[sjayasinghe]

I'm using the word here to mean a philosophical position which only accepts knowledge that can be gained via direct meditative experience and rejects everything else. I'm open to suggestions for a better word to describe this position.

[mcguire]

Empiricism sounds right. "The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#E...)

[lhorie]

I think it can be summarized as "recklessness" (i.e. jumping the gun without proper understanding of/regard to foundational concepts)

[kovyrin]

> I think it can be summarized as "recklessness" (i.e. jumping the gun without proper understanding of/regard to foundational concepts)

Well… I tried to approach it properly. You google or look up in wikipedia a bunch of info on Buddhism, then you find most popular authors writing on the topic. You end up with “Zen mind, beginner’s mind” and a few others. None of them tell you it may hurt you, none of them mention doing it on group settings or with teachers, they recommend you starting alone and doing it daily. One of those foundational books (don’t remember which one), recommended doing an hour a day… How is one supposed to know that it is dangerous?

[lhorie]

> How is one supposed to know that it is dangerous?

It isn't supposed to be dangerous, but if you dive head first into hardcore "retreats" with unrealistic expectations, that might end up badly, yes.

For starters, if you have to seek recommendations on the Internet, you're probably already several steps detached from the original tradition. Buddhism has an insane amount of breadth: there are west asian flavors and east asian flavors, and there's literally thousands of years of history to go with them. Some forms of practice don't even focus on meditation (for example, as a child, I was largely exposed to ritualistic aspects of the japanese flavor). If you're interested in it as a westerner, it's likely because you've heard of mindfulness in the context of mental health benefits, but that's in large part a western concept bolted on top of the original tradition.

It would be helpful to try to understand where stuff is getting lost in translation. Learning more about the original Buddhist philosophy and its roots can help give more context on things like what enlightenment is supposed to be about (coming to understand what it is is actually kind of the point) and how meditation and mindfulness are supposed to fit in.

[lazide]

In general, one key tenet you will find even in those books is a focus on 'being' and 'experiencing' reality over taking as truth an abstract knowledge of how something 'should be'.

An approach that might work better could be a gradual and expanding exposure, talking physically in person to others, and exposing oneself physically to the practices and reality of a number of different sects and groups over time - while evolving your own understanding with book reading. It is very unlikely that meditating, or following basic practices, is going to cause anyone harm - but definitely not impossible based on their state of mind or circumstances. Given a large enough group trying something, it is inevitable someone will have a terrible outcome. It doesn't mean others won't have amazing outcomes, however.

It is our own individual responsibility to take ownership for making the decisions we make, taking the path we take, and owning the results, or we lose all handle on the little we can actually control and become even more lost.

Going to a meditation retreat (12+ hrs) without a solid grounding and understanding of the context would be a bit like hopping on a race motorcycle on a track day right after getting a learners permit - ill advised, and unlikely to result in anything healthy. Not impossible it wouldn't go well however, and not something likely to need screening for from the retreat (or track) side. Usually most people would realize pretty quickly even if they were dumb enough to get started and quit before anything really terrible happened.

If someone doesn't know or recognize that, they are unlikely to find the right ways to get in trouble - usually.

Book knowledge can help expand or refine knowledge, but should always be validated and integrated with personal experience. There are too many conflicting ways to take a specific passage, too many personal traumas or gotchas, too many environmental variables for anything else frankly.

It should not be your only or especially your only foundational knowledge about something so fundamental as how to understand or approach reality and yourself.

[arbitrage]

Maybe getting your only information from a cursory grazing of wikipedia isn't approaching the topic properly?

The article in question isn't about meditating once a day. It's about meditating aggressively for TWELVE hours a day two weeks straight, and how it negatively affected the author.