> basically just checking if they do drugs or take medication or not is quite a risk The questions were a bit more probing than that. One question was somethi

> basically just checking if they do drugs or take medication or not is quite a risk The questions were a bit more probing than that. One question was something like, 'How are your relations with your family?', and I think there were questions about mental history etc. > Also true, to be clear I think that Goenka courses are great resources for people who have sat shorter retreats before or have a long-term, stable practice. It's the "jumping in at the deep end" type stuff that happens, partially because they're free and so easy to access, partly because of the "boot camp" style image, that's risky. Many people aren't inclined to dive into early Buddhist texts and make sense of its philosophy and practice before attending a retreat for the first time. Much of the seriousness of the retreat is described on the dhamma.org website. I had read and understood this before I signed up. I think I may have even had to confirm that I had read this before I was able to apply. However, it's likely a lot of people just skip this like the T&Cs on their Facebook account. So I do agree with you, it would probably be to the benefit of the students to at least be aware of the seriousness of the course, and for this to be better communicated. I had maybe sat 10 or so 1-hour meditation workshops just casually at festivals before I took my course. I had very little about Buddhist philosophy or practice, so I was very much diving in at the deep end, but I entered the course knowing it was a serious psychological intervention from the introduction on the website. During the course, I found the discourse tapes enough to give a satisfactory explanation of what I ought to be aiming for, and sometimes they even pre-empted questions or conflicts I had in my mind.