I don't think the argument is usually "meditation without Buddhism is dangerous" but rather "meditation techniques taken from their context can be dangerous". Regular mindfulness or insight meditation can cause shifts in mental state that a person isn't used to and they may not have the tools required to deal with it in a healthy manner.

It's like the mental equivalent of a normal person suddenly starting the same workout routine as an professional athlete, or even just an experienced weightlifter. They might be able to do the exercises, but they don't have the context provided by having a coach/being in the sport/etc to provide them with tools like "how to fall properly" or "knowing a torn muscle versus a normal sprain". That doesn't mean that doing the exercises in general are bad or that you need to do sport foo in order to exercise.

For what it's worth, I Don't think it's an extreme claim at all.

The potential for ill-effects from more extreme efforts in Meditation is starting to be documented by western scientists. A lot of adverse outcomes aren't only possible, but actually quite common.

I personally had ZERO prior mental health issues, but after 3-4 months of meditating 30-90 minutes everyday in addition to fairly intense mindfulness practice throughout the day, I started to experience a lot of issues: strange emotional outbursts disconnected from any memory or thought, anger management issues, tension headaches, depression, etc.

These ultimately only resolved by stopping meditation entirely for a long time and only carefully reintroducing it in smaller less frequent doses.

It's really not all sunshine and rainbows.

The Buddhists definitely know about this, but a lot of their writing is pretty impenetrable and interlaced with weird metaphysics. Here's some modern, secular words on the subject (from the admittedly controversial author Daniel Ingram):

https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight...

Here's a more traditional buddhist description of the same thing:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress....

I think a very small fraction of people actually meditate enough to get to that point. Meditating 90 minutes a day (plus the constant mindfulness practice) is pretty extreme by most people's standards (at least in US secular culture).

After that, for months, the head pressure / headaches would reappear and then they'd be relieved by me crying. Feeling the intense feelings and going away.

But... I really wasn't expecting any of that. I just wanted to be able to focus better and think more clearly. I didn't sign up for THIS. So I just let it go and fade. I didn't really want to accidentally screw my brain up. So, unfortunately, I haven't started a daily practice again since. It all did feel pretty cathartic though.

I've dabbled here and there with meditating again. When I do it with any real regularity though, the head pressure tends to come back.

Also, I'm not very fond of taking the traditional advice so literally. These sources focus solely on training new Buddhist monks, and most people doing secular practice just want some peace of mind while they continue their, productivity focused, western lifestyle.

We need to take these sources with a grain of salt and reorient our practice so that it cultivates more peace of mind without making us implode when the cultivated buddhist mindset creates a conflict with our western lifestyle

I agree that the goals of Buddhism contradict the goals we have in western society though. That said, Steve Jobs was a devout Zen Buddhist, so he sat many thousands of hours of zazen

I do find it funny though when companies train their employees in mindfulness. It’s almost like they want workers who have less emotional connection with their work. As I said elsewhere, it’s all a matter of whether you follow the instructions. If you do, it will have adverse effects.

Looks like mindfulness to 15 or 20 minutes a day is a sensible choice then.

> Steve Jobs was a devout Zen Buddhist, so he sat many thousands of hours of zazen

Steve Jobs was a powerful and a very influential man. He didn't have a boss urging him to be productive 24/7 like a field employee has. Investors expected his company to deliver working products. And it delivered all of that.

> I do find it funny though when companies train their employees in mindfulness. It’s almost like they want workers who have less emotional connection with their work. As I said elsewhere, it’s all a matter of whether you follow the instructions. If you do, it will have adverse effects.

IMHO they want their employees to become stoic productivity machines that make no demands and cope with whatever shitty working condition they set up.

I've experienced intense emotional swings like you describe but not the pain or pressure. The emotional swings at least were something I was able to get through, eventually. They were strong for a while but stopped with continued practice. I'm definitely still more sensitive than I was before. I feel both positive and negative feelings more intensely, but hold onto them less.

One big takeaway I had was realizing that outside the west, these types of things are well known. Here though, it seems almost no one who purports to be a "teacher" knows much about them or what to do with them.

This and linking MCTB (of all things) are the exact dangerous taking out of context I’m warning against. Daniel Ingram is a terrible resource, he should not be recommended

Here's where I think we differ: a lot of people in secular western culture are intensely put off by all the religious stuff that comes with Buddhism. The metaphysics and reincarnation stuff is, in my view, a reflection of the culture that Siddhartha Gautama grew up in and taught in, rather than a necessary part of eliminating suffering. I think that retelling these lessons in a way that's accessible to modern audiences is important. Some people simply will not accept something taught in the form of ancient mysticism. Should those people be denied insight just because they didn't grow up in India during the Iron Age?

I get that Ingram is polarizing. I'll add a link to Mahasi Sayadaw as well, but I just don't think he explains things in a way that's as clear to someone with my cultural background.

Of course the teachings must be made to appeal to westerners. This does not mean totally gutting them

People who won’t accept anything spiritual or religious don’t need this practise. In Buddhism we don’t try to convert, for some people it is simply not their time

The illusion of self can be observed directly. Perhaps it's even an inevitable conclusion of sufficiently intense introspection. I'd consider observing this to be a spiritual practice.

The metaphysics of realms of reincarnation, hungry ghosts, etc. is religious thought (and it was the dominant worldview when Siddhartha was born). These are not ideas that I can discover independently through introspection; if I believe them it's because someone told me to.

We might be talking past each other, though: if you're saying that the benefits of meditation are inherently inextricable from a Vedic worldview, I don't agree. But if you are just saying we haven't yet figured out which parts of the religion are actually necessary, then I agree. I personally learned meditation in a fairly Buddhist context, and naturally there are parts that resonate with me and parts that don't.

Actually, he mostly invented them, they aren’t present in Vedic texts afaik. Also, he did perceive it independently: his insight became so great that he could see his past lives, and he taught that we can too if we follow the 8fp

Then he has this book that is supposed to distil all of the powerful insight practises into a secular path, but everyone I’ve spoken to in his pragmatic dharma community is extremely toxic. It’s literally like the 4chan of Buddhism, huge amounts of racism, lots of depressed teens, very online, lots of people who think they are enlightened (one of which suddenly “rated my capacity for awakening” as zero, and when I said I didn’t care flew into a rage)

It’s exactly what you expect to happen when you take Buddhism, try and condense it down into a path for having the strongest and most intense experience, and market it to terminally online young adult men

Ingram was also heavily involved in this “fire kasina” stuff where you just stare at a flame for days until you start seeing things and go kind of crazy, which is a controversial practise in Buddhism

Finally he’s just not a qualified Buddhist teacher

For what it's worth, Ingram himself recommends Kornfield's "A Path with Heart" as one of his favorite books, which is largely about how the goal is to be a better person and that's not the same thing as developing incredible concentration abilities and having intense experiences.

I don’t really think it matters what Ingrams favourite books are if his methodology has been so destructive

I’m sorry that you don’t believe (edit typo) me, nothing I can do about that

There are plenty of apps out there with millions of daily active users. What percentage of those users do you expect to suffer negative mental health side effects? Where is the evidence that they exist at all?

I would guess that about 5 to 10% of people who seriously try the practise for an extended period experience very scary and potentially trauma inducing effects

So the lower bound of your estimate gives us ~200,000 people who would be adversely affected. Looking through negative reviews, it's all complaints about pricing and paywalls. The same is true for Headspace, the second biggest app in this space (I don't have DAUs for them, but it's got about half as many downloads and reviews, so let's assume less than half as big).

I can't find a single complaint about adverse mental health effects, which doesn't mean it never happens, but it's not anywhere close to 5%.

[1] https://blog.apptopia.com/calm-app-outperforms-headspace-dur...

The claimed hypothesis is absurd on its face. It's a wild and strong claim that needs strong evidence, so we don't need to be super precise here, if the effects were nearly as strong as 5-10%, we would see it.

We don't have to engage in crude methodology. We have tons of research.

Meditation research generally is low quality, as is suffers from lack of defined methodology, lack of a consensus definition of what meditation is, and the general subjective experience of meditation. (Concretely, if you want to do brain scans on someone meditating, how do you know they're actually meditating? This extends to scans on people who are "experienced practitioners", how do you know they are experienced practitioners?)

Regardless, the vast body of research does not point to negative effects, most point to mild positive effects, and the medical field considers it perfectly safe for healthy people. If you want to use research, don't pick and choose the studies that find adverse effects, look at the overall body of research.

It feels a lot like the goalposts are being moved here, the original claim was that meditation is extremely dangerous unless you're doing Buddhism right, now we're asking if there's evidence that it's completely safe.

I explicitly noted that there are probably rare cases where meditation leads to negative experiences (and I am not distinguishing between traditional methods and so-called secular methods, the risk should be the same for both, according to my model). But that is my point: these will be rare, and not extreme, except in people with pre-existing mental health issues. Normal, healthy people simply do not develop psychosis from meditation practice. Furthermore, there is no body of research or evidence known to me that shows that the (small in both effect size and frequency) risks are changed by the meditation practice or tradition. The research that we have shows small effects for meditation in any direction, but is overall positive regardless of tradition. My proposed experiment was an attempt at distinguishing between secular methods and traditional Buddhist methods, in an attempt to find any evidence of the massive effect size you claimed (5-10%!). This is the crux if the disagreement, not "can meditation EVER be dangerous in ANY circumstances", but "Under what circumstances, and how dangerous". I say, "Only in rare cases where there are underlying mental health issues regardless of tradition". You say, "Commonly (5-10%), for people who don't do Buddhism, and almost(?) never for those following Buddhist teachings". (I'm not actually sure if you think Buddhism removes all risk or is just much less risky, but either way I disagree.)

You made an outrageous claim that you've still provided no evidence for, and you've constructed a straw man of my argument to knock down. You're not arguing in good faith.

I'd be happy to reset if you want to discuss the relative difference in risks between Buddhist and secular methods (evidence on other meditation traditions would also be welcome), but I'm not going to argue with you about the words I've written and their plain meaning.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Again, this is a huge bold statement, on what basis are you making it? You are the one making outrageous claims, and constructing strawmen. If I am a bad discussion partner, you are a dire one.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html