[Question] Does the “ancient wisdom” argument have any validity? If a particular teaching or tradition is old, to what extent does this make it more trustworthy?
Proponents of spirituality and alternative medicine often use the argument “this has been practiced for 2000 years”, with the subtext “therefore it must work”. Does this argument have any validity?
At first glance I want to reject the argument entirely, but that might be premature. Are there situations where this kind of argument is valid or somewhat valid?
I was reminded of this question when I read Shaila Catherine’s book The Jhanas (about certain ecstatic meditation states mentioned in Buddhism) and she said something like: “Trust in the method. Buddhists have been practicing it for 2600 years. It works. Your mind is not the exception.” This argument did not seem valid to me, because AFAIK Buddhist monasteries do not publish records of how many of their monks achieve which states and insights—au contraire, I believe monks have a taboo against talking about their attainments. So I know of no evidence that most practitioners can achieve jhana. From what I know, it is entirely plausible that only a small fraction of practitioners ever succeed at these instructions, and that therefore their minds are the exception, not mine.
[Question] Does the “ancient wisdom” argument have any validity? If a particular teaching or tradition is old, to what extent does this make it more trustworthy?
Proponents of spirituality and alternative medicine often use the argument “this has been practiced for 2000 years”, with the subtext “therefore it must work”. Does this argument have any validity?
At first glance I want to reject the argument entirely, but that might be premature. Are there situations where this kind of argument is valid or somewhat valid?
I was reminded of this question when I read Shaila Catherine’s book The Jhanas (about certain ecstatic meditation states mentioned in Buddhism) and she said something like: “Trust in the method. Buddhists have been practicing it for 2600 years. It works. Your mind is not the exception.” This argument did not seem valid to me, because AFAIK Buddhist monasteries do not publish records of how many of their monks achieve which states and insights—au contraire, I believe monks have a taboo against talking about their attainments. So I know of no evidence that most practitioners can achieve jhana. From what I know, it is entirely plausible that only a small fraction of practitioners ever succeed at these instructions, and that therefore their minds are the exception, not mine.