Can meditation be bad for you?

[rockyysdt]

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.

I do not represent Wat Suan Mokkh but have indicated that mental illness is one of the criteria on the table at enrolment.

I don't know what levels they take regarding such screening.

It is unfair to suggest that those at Suan Mokkh treat anyone unfairly.

One would have to ask them for definitive answers.

In my experience they do not bar those with mild issues or depression unless the attendee volunteers information which is considered to be problematic.

During one year I witnessed an attendee who clearly had issues.

As his behavior turned out to be only mildly disruptive he was allowed to partake, no problem.

My empathy goes out to those who unfairly wear such labels.

Edited May 24, 2015 by rockyysdt

[micmichd]

Why should an antendee tell about his mental history?

I would simply say "No, never" - Who could prove if I was lying?

Last not least:

Why should I want to attend the Wat if I feel 100pct mentally healthy and stable?

Isn't a Wat there to gain inner stability when it's scattered or lost?

Edited May 24, 2015 by micmichd

[micmichd]

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.

I do not represent Wat Suan Mokkh but have indicated that mental illness is one of the criteria on the table at enrolment.

I don't know what levels they take regarding such screening.

It is unfair to suggest that those at Suan Mokkh treat anyone unfairly.

One would have to ask them for definitive answers.

In my experience they do not bar those with mild issues or depression unless the attendee volunteers information which is considered to be problematic.

During one year I witnessed an attendee who clearly had issues.

As his behavior turned out to be only mildly disruptive he was allowed to partake, no problem.

My empathy goes out to those who unfairly wear such labels.

It's worse than just labelling.

I was poisoned with addictive drugs, forced to take addictive drugs that I neither wanted nor needed, and then forced to cure from this addiction in one of their "hospitals"

When I was cured and felt well, they told me "No, you are mentally sick *because* you feel well. Take some more medicine!"

They don't cure mental diseases, they produce them.

I was only lucky to escape and surive. With the help of a Thai lady who had waited for me while I was locked up and denied all international communication - more than 9,000 km away.

It's still not over, psychiatric labels remain even after you've gone.

[Shaunduhpostman]

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.

I do not represent Wat Suan Mokkh but have indicated that mental illness is one of the criteria on the table at enrolment.

I don't know what levels they take regarding such screening.

It is unfair to suggest that those at Suan Mokkh treat anyone unfairly.

One would have to ask them for definitive answers.

In my experience they do not bar those with mild issues or depression unless the attendee volunteers information which is considered to be problematic.

During one year I witnessed an attendee who clearly had issues.

As his behavior turned out to be only mildly disruptive he was allowed to partake, no problem.

My empathy goes out to those who unfairly wear such labels.

OK, however, your initial post wasn't clear, you simply stated that they screen for mental illness, which implies all mental illnesses. Thanks for clarifying. And yes, I am not jumping to any conclusions based on second hand information posted on the internet, but simply responding to what you have said, the op article and a number of articles and trends I've noticed in the media over the last few years that suggest that the western incorporation of "Buddhism" increasingly involves psychiatry muscling in. As I mentioned previously in thread I feel this is nothing short of tragic if it has or ever gains any real traction. I hope some day you see my point about the danger for Buddhism. Enjoy your Sunday, I am going to go and do my sitting practice now! Ta!

[Sheryl]

Why should an antendee tell about his mental history?

I would simply say "No, never" - Who could prove if I was lying?

Last not least:

Why should I want to attend the Wat if I feel 100pct mentally healthy and stable?

Isn't a Wat there to gain inner stability when it's scattered or lost?

I don't think we are talking about attending a wat, but rather participation in intensive meditation courses/retreats -- wherein it is full time, all day deep meditation.

Of course anyone, even those with serious pyschiatric illness, can attend a wat, join in chanting, listen to sermons, participate in short group meditations. But a course of deep meditation is something else altogether and requires that one be in good mental and physical health, as conventionally defined.

I have both sat on and volunteered at meditatation retreats where people with psychoses managed to get admitted. It was detrimental to them and highly disruptive to everyone else on the course.

BTW being "100% mentally healthy and stable" (again, in conventional terms) does not equal an enlightened state, or even a happy one. the fundamental dhukka is still very much there. Which is why meditate.

[smiles793]

Buddhist meditation is practiced within the framework of precepts and the sangha, or practicing community. In that context it's hard (but not impossible) to imagine a situation that meditation could do harm.

Outside of that context it is more possible to envisage someone harming themselves psychologically. Let's say someone going through a depressive phase meditating alone for extended periods of time on the contemplation of the corpse from the Satipatthana, one of the Buddha's core teachings on meditation. Someone who approaches that meditation from a contemporary western prespective (ie almost all of us) could get more depressed.

More generally, Buddhist meditation is designed to help us to disentagle the knots of self and karma that have built up over a life-time (or life-times if you will). This deconstrucion of the ego/self has always seemed to me to be diametrically opposite to the dominant western paradigm of ego/self-gratification. Anyone who has spent a life-time pursuing the latter will probably get a bit disorientated initially if they succeed in practicing the former. But will it damage them... wouldn't have thought so myself.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhist meditation is practiced within the framework of precepts and the sangha, or practicing community. In that context it's hard (but not impossible) to imagine a situation that meditation could do harm.

Outside of that context it is more possible to envisage someone harming themselves psychologically. Let's say someone going through a depressive phase meditating alone for extended periods of time on the contemplation of the corpse from the Satipatthana, one of the Buddha's core teachings on meditation. Someone who approaches that meditation from a contemporary western prespective (ie almost all of us) could get more depressed.

More generally, Buddhist meditation is designed to help us to disentagle the knots of self and karma that have built up over a life-time (or life-times if you will). This deconstrucion of the ego/self has always seemed to me to be diametrically opposite to the dominant western paradigm of ego/self-gratification. Anyone who has spent a life-time pursuing the latter will probably get a bit disorientated initially if they succeed in practicing the former. But will it damage them... wouldn't have thought so myself.

Yes, but what about those who have physical brain damage or other, which prohibits them from seeing/experiencing reality, either Samsaric or other?

[smiles793]

I think it's hard to generalise. In my youth I worked in several mental hospitals. I can't imagine that meditation would have helped many of the people there with physical brain damage, equally I'm not sure it would have harmed them. Most were seemingly uninterested in communicating and unable to communicate via language; many were unable to stay physically or mentally still; many were under the influence of strong tranquilisers.

[rijit]

I suppose a way to look at it would be would you exercise a damaged muscle?

[micmichd]

I think it's hard to generalise. In my youth I worked in several mental hospitals. I can't imagine that meditation would have helped many of the people there with physical brain damage, equally I'm not sure it would have harmed them. Most were seemingly uninterested in communicating and unable to communicate via language; many were unable to stay physically or mentally still; many were under the influence of strong tranquilisers.

There is surely an abundance of tranquilizers in psychiatry.

The diagnostic hospitals use them to make patients fit for diagnosis, and then send the patients to a therapeutic hospitals because they're addicted now. Therapeutic hospitals substitute the original tranquilizer with another, job done.

[smiles793]

There are so many types of mental illness and each can vary so much that I really believe generalisations aren't helpful. I am sure meditation can help in many situations, and I find it hard to envisage a situation where meditation can harm anyone who is lucid enough to comprehend and practice the precepts, or the dedication of loving kindness.

But serious mental illness can put a person into a place very far outside of normal reality, well beyond the possibility of communication, and often well beyond emotional connection. How can anyone in that position conceive of or practice meditation, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to.

[micmichd]

Tendency is to declare everybody mentally ill that doesn't fit in a machine-like state or an accepted religion.

Next step: let psychiatrists decide what an accepted religion is, remainder is "religious mania" (s. DSM or ICD-10)

Edited May 26, 2015 by micmichd

[rijit]

Tendency is to declare everybody mentally ill that doesn't fit in a machine-like state or an accepted religion.

Next step: let psychiatrists decide what an accepted religion is, remainder is "religious mania" (s. DSM or ICD-10)

OR the 'tendancy' is as we learn MORE about illness's of the mind a

broader analysis and hopefully more informed help becomes availiable

[micmichd]

Only if psychiatrists give up their monopoly on definition.

I was lucky because I'm a cultural anthropologist and I forced them to take my field experiences into account, too.

Guess quite a few patients in mental hospitals are there because they come from different cultures and subcultures. Difficult to tell if you don't know about their mental state when they come in. Almost everyone gets tranquillizers, and those tranquillizers can have serious side-effects and may change patients' personalities.

The therapeutic mental hospital I was in was for alcoholics actually. Many go out drinking at night in Old Heidelberg where hotels are expensive. They already have their bags wit them, and they are looking for a cheap alternative to stay. They know quite well that police will pick them up and deliver them in the hospital if they make noise in the streets at night. So they come in on Friday or Saturday night, and they are released next Monday afternoon. This is economically rational behaviour, I would have problems to call them mentally sick.

[rijit]

yeah lots of modern day africans socities reject people with mental health issues and end up in the western system . because they are ill doesnt mean it stops them working situs out. your obvious not stupid and its admirable/ enviable. almost fluently using a second language but really, u need to think about things a bit more.

[micmichd]

It's so easy to get a label "mentally sick"

Just don't fit into their expectations. In my case it was an unexpected winter outbreak, and I had no appropriate winter clothes anymore. That was already enough to get a psychiatric label.

Once you're declared mentally sick, a code (ICD-10) is put in the computer system, and it'll probably stay there forever.

"Mentally sick" in Western society means you're probably a public menace, something like a ticking time bomb. Now society thinks we must protect ourselves against people like this. From now on, everything you do or day might be taken as evidence that you are still mentally sick, every smile is labeled as an iditotic grin, sudden moves are labeled as manic behaviour. And they feel obliged to warn everyone, so you get excluded from all economic activities. You need to ask a caretaker for permission for everything you want to do. You may be an IT professional, still you're not allowed to use online portals for decisions. You're not allowed to work, you're actually mobbed out of everything.

You might have a Thai girlfriend, she'll get labelled too, in absentia.

You're about to get completely isolated and feel that you've got no civil rights anymore

Then you finally move to another country (Thailand in my case) - just to find out that somebody there is after your European mental labels again.

NO.

For legal reasons I might have to go back to Germany.

Quite a few people already ran to the police to get me locked up if I dare to come back. First of all my bank consutant who heard me threatening her in Heidelberg, while I was 10,000 km away in Laos. Sorry to ask: Who is mentally sick in this case?

Other people want me to get locked up simply because they owe me some money and think it's the easiest way to get rid of me.

But I'll make them pay, and after I'll kill them socially by declaring them mentally sick.

It's not nice, I know, and certainly in accordance with the categoric imperative (treat others like you want to be treated), but if they want war for economic reasons, they can have it.

"Situs" in this case means international economy to me, a rather cultureless system.

Edited May 27, 2015 by micmichd

[rijit]

It's so easy to get a label "mentally sick"

Just don't fit into their expectations. In my case it was an unexpected winter outbreak, and I had no appropriate winter clothes anymore. That was already enough to get a psychiatric label.

Once you're declared mentally sick, a code (ICD-10) is put in the computer system, and it'll probably stay there forever.

"Mentally sick" in Western society means you're probably a public menace, something like a ticking time bomb. Now society thinks we must protect ourselves against people like this. From now on, everything you do or day might be taken as evidence that you are still mentally sick, every smile is labeled as an iditotic grin, sudden moves are labeled as manic behaviour. And they feel obliged to warn everyone, so you get excluded from all economic activities. You need to ask a caretaker for permission for everything you want to do. You may be an IT professional, still you're not allowed to use online portals for decisions. You're not allowed to work, you're actually mobbed out of everything.

You might have a Thai girlfriend, she'll get labelled too, in absentia.

You're about to get completely isolated and feel that you've got no civil rights anymore

Then you finally move to another country (Thailand in my case) - just to find out that somebody there is after your European mental labels again.

NO.

For legal reasons I might have to go back to Germany.

Quite a few people already ran to the police to get me locked up if I dare to come back. First of all my bank consutant who heard me threatening her in Heidelberg, while I was 10,000 km away in Laos. Sorry to ask: Who is mentally sick in this case?

Other people want me to get locked up simply because they owe me some money and think it's the easiest way to get rid of me.

But I'll make them pay, and after I'll kill them socially by declaring them mentally sick.

It's not nice, I know, and certainly in accordance with the categoric imperative (treat others like you want to be treated), but if they want war for economic reasons, they can have it.

"Situs" in this case means international economy to me, a rather cultureless system.[/quote

thanks 4 sharing and reallly sori to hear about the probs in germany

i really hope things work out well for you.

Edited May 27, 2015 by rijit

[AYJAYDEE]

It's not the meditation that is bad for them, it's the failure to take their distractions that causes problems.

[manarak]

"successful meditation" is mentioned several times - what makes meditation a success? How is success measured?

[AYJAYDEE]

"successful meditation" is mentioned several times - what makes meditation a success? How is success measured?

by how fast you climb the corporate ladder

[rockyysdt]

"successful meditation" is mentioned several times - what makes meditation a success? How is success measured?

The level one succeeds in concentration.

The ability to stay in the present without mind taking one into thoughts of past & present (day dream).

There are indicators to success such as experience of piti and suka. Not goals but sign posts of having accomplished deeper levels of meditation.

In fact, until one is able to achieve and maintain such states one can't then use this state to investigate and achieve wisdom.

[rockyysdt]

"successful meditation" is mentioned several times - what makes meditation a success? How is success measured?

Conversely, if you're sitting experience is stressful, with tense body, course short breath, your mind in turmoil, and inability to shake constant thoughts, you could say this is the opposite of where you want to be.

Naturally, with mindfulness, such an experience maybe telling you something.

Is my posture suitable?

Do I have personal issues which need to be resolved?

Am I being mindful of breath?

Am I suitably fit?

Do I understand Dharma and the correct technique?

There are those who will tell you they are meditators, but who have never attained Samadhi.

Stable Samadhi, singled pointed concentration, is the prerequisite to investigation and the growth of wisdom.

Anything short of this is simple relaxation, or attempting to clear a mountain with a teaspoon. A scotch would be more powerful.

Edited June 19, 2015 by rockyysdt

[manarak]

thanks for the explanations, so as I understood, success of meditation is first measured by oneself.

[rockyysdt]

thanks for the explanations, so as I understood, success of meditation is first measured by oneself.

Such practices are inward and personal.

For this reason insight, wisdom and experience cannot be verbalized nor shared.

You must have personal experience.

A teacher can guide you through milestones and blockages.

If we stand before an Arahant, we have no idea visually what state (Nibanna) he or she may be in.

When one personally experiences Piti (rapture free from desire), especially during long periods of Samadhi (single pointed concentration) you will know.

Piti experience must be experienced personally. My experience includes a state totally timeless.

The stages one will go through are well documented.

A guide can assist you towards succeeding through each stage.

Anapansiti describes the 16 steps involved.

Edited June 19, 2015 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It's not the meditation that is bad for them, it's the failure to take their distractions that causes problems.

Bikkhu Buddhadasa said:

For cases where people do go mad, we can say, in general, a) the initial intention of the meditator was impure, or 2) the meditator was already on the verge of madness.

We might say they are already mad and don't know it themselves or don't manifest it to others.

In neither case would it be correct to say that someone became mad because of the practice of mindfulness breathing.

Edited June 19, 2015 by rockyysdt

[Sheryl]

I would agree that anyone who had a psychotic break during intensive mefitation had to have had significant pysch problems to start with snd this was just a precipitating event. Without it, quite likely something else would have tipped the balance sooner or later.

Still a very bad idea to have it happen as it is profoundly disruptive for the other mefitators.

[VincentRJ]

I would agree that anyone who had a psychotic break during intensive mefitation had to have had significant pysch problems to start with snd this was just a precipitating event. Without it, quite likely something else would have tipped the balance sooner or later.

Still a very bad idea to have it happen as it is profoundly disruptive for the other mefitators.

I agree. The subject of this thread is an example of the difficulties and limitations of the so-called scientific disciplines of psychology and psychiatry.

Only the present is real. We can't go back in time to repeat the events that have already taken place, and relive our life whilst changing certain aspects of our behaviour to see how certain outcomes are different, and then identify with any certainty the causes of the previous outcomes.

The 'hard' disciplines of Physics and Chemistry, dealing with inanimate matter, are in a different category. Experiments in the laboratory can be repeated as often as we like, changing just one ingredient or one factor with each experiment in order to observe the changed outcome, so that we can be certain that one specific factor is related to one specific changed outcome.