> that just goes to prove the point, that what's being taught and lauded so much as a panacea by some in the western world is potentially dangerous? I'm not an

> that just goes to prove the point, that what's being taught and lauded so much as a panacea by some in the western world is potentially dangerous? I'm not an expert or even regular meditator but I can understand some of the defensiveness here. There is an analogy I think holds up: Imagine a headline "How I hurt myself exercising", in a world where people are so unfamiliar with the idea of physical exercise they may arrive at the conclusion that exercise is dangerous. The word meditation these days just means almost any sort of mental exercise. They could be totally different exercises, with totally different goals. The sort of meditation that is often praised and practiced by the general public is usually something like 15 minute attempts to relax and be undistracted, in a world with constant distractions. The sort of meditation that you see people write about mental breakdowns about are usually 10 day silent retreats where you try to accept the impermanence of all things or achieve ego death or something. It seems very similar to the dangers of physical exercise. In some types of exercise like weightlifting, technique is important to avoid injury, but you can still get injured with correct technique. Some extreme sports are inherently risky. Even doing light exercise some people may get unlucky and have a heart attack. But despite all this saying "exercise is risky" is probably too broad a generalization. I think especially the sort of meditation you see commonly talked about and praised in mainstream culture is pretty far off from these intense 10 day retreats that the negative experiences are usually about.