I find it interesting how the reasoning of many posters here is along the lines of an ad personam/ad hominem/ad authoritatem.
I only quoted Myss as a source, not as an authority.
I can see how the post after mine is this. I did specifically repond also to substance. I also mocked Caroline Myss, but that is relevent. It seems to me her philosophy is anything goes. I cannot imagine what tradition she could be seen as on orthodox adherent of. She seems to have written books picking and choosing and channeling herself. So if it is true she is against mix and match spirituality, then there is a problem as far as I can tell. This must mean something specific to her and what that is is not clear and not clear from what is in the op or the video. When I facetiously say I would like to see her research, this is because it seems to me she is making sweeping claims about what the spiritual experiences of people must be based on what they do. And frankly the whole category confuses me. Tree huggers is more of a political concept, one usually used by probusiness - read logging companies - against environmentalists. Sure, some vague sense of what some hippies might literally do may have played a role, but is there really a group out there for whom tree hugging is a central ritual? Is she disparaging Wicca, nature based religions, indigenous religions, animists?
My guess is she has something specific in mind, something more specific than anything goes spirituality.
And what is that anyway?
Do members of the major traditions, orthodox ones not see something on the random side in members of other religions?
Was Bhagwan Rashneesh an anything goes guru - since he came up with his own set of techniques and was, it seems to me, influenced by Western psychology?
Other gurus, masters, pastors, etc.?
How about the Buddha? He was certainly informed by traditions, but he came up with his own set of core priniciples, advocated a middle way, as opposed to the extremes of some traditions he learned form. Could he not be seen as being anything goes? It would not have been odd if he was thought to be catering to the less disciplined masses, being unorthodox and anything goes by the leaders of those traditions he was inspired by but separated himself from.
Likewise Jesus. Mohammed?
Is it OK to follow an anything goes person, like these some would and did see these leaders and many would see Caroline Myss, but not to be one?
Is it the hubris involved or potentially involved in the intuition used?
Is unitarianism anything goes to a Baptist? I would think so.
Is Episcopalianism to a Catholic? Sure, they ain't got no Pope. That's a free for all, not basing their practices on the living representative of God.
Is a person who follows the doctrines of the Catholic Church, generally, but without much daily practice beyond nightly prayer and grace with supper less or more anything goes than a Zen Buddhist monk, who spend much of the day 'just sitting' and then tries to answer koans and other challenges from their masters spontaneously? Who is the judge? To a Catholic at least an orthodox one the Zen monk, however committed, is not taking mass, etc., has likely, though not necessarily not accepted Jesus as his or her savior and is basically wasting a lot of time on meaningless activity. To the monk, well, he would likely be encouraged to focus his attention elsewhere than the issue of the anything goesness of Catholics. Though a mass happening over and over might seem rather random to him or her. And why should the Catholics, if any Christians, be seen as somehow less anything goes. Perhaps their idea of a Pope and creation of confession, etc. are anything goes additions, at Luther thought, to a more pure, direct relationship with God?
Dedication and discipline seem not to be the criteria.
Tradition seems not to be the criterion.
And Myss herself only seems to muddy the waters with her own hodgepodge beliefs and assertions. Given her assertions alone, they simply seem like generalizations and not very charitable ones. Given her own beliefs, if she really is being critical of anything goes, they seem hypocritical, which may be beside the point, but then I am even less sure what she could have meant in relation to anything goes criticisms.
I suppose it might be implicit above, but let me be explicit. I find her assuming a specific act is not profound rather silly, given the various acts of the various traditions. Is hugging a tree shallow, but eating bread that represents the body of a dead Jews deep? Walking around a big black stone? Smoking a pipe? Sitting? Taking peyote and sitting in a small space near hot stones? Many traditions, but not all certainly, shift away from ruling out specific acts as non-spiritual or shallow, but rather see how with the right focus, intentions, heart these can be as profound as other acts. Given that she seems to have a hodgepodge spirituality herself and is informed by these traditions and fits nicely in the New Age 'tradition' where it's not the act but rather the state of consciousness, the loving intent, the I-Thou of the encounter, or whatever that counts, frankly she seems to just be pissed off and not really thinking.
And if it is simply a shot at people who do not follow one of the big traditions or any tradition - does she? - who is to judge that these people are anything goesers? Perhaps their choices are perfect, for themselves, or even for people in general. I would guess they do not feel anything goes to them and are likely not anything goes. Most are choosing this and rejecting that in their choices of what they do and who they think. On what ground does one stand on to judge them and know?
