What is the baseline things-going-tits-up-mentally rate for people similarly situated to those who take on meditation, and how does that compare to the rate for people who begin to meditate? There’s a smell of “the plural of anecdote is data” about this post. People at high risk for mental illness can go around the bend while meditating? Well, they can go around the bend watching TV or chatting with Claude too. How much more dangerous is meditation than the typical range of alternative activities?
There’s bad, and then there’s Bad. Ask a reformed alcoholic whether there were any negative side effects of giving up alcohol, and they’ll tell you it was a bit like an anal probe of the soul with the devil’s pitchfork for a month or two at least. Is that a cautionary tale that should steer you away from sobriety, or just par for that otherwise worthy course? Some of the practitioners of meditation (esp. in the Buddhist tradition) think we’re most of us addicts to the chimerical delights of the senses, and that of course it’ll be a struggle to overcome that. FWIW.
Is this like psychedelics, where if you take them in the context of a long-standing ritual practice with lots of baked-in wisdom, things will probably go okay or at least they’ll know how to give you a soft pillow to land on if you get too far out there; but if you take them in some arbitrary context there’s no telling how it’ll turn out? How do outcomes look for people who meditate in an institutional context with feedback from a seasoned veteran vs. those who meditate based on e.g. enthusiastic blog posts?
Not saying you’re wrong, but answers to things like this would help me know what to do with your observations.
How do outcomes look for people who meditate in an institutional context with feedback from a seasoned veteran vs. those who meditate based on e.g. enthusiastic blog posts?
I seem to recall hearing one meditation teacher mention that an ironclad rule for his retreats is that every participant must talk to a teacher every two days, so that the teachers can check in on whether anything concerning might be happening before it gets out of control. That would suggest that regular feedback helps keep things safe, but of course it doesn’t tell us what the relative outcomes are like.
Another issue is that anyone can claim to be competent at teaching meditation, and beginners can’t really evaluate how true those claims are. And I’ve heard claims that, e.g., the staff at Goenka vipassana retreats isn’t very well trained at dealing with emergencies, despite what you’d hope. (I’ve never been to a Goenka retreat so can’t evaluate this personally.)
Things I’d like to know:
What is the baseline things-going-tits-up-mentally rate for people similarly situated to those who take on meditation, and how does that compare to the rate for people who begin to meditate? There’s a smell of “the plural of anecdote is data” about this post. People at high risk for mental illness can go around the bend while meditating? Well, they can go around the bend watching TV or chatting with Claude too. How much more dangerous is meditation than the typical range of alternative activities?
There’s bad, and then there’s Bad. Ask a reformed alcoholic whether there were any negative side effects of giving up alcohol, and they’ll tell you it was a bit like an anal probe of the soul with the devil’s pitchfork for a month or two at least. Is that a cautionary tale that should steer you away from sobriety, or just par for that otherwise worthy course? Some of the practitioners of meditation (esp. in the Buddhist tradition) think we’re most of us addicts to the chimerical delights of the senses, and that of course it’ll be a struggle to overcome that. FWIW.
Is this like psychedelics, where if you take them in the context of a long-standing ritual practice with lots of baked-in wisdom, things will probably go okay or at least they’ll know how to give you a soft pillow to land on if you get too far out there; but if you take them in some arbitrary context there’s no telling how it’ll turn out? How do outcomes look for people who meditate in an institutional context with feedback from a seasoned veteran vs. those who meditate based on e.g. enthusiastic blog posts?
Not saying you’re wrong, but answers to things like this would help me know what to do with your observations.
I seem to recall hearing one meditation teacher mention that an ironclad rule for his retreats is that every participant must talk to a teacher every two days, so that the teachers can check in on whether anything concerning might be happening before it gets out of control. That would suggest that regular feedback helps keep things safe, but of course it doesn’t tell us what the relative outcomes are like.
Another issue is that anyone can claim to be competent at teaching meditation, and beginners can’t really evaluate how true those claims are. And I’ve heard claims that, e.g., the staff at Goenka vipassana retreats isn’t very well trained at dealing with emergencies, despite what you’d hope. (I’ve never been to a Goenka retreat so can’t evaluate this personally.)