Can meditation be bad for you?

[camerata]

Interesting article in The Independent today...

Meditation is touted as a cure for mental instability but can it actually be bad for you? If it's so powerful, might meditation also do harm to sensitive souls? Researching a mass murder, Dr Miguel Farias discovered that, far from bringing inner peace, it can leave devotees in pieces

Aaron Alexis was looking for something. He started attending a Buddhist temple in Washington and learned to meditate; he hoped it would bring him wisdom and peace. "I want to be a Buddhist monk," he once told a friend from the temple. His friend advised him to keep studying, and Alexis did. He learned Thai and kept going to the temple – chanting, meditating. But other things got in the way.

On 16 September 2013, Alexis drove into Washington's Navy Yard. It was 8am. He'd been working there not long before, and security let him in. Minutes later, the security cameras caught him holding a shotgun, and by 9am, 12 people were dead. Alexis killed randomly, first using his shotgun and, after running out of ammunition, the handgun belonging to a guard he'd just killed. He died after an exchange of gunfire with the police.

It took only 24 hours for a journalist to notice Alexis had been a Buddhist, prompting her to ask: "Can there be a less positive side to meditation?"

Full story: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/meditation-is-touted-as-a-cure-for-mental-instability-but-can-it-actually-be-bad-for-you-10268291.html

[green job]

Yes

[rockyysdt]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

[arjunadawn]

Years ago, when I began studying qigong/nei dan, and microcosmic orbit meditation (a visualization type of meditation/energy work), a number of instructors advised other students who were only "sitting in" not to practice these techniques without competent supervision. I could not grasp this, "why I asked?"

They explained that there are many stories of people developing problems, they called this "Qi stagnation." Curious, I began looking into it. This seems to happen far more to Asian people then westerners. With no real science (frankly, how could science explore such a subjective experience-qualia?). I concluded that cultural tendencies to suppress emotions play a role in some being injured from meditation. I reasoned that westerners are very forthright with their emotions and observations so in meditation are rarely encountering feelings and thoughts suppressed, or freshly surfacing. I believe this is the reasoning, and oddly the goal of meditation- to confront the false self, move past that, and access the observer. I am quite confident this is a central part of the conflict.

I do not know if vipasanna or samatha meditation have the same perils. I can easily imagine someone with mental health issues could lose their way.

[AlQaholic]

Meditation (real meditation, not prayer or chanting) is not for the fainthearted. It puts enormous pressure on your mind and one needs to develop an iron will to maintain the meditation. As said previously here, People with mental illness and instability of mind cannot succeed with mediation, I have seen this first hand when an unstable guy at a retreat broke down and went completely ballistic during meditation.

There is nothing mystique, secret or scientific about meditation, it is just really hard work where one first learns to concentrate/focus the mind, become calm. After that the real mediation starts by practicing awareness.

Different schools have different ways of doing it, some ways of doing it may be more difficult than others and different methods may have different result for unhealthy minds. End goal is always the same.

There is also the risk of disillusion, when one gain enough skill and experience in meditation that one realize what a daunting task lies ahead of you, you might just stop doing it, giving up and then maybe your mind goes in the wrong direction, especially if you where a tad bit unstable or weak to begin with.

[RichCor]

[...]

I do not know if vipasanna or samatha meditation have the same perils. I can easily imagine someone with mental health issues could lose their way.

Google "Dark Night of the Soul".

The Dark Night (difficulty integrating the experience of no self) is currently

being widely discussed and debated within the western Buddhist community.

Buddhist Meditation and the Dark Night

about.com - by Barbara O'Brian

[micmichd]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

What is "mental illness"?

[RichCor]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

What is "mental illness"?

Are you asking

what the International Retreat's definition of mental illness is, or encompasses

what is the buddhist practice definition of mental illness

what is the standard western definition of mental illness

what is the standard eastern definition of mental illness

or just posing it as a "Jeopardy" answer in the form of a question?

I though rockyysdt's post touched on one aspect of the definition.

[metisdead]

Troll posts have departed this topic.

[Sheryl]

The tradition I practice in also screens for mental illness and will not accept people with it. Those with non-psychosis but history of other problems such as depression who are are stable on medication are sometimes accepted but only with letter from heir doctor stating they are balanced enough to undergo it.

I have never heard anyone tout meditation as a " cure for mental instability" if mental instability is meant in the sense of mental illness...and it would be highly irresponsible to make such a claim.

Meditation will help the "monkey mind" tendencies of a normal person, and I suppose in that sense adds mental stability, but it is not in any way a treatment for psychosis or other serious mental illnesses.

Conversely, some Westerners go into psychotherapy seeking what are really spiritual solutions...probably because psychology is the closest thing in the modern western repetoire, but they don't get very far with it. The two disciplines -- Western psychology and Buddhist meditation - have their own baliwicks. Western psychology/psychiatry, when the practionitioner is skilled, can be highly effective for mental illnesses, neurosis and the like. But it does not begin to address or correct underlying existential issues that are normal to the human condition.

I recall that Freud once said that psychotherapy was a success "when the patient is no more unhappy than the average person" which is, of course, pretty unhappy. That's the point at which meditation practice ought to start....the basic fundamental dhukka of living, not the suffering of a mental illness.

[DogNo1]

I found the book "Psychotherapy East and West" by Alan Watts to be helpful. Maybe readers of this topic would too.

[Shaunduhpostman]

So much wrong with this article, the research cited and the whole notion of western psychiatry evaluating and getting mixed up with Buddhist meditation that I don't know where to begin. But begin I must.

To chip away at this a little bit, Buddhism and psychiatry really are diametrically opposed in terms of how they view what is what, are they not? Western psychiatry subscribes to what Buddhism calls a samsaric view: that self and other are intrinsically and fundamentally real. Buddhism views self and other as not particularly real and thus not ultimately that important. To say to a psychiatrist that you have had experiences via meditation that have lead you to the conclusion that life is no different from a dream and that the key thing for you is to awaken from that dream as opposed to chasing success and happiness while the dream lasts and the shrink will say you're on drugs and crazy to start with anyway. They don't undertsand meditation, they don't care about it they are too busy with their very heavy concerns and they don't have a minute to stop and try and help you with your unique and exquisite conundrum. You are in their way once you start talking about meditation experiences if you go to them they will run you over like a Thai motocy taxi taking a hi-so soap opera star to his dentist appointment and like them without even the slightest notion they have done anything to harm you. Its also very plain there's no need to do what are probably insincere attempts at studies to show that in the view of western psychiatry Buddhist meditation is or could be bad for you or some of you. What rubbish, it's a forgone conclusion and who are they kidding if they say they didn't know that already.

I like what Lama Namkhai Norbu said recently during one of his retreats about talking to people and discussing your meditation experiences. He said it isn't much different than if you ask people, "Well, so, how about my nose? What do you think? Is it too long or is it a rather unque interesting nose?" He pointed out that most people will be annoyed by your question and that most will start criticising and start saying and doing things to spite you. "It is terrible! Really! You better cut your nose off! I think it has grown much too long!" I don't think talking to psychiatry about meditation is any different, you are asking for trouble and I think in probably more than one case that is how the people cited in the article had tragic meditation experiences, not that meditation per se did them in.

So it seems that it really isn't appropriate for psychiatry to start getting involved with evaluating the merits and demerits of Buddhist meditation. I am not going to get started here, because I will never stop but that is really where it all goes wrong, the two are fundamentally at logggerheads. I hope Dr. Farias gets a clue along those lines eventually some day and chooses which way he wants to go, Buddhism or psychiatry, because it isn't really helping anyone in either camp and I hope people will not be put off meditation for fear of bad experiences and the like. I hope nobody reads his book, I know that isn't a nice thing to say but he seems to be developing some harmful ideas about psychiatry and Buddhism. What is the harm in learning to rest in a calm state or cultivating the habit of frequently wishing that your actions could help all beings in the universe? The alternative is what? To think when does my Xanax perscription expire? You can have tragedies from sitting down to eat your breakfast cereal, so I think these guys are making a big noise about very little compared to what potential positive things Buddhist meditation has for most people. People need to choose one of the other, Buddhism or psychiatry, you start mixing it up and you are asking for it as I think the article plainly shows.

[F4UCorsair]

Meditation is better than wasting time!

[seedy]

one off topic post removed

[micmichd]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

What is "mental illness"?

Are you asking

what the International Retreat's definition of mental illness is, or encompasses

what is the buddhist practice definition of mental illness

what is the standard western definition of mental illness

what is the standard eastern definition of mental illness

or just posing it as a "Jeopardy" answer in the form of a question?

I though rockyysdt's post touched on one aspect of the definition.

The latter.

I could come up with two (or more) contradictionary diagnoses about my mental health state. Which one would you prefer?

In fact the divergent diagnoses only reflect the methods of measurement and my willingness to comply. As being an anarchist, my willingness to obey to authorities is not very well developed.

But Western psychiatrists have a trick: They define your "free will" and then leave you a choice: to obey and get locked up, or to disobey and get locked up.

"Facts" - what are facts?

You put someone under drugs so he can't walk very well anymore. Then you state the fact that he's under drugs - and lock him up. For compliance see above.

[EmptyHead]

The article is completely biased.

[Kondiao]

So much wrong with this article, the research cited and the whole notion of western psychiatry evaluating and getting mixed up with Buddhist meditation that I don't know where to begin. But begin I must.

To chip away at this a little bit, Buddhism and psychiatry really are diametrically opposed in terms of how they view what is what, are they not? Western psychiatry subscribes to what Buddhism calls a samsaric view: that self and other are intrinsically and fundamentally real. Buddhism views self and other as not particularly real and thus not ultimately that important. To say to a psychiatrist that you have had experiences via meditation that have lead you to the conclusion that life is no different from a dream and that the key thing for you is to awaken from that dream as opposed to chasing success and happiness while the dream lasts and the shrink will say you're on drugs and crazy to start with anyway. They don't undertsand meditation, they don't care about it they are too busy with their very heavy concerns and they don't have a minute to stop and try and help you with your unique and exquisite conundrum. You are in their way once you start talking about meditation experiences if you go to them they will run you over like a Thai motocy taxi taking a hi-so soap opera star to his dentist appointment and like them without even the slightest notion they have done anything to harm you. Its also very plain there's no need to do what are probably insincere attempts at studies to show that in the view of western psychiatry Buddhist meditation is or could be bad for you or some of you. What rubbish, it's a forgone conclusion and who are they kidding if they say they didn't know that already.

I like what Lama Namkhai Norbu said recently during one of his retreats about talking to people and discussing your meditation experiences. He said it isn't much different than if you ask people, "Well, so, how about my nose? What do you think? Is it too long or is it a rather unque interesting nose?" He pointed out that most people will be annoyed by your question and that most will start criticising and start saying and doing things to spite you. "It is terrible! Really! You better cut your nose off! I think it has grown much too long!" I don't think talking to psychiatry about meditation is any different, you are asking for trouble and I think in probably more than one case that is how the people cited in the article had tragic meditation experiences, not that meditation per se did them in.

So it seems that it really isn't appropriate for psychiatry to start getting involved with evaluating the merits and demerits of Buddhist meditation. I am not going to get started here, because I will never stop but that is really where it all goes wrong, the two are fundamentally at logggerheads. I hope Dr. Farias gets a clue along those lines eventually some day and chooses which way he wants to go, Buddhism or psychiatry, because it isn't really helping anyone in either camp and I hope people will not be put off meditation for fear of bad experiences and the like. I hope nobody reads his book, I know that isn't a nice thing to say but he seems to be developing some harmful ideas about psychiatry and Buddhism. What is the harm in learning to rest in a calm state or cultivating the habit of frequently wishing that your actions could help all beings in the universe? The alternative is what? To think when does my Xanax perscription expire? You can have tragedies from sitting down to eat your breakfast cereal, so I think these guys are making a big noise about very little compared to what potential positive things Buddhist meditation has for most people. People need to choose one of the other, Buddhism or psychiatry, you start mixing it up and you are asking for it as I think the article plainly shows.

I appreciate your comments. Yet I want to add that Carl Jung, one of the original pioneers of psychology, in developing his ideas was inspired -- in the Eastern Way. i.e. he did not deduce theories in the Western scientific way. At the time - like, 100 years ago - there was no perceived dichotomy between spiritual development and psychological healing.

[Shaunduhpostman]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

All this is a pretty slippery slope in terms of the integrity of the Buddhist teachings on offer at Suan Mok.

-A diagnosis of mental illness is ultimately just that, a diagnosis. It has no bearing, necessarily, on whether someone is actually "mentally ill." In addition, new and ever more spurious diagnoses are being invented every year, for example the new one entered into the DMS last year called hyper-creativity. As I understand it, If you compose music, produce paintings or what have you at a rate that might make a professional or family or friends or co-workers uncomfortable you are at risk of being socked with that one and asked to take medication and forever tarred and crippled with the stain of being certified as being among the mentally ill. These diagnoses, and there are plenty of other highly questionable ones, really serve an agenda at the end of the day that is samsaric and not anything to do with dharma, such as serving the state and corporate military complex to have more means at their disposal to control the populace or facilitating family political agendas whereby someone who is an obstacle to another's gain and profit can be taken out of the picture with the stroke of a willing psychiatrist's pen.

-I wonder if Siddhartha Gautama himself would have passed the Suan Mok screening test, particularly during the years before his enlightenment. Did he not exhibit all the signs of depression and deep alienation from his society? So, I think that ought to be born in mind, if you are going to deny people an access to what may end up helping them and those near to them enormously because it might possibly backfire, you may at some point end up doing a profound disservice to us all.

-I think also, it is important, if we are going to call our teachings and retreats and seminars Buddhist, that a foundation in that tradition under pin all aspects of what is on offer.

The statement: "If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result." does not have a basis in the Buddhist tradition. Again, that is a very slippery slope, as what is stop you from just carrying that line of thinking on further and making up your own system and confusing people and your yourselves that you are offering dharma. People with mental illness might inconvenience us or should they haul off and shoot someone it will cause Buddhism to fall into disrepute. That is all about worldy dharma and not real dharma, worldly dharma menaing concern with ill reute, fame and fortune first and foremost. I am sorry but the criteria for admission to the Suan Mok retreat mentioned in based on western psychiatry, not the Dharma and as such has much potential for harm down the road if not nipped in the bud. Psychiatry is all about this is absolutely, solidly and inhereantly real and these other things are not. Buddhism says this very attitude is the very basis of all of our suffering, that we have lost sight of the vast openess and potential of every situation and aspect of our lives that we encounter, that its reality or lack thereof is mere relative and in flux.

[micmichd]

Most of these "innovative" psychiatric labels are in fact only disciplinary instruments to make people fit for a killer-economy.

If my neighbours that take part in this rat race think my music is too loud, they can ask me to tune it down, instead of calling the cops or some psycho-clowns in a white dress.

Psychiatry is becoming more and more arbitrary, as you quite correctly stated.

Then, why do you accept their labels as relevant for meditation?

[tifino]

I reckon if done for too long in session: - DVT may become a reality

[rockyysdt]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

All this is a pretty slippery slope in terms of the integrity of the Buddhist teachings on offer at Suan Mok.

-A diagnosis of mental illness is ultimately just that, a diagnosis. It has no bearing, necessarily, on whether someone is actually "mentally ill." In addition, new and ever more spurious diagnoses are being invented every year, for example the new one entered into the DMS last year called hyper-creativity. As I understand it, If you compose music, produce paintings or what have you at a rate that might make a professional or family or friends or co-workers uncomfortable you are at risk of being socked with that one and asked to take medication and forever tarred and crippled with the stain of being certified as being among the mentally ill. These diagnoses, and there are plenty of other highly questionable ones, really serve an agenda at the end of the day that is samsaric and not anything to do with dharma, such as serving the state and corporate military complex to have more means at their disposal to control the populace or facilitating family political agendas whereby someone who is an obstacle to another's gain and profit can be taken out of the picture with the stroke of a willing psychiatrist's pen.

-I wonder if Siddhartha Gautama himself would have passed the Suan Mok screening test, particularly during the years before his enlightenment. Did he not exhibit all the signs of depression and deep alienation from his society? So, I think that ought to be born in mind, if you are going to deny people an access to what may end up helping them and those near to them enormously because it might possibly backfire, you may at some point end up doing a profound disservice to us all.

-I think also, it is important, if we are going to call our teachings and retreats and seminars Buddhist, that a foundation in that tradition under pin all aspects of what is on offer.

The statement: "If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result." does not have a basis in the Buddhist tradition. Again, that is a very slippery slope, as what is stop you from just carrying that line of thinking on further and making up your own system and confusing people and your yourselves that you are offering dharma. People with mental illness might inconvenience us or should they haul off and shoot someone it will cause Buddhism to fall into disrepute. That is all about worldy dharma and not real dharma, worldly dharma menaing concern with ill reute, fame and fortune first and foremost. I am sorry but the criteria for admission to the Suan Mok retreat mentioned in based on western psychiatry, not the Dharma and as such has much potential for harm down the road if not nipped in the bud. Psychiatry is all about this is absolutely, solidly and inhereantly real and these other things are not. Buddhism says this very attitude is the very basis of all of our suffering, that we have lost sight of the vast openess and potential of every situation and aspect of our lives that we encounter, that its reality or lack thereof is mere relative and in flux.

There are very few answers.

Much is unknown about mental illness.

Medical intervention is largely focused on minimizing symptoms rather than effecting cures.

Misdiagnosis, in an imprecise field, of course.

All I can draw on is the hell that a parent and my family circle went through for over a decade dealing with severe schizophrenia.

Quite inappropriate for a Buddhist retreat.

Everyone has their own story.

Some will slip through the very wide cracks.

All I can say is that the staff at Wat Suan Mokkh are not trained to competently provide a safe environment for such challenges.

There are many dangers and pitfalls. Far better to concede than place individuals in possible harm.

It has nothing to do with denial of an experience for such folk.

Rather an acknowledgment that those who run the retreat have no knowledge, nor training to allow them to provide a safe and appropriate environment for such individuals.

[micmichd]

So, Aaron Alexis the employee went back to his office to kill some (maybe competitive) employees.

What's that got to do with Buddhism?

[micmichd]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

All this is a pretty slippery slope in terms of the integrity of the Buddhist teachings on offer at Suan Mok.

-A diagnosis of mental illness is ultimately just that, a diagnosis. It has no bearing, necessarily, on whether someone is actually "mentally ill." In addition, new and ever more spurious diagnoses are being invented every year, for example the new one entered into the DMS last year called hyper-creativity. As I understand it, If you compose music, produce paintings or what have you at a rate that might make a professional or family or friends or co-workers uncomfortable you are at risk of being socked with that one and asked to take medication and forever tarred and crippled with the stain of being certified as being among the mentally ill. These diagnoses, and there are plenty of other highly questionable ones, really serve an agenda at the end of the day that is samsaric and not anything to do with dharma, such as serving the state and corporate military complex to have more means at their disposal to control the populace or facilitating family political agendas whereby someone who is an obstacle to another's gain and profit can be taken out of the picture with the stroke of a willing psychiatrist's pen.

-I wonder if Siddhartha Gautama himself would have passed the Suan Mok screening test, particularly during the years before his enlightenment. Did he not exhibit all the signs of depression and deep alienation from his society? So, I think that ought to be born in mind, if you are going to deny people an access to what may end up helping them and those near to them enormously because it might possibly backfire, you may at some point end up doing a profound disservice to us all.

-I think also, it is important, if we are going to call our teachings and retreats and seminars Buddhist, that a foundation in that tradition under pin all aspects of what is on offer.

The statement: "If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result." does not have a basis in the Buddhist tradition. Again, that is a very slippery slope, as what is stop you from just carrying that line of thinking on further and making up your own system and confusing people and your yourselves that you are offering dharma. People with mental illness might inconvenience us or should they haul off and shoot someone it will cause Buddhism to fall into disrepute. That is all about worldy dharma and not real dharma, worldly dharma menaing concern with ill reute, fame and fortune first and foremost. I am sorry but the criteria for admission to the Suan Mok retreat mentioned in based on western psychiatry, not the Dharma and as such has much potential for harm down the road if not nipped in the bud. Psychiatry is all about this is absolutely, solidly and inhereantly real and these other things are not. Buddhism says this very attitude is the very basis of all of our suffering, that we have lost sight of the vast openess and potential of every situation and aspect of our lives that we encounter, that its reality or lack thereof is mere relative and in flux.

There are very few answers.

Much is unknown about mental illness.

Medical intervention is largely focused on minimizing symptoms rather than effecting cures.

Misdiagnosis, in an imprecise field, of course.

All I can draw on is the hell that a parent and my family circle went through for over a decade dealing with severe schizophrenia.

Quite inappropriate for a Buddhist retreat.

Everyone has their own story.

Some will slip through the very wide cracks.

All I can say is that the staff at Wat Suan Mokkh are not trained to competently provide a safe environment for such challenges.

There are many dangers and pitfalls. Far better to concede than place individuals in possible harm.

It has nothing to do with denial of an experience for such folk.

Rather an acknowledgment that those who run the retreat have no knowledge, nor training to allow them to provide a safe and appropriate environment for such individuals.

A psychiatric misdiagnosis can ruin your life forever and might leave you with only one thought: Revenge.

[Shaunduhpostman]

Most of these "innovative" psychiatric labels are in fact only disciplinary instruments to make people fit for a killer-economy.

If my neighbours that take part in this rat race think my music is too loud, they can ask me to tune it down, instead of calling the cops or some psycho-clowns in a white dress.

Psychiatry is becoming more and more arbitrary, as you quite correctly stated.

Then, why do you accept their labels as relevant for meditation?

I don't accept their labels. That's my whole point, I don't think psychiatry has any business evaluating or meddling with dharma and Buddhists need to beware that using their terms and criteria as a crutch is problematic to put extremely euphemistically.

[Sheryl]

Lets not get off into a tangent on the strengths and weaknesses of psychiatry. Of course it is an imperfect discipline, but serious mentsl illness

[Shaunduhpostman]

At the International Retreat run by Wat Suan Mokkh one of the questions at the compulsory induction interview relates to whether one has a history or diagnosis of mental illness.

Those with a mental illness are not accepted.

Many sufferers may not be in the position to benefit from concentration and awareness practice as their delusional state may maintain fixed or false beliefs even when confronted with facts.

If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result.

Mental illness is a very unfortunate thing.

All this is a pretty slippery slope in terms of the integrity of the Buddhist teachings on offer at Suan Mok.

-A diagnosis of mental illness is ultimately just that, a diagnosis. It has no bearing, necessarily, on whether someone is actually "mentally ill." In addition, new and ever more spurious diagnoses are being invented every year, for example the new one entered into the DMS last year called hyper-creativity. As I understand it, If you compose music, produce paintings or what have you at a rate that might make a professional or family or friends or co-workers uncomfortable you are at risk of being socked with that one and asked to take medication and forever tarred and crippled with the stain of being certified as being among the mentally ill. These diagnoses, and there are plenty of other highly questionable ones, really serve an agenda at the end of the day that is samsaric and not anything to do with dharma, such as serving the state and corporate military complex to have more means at their disposal to control the populace or facilitating family political agendas whereby someone who is an obstacle to another's gain and profit can be taken out of the picture with the stroke of a willing psychiatrist's pen.

-I wonder if Siddhartha Gautama himself would have passed the Suan Mok screening test, particularly during the years before his enlightenment. Did he not exhibit all the signs of depression and deep alienation from his society? So, I think that ought to be born in mind, if you are going to deny people an access to what may end up helping them and those near to them enormously because it might possibly backfire, you may at some point end up doing a profound disservice to us all.

-I think also, it is important, if we are going to call our teachings and retreats and seminars Buddhist, that a foundation in that tradition under pin all aspects of what is on offer.

The statement: "If a sufferer has false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions as a result of their mental state then exposure to any teaching can have a negative result." does not have a basis in the Buddhist tradition. Again, that is a very slippery slope, as what is stop you from just carrying that line of thinking on further and making up your own system and confusing people and your yourselves that you are offering dharma. People with mental illness might inconvenience us or should they haul off and shoot someone it will cause Buddhism to fall into disrepute. That is all about worldy dharma and not real dharma, worldly dharma menaing concern with ill reute, fame and fortune first and foremost. I am sorry but the criteria for admission to the Suan Mok retreat mentioned in based on western psychiatry, not the Dharma and as such has much potential for harm down the road if not nipped in the bud. Psychiatry is all about this is absolutely, solidly and inhereantly real and these other things are not. Buddhism says this very attitude is the very basis of all of our suffering, that we have lost sight of the vast openess and potential of every situation and aspect of our lives that we encounter, that its reality or lack thereof is mere relative and in flux.

There are very few answers.

Much is unknown about mental illness.

Medical intervention is largely focused on minimizing symptoms rather than effecting cures.

Misdiagnosis, in an imprecise field, of course.

All I can draw on is the hell that a parent and my family circle went through for over a decade dealing with severe schizophrenia.

Quite inappropriate for a Buddhist retreat.

Everyone has their own story.

Some will slip through the very wide cracks.

All I can say is that the staff at Wat Suan Mokkh are not trained to competently provide a safe environment for such challenges.

There are many dangers and pitfalls. Far better to concede than place individuals in possible harm.

It has nothing to do with denial of an experience for such folk.

Rather an acknowledgment that those who run the retreat have no knowledge, nor training to allow them to provide a safe and appropriate environment for such individuals.

A psychiatric misdiagnosis can ruin your life forever and might leave you with only one thought: Revenge.

To reply to rockysdt, schizophrenia is quite different from mild depression yet both are forms of mental illness. Of course you cannot open your retreat doors to someone who is fully schizophrenic.Doubtlessly they'd make a full on mess of your retreat. But If you say that Suan Mok screens people for mental illness you are implying quite clearly that it means that you screen out even those with mild and manageable forms of mental illness. Are they not also, mentally ill as far as psychiatry is concerned? It is not just a pity or a shame that people will fall between wide cracks as you say and not be admitted to a retreat because they are a bit grumpy or excentric and we move on leaving them behind. Its just plain wrong and it isn't very good dharma I don't think.

[DogNo1]

I don't think that we should take the criticism of Buddhist meditation by one psychiatrist too seriously. From the point of view of Cognitive Therapy, thoughts cause feelings so meditation that focuses on negative thoughts can cause unpleasant mental states. We should also take in to account the view of Dr. Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist, that mental illness is a myth. Does anyone really understand whet schizophrenia is? It's just a diagnostic term. From my point of view, the Buddha was an sort of early cognitive therapist. I don't really think that the goals of Cognitive Therapy and Buddhist meditation are very different. The problem is the doctrinaire attitudes of certain people. Please feel free to Google both Cognitive Therapy and Dr. Thomas Szasz.

[micmichd]

Antipsychiatrists are devils for pharmatocratic psychiatrists and, consequenly, their followers may be labelled as mentally insane again. It's a totalitarian system, designed to control bodies and minds by discourse (s. Foucault, Madness and Civilization) Propaganda is one of their instruments, "1984" was quite realistic in this matter.

If Buddhism would surrender to their rules and definitions, then Buddhism would soon become a part of Western psychotherapy.

[rijit]

The article is completely biased.[/quote

Add scaremongering, desperate and tbh i expected better of the independant, sort of article i'de expect the mail to conjure up.

[micmichd]

Guess we've already seen how a religion was labelled as a terroristic movement.

Take one incident, generalize it, and then apply your rules on the generalization.

Feel free to think about an example who could be the next one.

Some Buddhist monk in Myanmar maybe?