Over the last couple of weeks I wrote a half dozen articles exploring new ideas about the lost-in-thought state (LITS). They’re on my Substack blog in case anyone is interested. I wrote them mainly for myself to clarify my thinking.
My main conclusion is that LITS is the primary function of the mind. It’s not a pathology; it’s not caused by “conditioning.” It’s what natural selection (the mechanism of biological evolution) designed our minds to do during most of our waking moments.
It is sometimes unpleasant — in fact it’s probably the main cause of unhappiness — but it’s natural.
Mental activity in LITS consists mostly of recalled and imaginary simulated scenarios that generate strong emotions.
It can be summarized with a pair of rhyming words: simulation and stimulation.
When spiritual teachers say “be here now,” “be mindful,” “be aware”, “be aware of awareness,” etc., they are telling people to stay out of LITS.
It should be noted that this “state” can just as well be called an “activity”.
Here’s a summary of my Substack posts.
Description of LITS
- Most people are in this state almost all the time while they’re awake.
- People don’t know what they are thinking while in this state.
- People don’t know that they are thinking while in this state.
- They only know these things after they come out of the state.
- Most people never notice that the state exists.
- It can be noticed through specific practices like asking “Am I conscious now?” or through meditation when you suddenly realize you’ve been daydreaming.
- Many people, after they notice this state, feel as if consciousness is absent or diminished in some way while they are in it.
- It’s extremely difficult to stay out of this state for any length of time.
- Simulation: Most thoughts in this state are simulations of scenarios, i.e., replayed memories with or without imaginary changes, imagined future experiences, imagined outcomes of possible future actions, etc.
- Stimulation: Most thoughts in this state stimulate strong emotions.
- Those emotions can be pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant.
Nifty catchphrases
- Simulation-stimulation.
- Simulated scenarios stimulate strong emotions.
Conjectures about LITS
- Natural selection “designed” this state to be the normal default activity of the mind while it’s awake. (This contradicts, for example, the ideas that it’s pathological or that it’s the result of conditioning.)
- This state (activity) is the main reason why life is unsatisfactory. (This contradicts, for example, the idea that craving is the main reason.)
Wild-ass conjectures about LITS
- This state (activity) originated in early animals as a mechanism for planning the next action to be taken.
- The mechanism worked by generating multiple scenarios and choosing one.
- The choice was made in large part by comparing the intensities of the stimulated emotions.
Other names for LITS from everyday speech, traditions, and academic fields
Daydreaming, mind-wandering, vibbhanta-citta, default mode activity, scattered thought, rumination, cognitive noise, mental chatter, stimulus-independent thought, monkey mind, wool-gathering, self-generated thought.
“State” is not the right word
I’ve been calling LITS a “state” throughout this article but the word is misleading. It would probably be better to eliminate the word and substitute “activity”. Two reasons why: (1) A state must be a state of something that doesn’t vary. It’s not clear what the something is in this case. It can’t be “I” because the “I” is generated by the brain and it varies from moment to moment depending on the brain’s activity. (2) States are usually understood to be mutually exclusive but LITS and other “states” (for example, driving hypnosis) can occur simultaneously.
Hi Freddie
I agree with 99%. The only think I’d add is that the LITS can come in the form of a state characterized by neutral or positive emotions as well: problem solving, discussing or thinking about an interesting topic, understanding things etc…
I think it’s important to note that to pinpoint that even these other activities (especially understanding that’s so sought for in spirituality, philosophy etc..) is still unaware, and LIT.
Also, a specifically painful form of LITS is mental rumination, which is recognized in psychology as a type of thinking that is always painful, and at the basis of procrastination, avoidance, anger, anxiety, and a core component of some forms of depression, anxiety disorders or other disorders.
I do agree with you though that LITS is normal, average, and that it’s the not lost in thought state that’s unnatural. We can call it the unnatural state :)))
The two examples above (neutral/positive LITS and mental rumination) are only versions of it, but still LIT
Hey Riccardo. Thanks for pointing out that I should include neutral/positive emotions. I didn’t omit that on purpose. I forgot to say it. I guess I was focused on unhappiness because it seemed more relevant for seekers. I’ll fix that.
Thanks also for telling me about rumination. I didn’t know that. It sounds like me. Maybe I have an atypical idea of LTS because of it. Maybe that’s another reason I forgot to mention neutral/positive emotions.
Hi Freddie, I’ve been attracted to your explanation of the out-of-thought “state” because spiritual literature is so opaque in this regard – what prompted you to write your initial article.
It seems to me that there is no state where thoughts are really absent. The moment when thoughts appear absent, my mind is observing a presumed absence, and that is a thought, not consciousness. I THINK, as an individual, to be outside the realm of thoughts. When there is the sense to be outside those LITS I am introspecting, which may offer me some distance from the content being analysed, but the “introspector” still appears as a series of thoughts. To be out of that state would imply having no cognition of myself, like in the deep sleep state. But that never happens when I am awake.
The further I try to escape from my thoughts by watching them, the more dualism is apparently produced: an unending regression of thoughts, masquerading as awareness, observing other thoughts. It is incredibly frustrating. Sometimes I THINK I am being outside those LITS because I catch myself being carried away by the stream; I realize II’m mentally debating with others, remembering or anticipating, etc. But then I realize that realization is in itself a thought. It’s like an impossible knot!
Hi Luca,
Yes, it’s possible to be without thought. I’m telling you this from my experience. I understand what you’re saying. My experience used to be like yours. You describe it extremely well, and you remind me of what it was like.
The key is to transfer your attention away from thoughts and devote it entirely to something that isn’t the mental process. I found something that serves that purpose by following Ramana’s instructions.
Look away at that other “thing”. Look away. Look away.
You can’t look away until you’ve noticed that other “thing” so looking away and finding the other “thing” are two sides of the same coin.
Everything you describe is the mind. Yes the mind is incorrigible. But luckily the mind is only a small part of what you can know. You have better toys to play with.
As long as you are trying to stop thoughts, or you are wondering whether you’ve stopped thoughts, or you’re watching thoughts, your attention is on the mental process and it will continue.
Your attention is precious. It deserves to be placed on something better than the mind.
P.S. The word “thought” is misleading. It’s really a mistranslation of the Sanskrit word “vritti” as it’s used in Advaita Vedanta. When I say “thought” I mean every kind of mental activity — perceptions, wishes, memories, emotions, sensations, concepts — everything. Put your attention on that which is capable of experiencing and when you do that, the things you experience will be absent.
I think I do understand, maybe it’s just a matter of time and practice? The process usually unfolds in the following way: I am lost in a LIT. I “remember” that, when those “states” happen, I must become aware of them. What follows, is that there is almost no space between the daydreaming and the new narrative which may go on like this: “now you are here, you have to be aware, of course it’s not through the senses or the mind that you can be aware of awareness”, etc. Then thoughts like “I can’t do this, it’s impossible” and their correction “these are all thoughts! Even this thought is a thought” comes up. In the blink of an eye I find myself debating with non-dualists, or doubting everything: another LIT. Sometimes a space may be glimpsed upon which thoughts appears, and the mind says “here, look! isn’t this the space we are searching for?” Were not for the importance of self-realization, it would be almost funny.
I think I know, at least, what happens when I realize that I am lost in thoughts. I split in two, but before the splitting there is a fast “pull” away from the content of thought.
Both LIT and aware states are the mind.
When people say “awareness of awareness” they probably mean many different things but almost always they are talking about the mind. The mind can and does create mental activity that carries with it a sense of awareness (consciousness). The mind uses consciousness. That’s not the same thing as a direct experience of the Self.
In Advaita awareness, when experienced that way, is called chidabhasa (reflected consciousness).
The solution to what you describe is to look away from the ENTIRE mind including both LIT and the aware episodes.
Ramana’s way of doing that is to put your attention on yourself.
If you told him “I’m aware of awareness” he might reply, “Find out who knows you’re aware of awareness.” People make fun of that kind of talk but it’s not bullshit. It’s a way of telling you to focus on yourself intstead of on the things you’re aware of.
Of course you can only try to do this while you’re not LIT so you have to wait for moments when you’re not LIT and take advantage of them.
It can be challenging at the beginning because you’ll probably have to learn how to put your attention on yourself.
If this interests you, I’d be happy to talk to you about it on the phone.