From Cheetah House - an online event that might interest some folks here. It's about a retreat that can cause suffering in some of its participants and the retreat sponsor's reluctance to introduce helpful improvements:


I'm fairly certain the "popular global network of silent meditation retreats" refers to the Goenka organization.

Link to the related podcast series from the Financial Times:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm6AYFJkdT0

Link to the Cheetah House online event: https://www.cheetahhouse.org/upcoming-lectures

I posted this knowing that some of you have extensive experience with these particular retreats. I would hope those folks can clarify the veracity of the information presented in the Financial Times articles.

Additionally, it's generally a good idea to discuss openly the possibility that retreats may cause problems for some participants.

It's 20 ton40 dollars to attend the event....
Where you thinking about me ? I think I commented on the podcast before Somewhere, I will have ti check...
You know more or less what I think, don't you, Chris ?
The articles are true, I believe, but some of the cases were presented in a way that made me feel uncomfortable... I would have to give it a second listen...(Which would be a purge).
Any precise question ?
Best regards, Chris
​​​​​​​smiling stone

Better read "insight in perspective" (and I'd rather conclude that series of posts, which I will asap)

Well, yeah, but also the other Goenka retreat veterans here.


Two:

Is attending Goenka retreats a net positive, or a net negative, for someone who is starting a meditation practice?

Is the Goenka as a global organization a net positive, or a net negative, for the global Buddhist meditation community?

I started out with Goenka but found that their approach only took me a certain distance, nevertheless I would say net positive for both these questions.  The pluses are that they provide good quality meditation retreats which can be attended for free and hence are available to most people. The downsides are that they have a quite macho bootcamp approach that doesn't suit everyone.  

I always think that it's like using a budget airline and then complaining that the customer service is not up to scratch. They could do better but they are staffed by volunteers who are well meaning but not as experienced as for some other centres. I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people having problems at these centres is small.  They are a very successful organisation.

Conal

So, to extrapolate from you reply, Conal, it seems to be a risk to attend their retreats because they're not prepared to handle the potential consequences of the bad experiences some Goenka retreat participants report. Does the Goenka organization do any pre-retreat screening of participants?

I think there is a risk at any retreat. In particular, it's not uncommon for people to run into problems after the retreat (I did after an IMS retreat) and in that case the training of the retreat staff doesn't make any difference. It's worth remembering that meditation (like most things in life) comes with a certain level of risk. 

It does appear to me that more people report trouble on Goenka retreats, but that may just be because more people go on Goenka retreats. 

I've never been to a Goenka retreat, but that said, the "bad experience" stories are indeed more common among those who have. I really have no idea if it's a volume of participants thing, as you say, Martin. It could be. But those stories always seem to involve the lack of knowledge, or common sense, or compassion, on the part of Goenka retreat staffers, which is what I was focusing on in my reply to Conal. I think that, more than anything, is a red flag. And yes, it's a red flag for any retreat that isn't prepared to handle what may come up. So maybe just going on a retreat AT ALL is a risk - unless the retreat is managed by an excpetional crew.

I think so, and I think this is true even if the retreat is managed by an exceptional crew. Zero risk is not on offer. 

Hi Chris,

I haven't been on one for about 6 years now but I remember that they had a pretty detailed questionnaire about previous medication experience and mental illness. As far as I am aware, they screen out those who they consider to not be suitable for an intensive retreat.  Of course they rely on people being honest with their responses.  Also, I expect past history is not always indicative of problems that may occur. 

As Martin says, there's a certain amount of danger in anything that you do in life.  

My current perspective is that a practice that includes shamatha, such as TWIM, is less likely to cause problems than the dry vipassana approach.

Conal