other outcomes. There is a real risk, I think, that mindfulness may become the next easy fix, that we throw at every difficulty we face. Or, just another tool for self-improvement.

If we are interested in mindfulness because we want to support the well-being of ourselves and our communities, it is important to know what the benefits of mindfulness are (and also any costs, or risks, involved in mindfulness programs).

For the past several years, I have particularly been interested in looking at the relationship of mindfulness to cognition. As many established mindfulness programs, such as mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), focus on helping people cultivate mindfulness, which Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn defined asthe awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally.”

MBSR and other mindfulness-focused programs use activities or practices that help people develop their ability to focus their attention in a non-reactive, nonjudgmental way. This practice appears to have impacts on one’s ability to regulate their emotions, and other outcomes. So, while the focus of a program like MBSR is on stress reduction (or stress resilience), some of the direct work is focused on thinking and emotion. For these reasons, it has seemed very likely to me that if mindfulness training programs are effective, this is at least partly through their effects on our patterns of thinking.

Mindfulness and decision-making

Back in 2013, a study by Drs. Andrew Hafenbrack, Zoe Kinias, and Sigal Barsade on the relationship between mindfulness and decision-making caught my attention. These researchers found that people who scored higher on a survey of mindfulness made better decisions than people who scored lower in mindfulness. Specifically, the researchers were looking at the sunk cost fallacy. This is a situation where we are more likely to stick with our plans when we have invested resources (money or time) that we cannot get back (i.e., those investments are “sunk” and cannot be recovered).

As an example, consider that you have tickets to a concert this evening, which you received for free. You’ve been looking forward to going out, but this afternoon, you started to have a painful headache. Now you would prefer to stay home and skip the concert. What will you do?

We saw Billy Joel and Sting when their concert came to Indianapolis this spring. Luckily, we were feeling healthy that night, but even if we had felt terrible that night, the sunk cost of our tickets probably would have helped us follow through with our plans!

In this kind of situation, many people feel conflicted. On the one hand, they want to follow through with their plans, but on the other hand, if you don’t feel well, you may very well not enjoy the concert, so it could make sense to stay home. When faced with this kind of decision, some people will go out, and others will stay home, as you might expect.

What is very interesting, though, is to consider how our decisions would change if the tickets had not been free. And, especially if we cannot resell the tickets or get a refund. In this kind of situation, people who spend money for their tickets (especially if the tickets were expensive) are more likely to follow through and go to the concert, even if they don’t feel well. Not everyone will do so, but you will find that more people end out going out, even though they would prefer to stay home.

This difference – that people are more likely to follow through after investing money (or time) – is an example of the sunk cost fallacy, and how our decisions can be biased by sunk costs. And, this research suggested that mindfulness could help us to resist the impact of sunk costs (and thus make better decisions).

But, are sunk costs really the key?

And, reading about the research of Dr. Hafenbrack and colleagues, I found it fascinating to think that mindfulness might be able to weaken the impact of sunk costs on our decisions. But, I had one concern about the original study: were the researchers really looking at sunk costs specifically?

To say that mindfulness specifically predicts our ability to resist the pressure of sunk costs requires that we have a good measure of how our behavior is impacted by sunk costs. The easiest way to do that is to study how people behave under two conditions.

First, we want to see what people choose to do when they have not invested any (or very little) money or time. And then we want to see how those choices change if they have invested money or time (and, under conditions where they can’t get their time or money back – those costs are sunk, or lost, in that sense).

In the study by Dr. Hafenbrack and colleagues, many of the measures they used asked people to make decisions about situations where a significant amount of time or money had been invested. But, these measures lacked comparison conditions (asking people how they would have behaved if there had been little or no prior costs).

For example, consider this question from one of the surveys in the study:

You are buying a gold ring on layaway for someone special.  It costs $200 and you have already paid $100 on it, so you owe another $100.  One day, you see in the paper that a new jewelry store is selling the same ring for only $90 as a special sale, and you can pay for it using layaway.  The new store is across the street from the old one.  If you decide to get the ring from the new store, you will not be able to get your money back from the old store, but you would save $10 overall. Would you be more likely to continue paying at the old store or buy from the new store?

From the Resistance to Sunk Costs scale

In the survey, people are asked to indicate how likely they are to stick with the ring they have placed on layaway (and still owe $100) or to switch to buying the $90 ring from the new store.

If you are someone who wants to save money, then your best option in this case is to go ahead and buy the $90 ring from the new store (saving $10). Many people agree that they would buy the cheaper ring from the new store, which is no surprise.

It is surprising, though, that a number of people will not switch stores – these people say that they will pay the remaining $100 for the ring that is already on layaway. If you find yourself in this group, it may be that you are being influenced by sunk costs: the $100 that you have already spent for this ring.

But then again, maybe that is not the reason at all. Perhaps even if the original ring was only $100, and you had been able to put it on layaway with $0 down, you would have still have stuck with this ring, instead of switching over to the cheaper option.

Why would you do this? Well, maybe you feel a sense of commitment to the first store, where you have the ring on layaway. People do this all of the time, continuing some behavior, even though it is no longer the best course of action. Psychologists call this escalation of commitment. (Side note: to be honest, “escalation” seems to be an odd term to me in this context, especially since many cases of escalation of commitment are really just situations in which we are continuing some course of action. Personally, I would say inertia, or doubling-down, would be a better way to capture this kind of situation!)

To really determine if sunk costs impacted your decision to stick with the $100 ring on layaway, I need to know how much your behavior is influenced by that first $100 that you spent. And, the Resistance to Sunk Costs measure doesn’t really capture that piece (the specific impact of the initial investment).

This wrinkle in the story about mindfulness and sunk costs caught my interest, and I found myself wondering if we could get a clearer picture of how the impact of sunk costs was related to mindfulness. So, I decided to replicate the findings from the original paper, working with students in a course on research methods and statistics in psychology.

And, after searching the literature, I found a study by Dr. JoNell Strough and colleagues (paywall) of West Virginia University, who created a survey that assessed the impact of sunk costs. Their measure presented people with eight scenarios, each involving an investment of time or money.

To zero in on sunk costs, they present each scenario twice: once where people had made little or no prior investment, and once where people had made a large prior investment.

For example, here is one question from the low/no-investment version:

You have been working on a project related to one of your hobbies. You paid hardly any money at all for supplies. Lately, you have lost interest in the project. Whenever you work on the project, you are bored and wish that you were doing something else.

And, for the high investment version, they just changed one sentence: “…You paid hardly any money at all for supplies. …becomes “… You paid a whole lot of money for supplies. …

In the survey, the high and low/no investment versions were presented to each participant separately. For each scenario, people indicate how long they are likely to continue this behavior (do they think they will finish the project?  Will they continue for a while?  Will they quit the project immediately?). For this scenario, a person who is influenced by sunk costs should say that they  will stick with the project longer if they have invested “a whole lot of” money in supplies (compared to “hardly any” money).

Across several small studies, my students and I were able to replicate the main findings from the original study (and here is the published version of the paper). People who scored higher on survey measures of mindfulness were less sensitive to sunk costs: spending money for supplies did not seem to make them more likely to stick with a project that they had no interest in. I will say, though, that this relationship was a bit weak using the survey developed by Strough and colleagues: we didn’t see a significant relationship between sunk costs and mindfulness in all of our studies.

We also made one new discovery: that people who reported higher levels of mindfulness were more willing to give up on an activity, even when they had not invested much time or money (even when they had not invested money for supplies, they were more willing to quit a project that they were no longer interested in). This relationship was stronger than the effect for sunk costs, suggests that mindfulness is not just related to a reduction in the effects of sunk costs, but also to less escalation of commitment.

It appears that more mindful individuals were less likely to “double-down” on a course of action that they were no longer interested in. And, we considered this to be another way that mindfulness was related to making better decisions.

What does it all mean?

These two studies – the original by Dr. Hafenbrack and colleagues, and our replication – are good examples of how psychology research can help us better understand mindfulness. But you might wonder, what does it really mean for our daily lives?

Overall, I think we have strong evidence people who score higher in mindfulness (as a trait) will also say they are more willing to give up on something (a plan, an activity, a relationship) that they no longer find valuable. Another way to say this is that more mindful people may be less likely to double down or throw good money after bad.

And, on average, this is probably a positive thing. While it is often good to be able to stick with our plans and see our commitments through, we may also value being flexible enough to make a change if it turns out that our plans are no longer in our best interest.

Will mindfulness training help me make better decisions?

Based on this research, we might hope that cultivating mindfulness (through meditation or mindfulness-based interventions) could help us be more resistant to sunk costs or doubling down.

But, the studies described above are mostly correlational: we see that people who are more mindful make better decisions, but we don’t know if developing mindfulness further would help people better resist sunk costs or escalation of commitment.

Dr. Hafenbrack and colleagues did test a short-term mindfulness induction, and found that increasing mindfulness helped people give up on an undesirable course of action. We struggled to replicate this specific finding (mainly because the short-term mindfulness induction didn’t work in our study). Overall, I think it is reasonable to expect that interventions that increase mindfulness would decrease the impact of sunk costs and escalation of commitment, but I can’t say that we have firm evidence in this area: it is a reasonable expectation that hasn’t been thoroughly tested in the world.

For this reason, I really would not recommend that people promote mindfulness-based training programs as proven ways to specifically target the sunk cost bias or escalation of commitment.

Coming back to our practice

And, even if it does turn out that mindfulness-based programs can produce these changes, that would be interesting, but not necessarily very useful for us once we have taken up a practice that involves mindfulness.

To really commit to a practice of mindfulness asks of us to be aware of the trap of turning practice into just another tool for self-improvement. If we are not careful, it can be very easy to slide away from a focus on our direct experience, and to move to but judging, ranking, and living in the fantasy of a future in which we are a “better” person.

To really commit to mindfulness, to living in an “awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally,” we need to be aware of all of the ways that we can get caught up in chasing after our goals, or get lost in dreams. And commit to waking up anew each time we find that we’ve lost the thread of the present moment.

Sign up for our newsletter to get our latest essays delivered to your inbox. We don’t spam! We will only use this address to send you our latest posts and news.

Categories
Meditation Practice Zen

“There’s a flaw in my approach”

“Hand Sculpture” photo by Tambako the Jaguar, of a sculpture in Vaduz, Liechtenstein

The summer issue of Midwest Zen was published this month, and it includes a short essay that I shared about my own practice (“A flawed approach“). For most of this year, I have been focused mainly on my own practice and supporting meditation and mindfulness in my local community. And, this effort has come at the expense of my writing, but it is important to me to continue to share reflections on Zen practice, and I was grateful for this opportunity!

In this piece I wanted to share some challenges that I had encountered, times when practice felt difficult or unpleasant, and I really did not understand where these feelings were coming from. Over time, as I continued to sit with these moments, I began to see the ways in which my approach to practice was flawed. Underneath my efforts, just outside of my awareness, a subtle striving (that I should be getting “somewhere” in practice, or that I should feel some particular way) was at the root of my struggles. And seeing that more clearly has helped me to drop some of that striving (or at least to be more aware of it!).

I don’t know if these experiences will resonate with you, but I do hope that someone might find this piece helpful for their own practice.

The full issue of Midwest Zen (Issue 6) is available online, and as a PDF.

Sign up for our newsletter to get our latest essays delivered to your inbox. We don’t spam! We will only use this address to send you our latest posts and news.

Categories
Zen

Lottery tips from our Zen practice

Tonight, the drawing for the Mega Millions lottery in the United States will have an obscene prize, $396 million USD. At a price of $2 per ticket, I have a hard time truly grasping the number of people that have participated to generate this jackpot. And, if you are one of them, maybe you are looking for lottery tips on how to maximize your chances of winning tonight’s jackpot.

Credit: Jeremy Brooks, SuperLotto Dreams

Well, I can’t really help you there, but I would say: don’t buy a ticket at all, if you have any hope of winning. That hope, of winning this lottery, is something that can distort your life, and not for the better. But, if you can afford a ticket, and can buy one cleanly, without any hope or expectation of winning? Then, go right ahead.

Sign up for our newsletter to get our latest essays delivered to your inbox. We don’t spam! We will only use this address to send you our latest posts and news.

But, why should our attitude matter when we play the lottery? And after all, isn’t that why people play lotteries and games of chance in the first place – because they have some hope of winning?

I would argue that our attitude does matter, especially because the odds of winning are so low. To buy a ticket with the hope of winning is to grasp at some unattainable thing. It is like reaching up for the full moon in the sky with the hope of clutching it in your hand.

Tonight, someone may win the jackpot, but you, as one specific person, do not have a (useful) chance of winning. You may very well be aware that the odds of winning the Mega Millions jackpot is about 1 in 302 million.

Three hundred million of anything is hard for our minds to grasp. To put it into perspective, you have a (much, much) better chance of being killed by a bee, hornet or wasp sting. Or, of going to the emergency room for a pogo-stick injury.

Or, compare the Mega Millions drawing to flipping a coin. If you were to flip a fair coin once, your chance of getting heads is 1 in 2 (half the time, the coin will come up heads, half tails). If you flip that coin 3 times, your chance of getting heads all three times is 1 in 8. Not bad, really – you would have a better than 10% chance of succeeding.

But, your chance of winning the Mega Millions lottery is about the same as flipping a fair coin 28 times and getting heads every, single, time (1 in 268 million).

So, to buy a ticket for tonight’s lottery with any hope, any expectation, of winning is not rational, in any sense. In practical terms, your chance of winning is basically the same whether you buy a ticket or not.

This is an argument I have made a number of times in my life, to discourage people from playing the lottery. I recall a time several years ago, that I had a student who was excited about the Powerball lottery (1 in 292 million chance of winning). That young man maintained that if he kept playing, every week, he was sure to win someday.

I argued with him, gently but persistently, going around and around again.  I worked hard to get him to admit that no one, none of us, has a good chance of winning the Powerball. I made spreadsheets, showing the cumulative odds of winning, if we played every drawing for 50 years of our life. (Spoiler alert: the odds are still pretty terrible.) I wanted to be sure that he understood that it was a waste of money, there was no way he would ever win.

And, to be fair, I guess it is not literally impossible that he could win. Some people have won, that is true. But, out of the hundreds and hundreds of millions (billions?) of lottery tickets sold, there have been 223 jackpot winners in Mega Millions, and about the same number have ever won the Powerball jackpot.

Through all of our arguments, I remember clearly how he would listen to me carefully. Nod his head a bit, with a laugh and a bright, mischievous grin.

And, he would say something like, “No, it definitely is a sure thing.

Looking back, I can see that I argued with him because I felt an obligation to speak up when I saw someone promoting a wrong view. But, I did start to look more closely at my own motivation. After our first conversations, I found that it was not skillful for me to continue to push the issue. I found that I needed him to admit that he was wrong.

We would all have been served better if I had focused on having a conversation, rather than treating this as another lesson from class. I learned something from these arguments, and I am grateful to that student, for holding his ground.

Today, I don’t worry, in general, about whether people play the lottery or not. While the chances of winning are very low (zero, for all practical purposes), is there any real harm to spending $2 USD on a lottery ticket? If you have $2 to spend, and you enjoy daydreaming a bit – or feeling that you are part of the experience – then why not?

And, at this point I do feel that I owe you a confession. For all my protests, I have played both the Powerball and Mega Millions lotteries. Not very often, and usually at points when the jackpots had grown to $200 million or so. And, I did enjoy the feeling of being part of these jackpots, being a part of the event.

And, it was diverting, to be honest, to imagine what I could do with the winnings. We have people in our family who are struggling in various ways, and could use help. We can see the real, pressing needs in our local community, and in the world. It is tempting to think about how we could make a real impact if we were to win.

But, as I’ve seen several large jackpots emerge over the past year, I have also had some concerns about how I was affected by the lottery. As I looked at myself, I found that some part of me did believe that I could win, hoped for it, even to just a small degree. I found myself drawn into daydreaming about what I could do with the jackpot. Fantasies about how much a prize like that could help the people in my life.

And, after two tickets won the last Powerball jackpot, I did notice that I felt let down. Not in a major way, but I was disappointed that it was over. In that moment, I felt (realized?) that I had been wasting my time and energy. For all of my well-intentioned daydreams, what real impact was there for my family? For my community?

So, I do not see anything wrong in general with buying a lottery ticket (if you can afford it). But, for me personally, I don’t think that I should participate. Because, when I look very closely at myself, my actual experience and behavior, I can see that buying a ticket affected me in a negative way.

Reflecting on my experience with the lottery, I was reminded me a short passage that I had read years ago, about the Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki, after he had moved to San Francisco. This was early in his work, teaching Zen in America, as he was working to establish his own habits in a new country:  

… he was careful not to get involved in the sort of socializing he had done in his last years in Japan, when it had become a diversion from his unsatisfying temple responsibilities. He wouldn’t play go anymore. He walked over to the Go Club on the other side of the building one day, reached for the doorknob, paused, then had backed away and gone home.

David Chadwick, Crooked Cucumber

In the whole biography of Suzuki, this was a small point. But, it was one that stuck with me. Perhaps because I have also found myself drawn into comfortable habits by my own diversions. And, I worried that the lottery could become something similar for me – a way to avoid contact with the reality of my life.

I’ve written before about the importance of looking carefully at our motivation to practice, and being aware of how our goals can distort our efforts. In my own Zen practice, I have also been grateful for times, such as with the lottery, where I have been mindful of how my daydreams have widened – solidified – the gap between my self and reality. I appreciate how Steve Hagan captured this gap, in his book, Buddhism Plain and Simple:

Our life is like a wheel out of kilter. It’s not satisfying. ‘There’s something out there I’ve got to get. And there’s something else out there I’ve got to keep away from me.’ This is bondage–this wanting, leaning, craving for something outside ourselves.

Steve Hagan, Buddhism Plain and Simple

In this quote, Steve Hagan is making a general point about human life, about the roots of our dissatisfaction. ⁠

In the case of the lottery, I found that I had become preoccupied, in a small, subtle way. And, in a way that had some negative effects on my life. In noticing this point, I found that for me, the lottery is not innocent fun. For me, I have found that I cannot play the lottery cleanly – without falling a bit out of kilter.

And, this may not be true of you. If you can buy a ticket to the lottery, and then continue on in your life without any impact, that is wonderful. But even so, keep an eye out for other places in your life where you might be caught. My advice to you is to always be attentive to how our life is affected by our actions.

And, I personally work to take Hagan’s advice to heart:

Attend to immediate experience. Cultivate your mind in meditation. Become familiar with the workings and leanings of your own mind. You’ll be spared a great deal of misery, and ultimately you’ll know True Freedom.

Steve Hagan, Buddhism Plain and Simple

Someone will eventually win this lottery prize, and I hope that they will be grateful for their fortune. It would be wonderful if they would use some of their prize to make a difference in the world. For me, I’ll be doing the same, in whatever way I can.

Categories
Meditation

Sitting down and opening up to life

After a run recently, we came across a small toad along our path. This little one seemed to have perfected just sitting: relaxed, unperturbed, but ready to act in a moment. I wish that I could say that I’ve mastered sitting in the same way!

While their posture is very different from that of sitting meditation, I do feel that toads are a wonderful model for the attitude we cultivate in our sitting meditation practice. At least outwardly, a toad appears to be still, but relaxed. But, they are perfectly attentive to everything around them, from the insects that will be their next meal to animals that will try to eat them.

And, of course, the annoying hiker who stops to try to take a photo.

While there are many approaches to meditation, those that I prefer remind me of the attitude of a toad: relaxed, still, but entirely alert. In a lot of ways, this attitude is similar to how I have approached my own practice, which has been most strongly shaped by shikantaza (just sitting) meditation in the Soto Zen tradition.

The Zen teacher Shohaku Okumura describes shikantaza in Mind and Zazen:

This is a really simple practice; we do nothing but sit in the zazen posture breathing easily, keeping the eyes open, staying awake, and letting go. That’s all we do in zazen; we do nothing else. Yet even if you try to sit just five minutes in this way you will find it really difficult.

This practice is very simple but simple does not necessarily mean easy. So whenever we become aware that we have deviated from that point of upright posture, deep breathing, keeping the eyes open without focusing, and letting go of whatever comes up, we try to return to that point. In whatever condition we find ourselves in, we just return to posture, breathing, waking up, and letting go. That is what we do in meditation.

Shohaku Okumura

The Zen teacher Dainin Katagiri gave similar advice:

When you are sitting in zazen, don’t think. Don’t use your frontal lobe. Your frontal lobe is sitting with you already, so don’t use it to think. This doesn’t mean to destroy thinking or to keep away from thinking. Just rest; don’t meddle with thinking.

Dainin Katagiri, “Returning to Silence: Zen Practice in Daily Life

What is the point of a practice like this? That is a complicated question (and teachers such as Dainin Katagiri have said that meditation is useless). But for me, I think that meditation is a key part of how I have tried to put my own life under a microscope, and to look carefully at everything we take for granted. This can help us loosen the grip of a strong emotion, it can help soften the boundaries that seem so rigid between ourselves and others. It can open up more space in our lives.

And, while I do believe the transformative potential of a mediation practice, if I am perfectly honest, I have often struggled with meditation! For much of my adult life, I have felt that I should meditate for a significant amount of time every day, but I have rarely achieved that for more than a few weeks at a time. It has frustrated me, because I do believe that meditation is an important part of my life, to turn my attention back on to itself, as much as I can.

When I saw that toad on the trail, it would be fair to say I envied that little one, to be able to sit so easily!

But truthfully, while I used to feel bad about how difficult it was for me to maintain a regular practice, more recently I have felt that meditation is (for me) similar to exercise (which I also have a conflicted relationship with). I don’t enjoy exercise (usually) in the moment, but I keep at it, because I feel that it is a critical part of my life.

Changing my attitude has been helpful, as I’ve been able to step back from being concerned that I am a fraud (someone who espouses an interest in meditation practice, but who doesn’t genuinely live it). And, I feel that my practice is richer today, for that.

This type of practice has long appealed to me, as it feels built on a premise that it is valuable to turn our attention to our experience, to the totality of life, as much as we can outside of our thinking about the world.

If you have any interest in exploring this style of Zen meditation, I would very much recommend reading as much as you can find. There are many wonderful books out there, and I have especially found it useful to explore collections of talks by Zen teachers. I would recommend Katagiri’s book, “Returning to Silence,” and another collection of his talks, “You Have to Say Something.” I have also found Charlotte Joko Beck to be very influential in my own practice, and would highly recommend her book “Everyday Zen.” And, I am also quite fond of Steve Hagen’s “Buddhism Plain and Simple.”

I think that these readings are a good place to start (but, I would also encourage you to reach out to a community of practitioners as well!). I personally have felt that it has been most beneficial to be part of a community (and have valued times when I lived near a Zen center).

But, I’ve also spent much of my life in locations where going to a center was not feasible. There are many excellent resources today, such as this post, How to do Zazen for the basics of sitting meditation and good visuals. I personally cannot sit in the full lotus position (and usually sit in something close to a quarter lotus pose =) )

Whether in books or through a community of practitioners, I think that you will be able to find many others who have used the opportunity of practice to look carefully at their own life. And, I hope that you too will take some time to just sit.