Speaking In Tongues & Linguistics

[ChurchSucks]

I thought speaking in tongues was crazy even when I was a Christian. Most of my dad's side of the family is still Pentecostal, minus him and his brother who kept their families in Baptist churches.

 

So obviously, I know we all think it's just babbling, but I was wondering - does anyone know of any good articles/information to where we can prove scientifically and linguistically that what they are speaking simply cannot be a language? I've considered doing a documentary on this topic myself actually, as it's always been something that I've found so flat out weird that it's interesting. I mean, there is no sentence structure, syllables are repeated over and over again, and yet people legitimately still believe that they are speaking in the "tongue of angels" by the power of the holy ghost! It's absolutely crazy. The ignorance of my relatives is driving me insane.

[pratt]

there was recently a documentary by Discovery or National Geographic ,,, the miracles detective,,,, they did a segment on tongue speaking,,,,

 

also i believe that there are books and documentary on this topic

[Thackerie]

Here's a good place to start:

 

http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html

 

But, really, the Internet is full of information about this topic. I suggest you start your Google search with the term glossolalia (the scientific word for speaking in tongues) to find some factual articles instead of just silly woo-woo written by people who actually believe in "tongues."

[Vigile]

If it hasn't been done, I think this would be a wonderful subject for a documentary. I hope you take on the task.

[SillyString]

I grew up around it and also thought it was just plain out weird. I never attempted to do it because it seemed so fake. My Grandfather still shuts himself up in a room and speaks in tongues for several hours a day.

 

There was a brain study done on people while speaking in tongues that I saw recently on youtube...

 

 

I'm sure there is lots of info out there about it, but there's really no way to prove anything to those who truly believe it's a "language from god".

[mwc]

Paul is well aware of this "problem" and writes about it in 1 Corinthians (12-14).

 

He knows that everyone wants to speak in tongues but says that it doesn't really benefit anyone except people that already believe. Outsiders get nothing from it and think they're nutty. Paul prefers that people in the church be "prophets" instead (I'd like to see that too).

14:22 For this reason tongues are for a sign, not to those who have faith, but to those who have not: but the prophet's word is for those who have faith, and not for the rest who have not. 23 If, then, the church has come together, and all are using tongues, and there come in men without knowledge or faith, will they not say that you are unbalanced? 24 But if all are teaching as prophets, and a man without faith or knowledge comes in, he is tested by all, he is judged by all; 25 The secrets of his heart are made clear; and he will go down on his face and give worship to God, saying that God is truly among you. 26 What is it then, my brothers? when you come together everyone has a holy song, or a revelation, or a tongue, or is giving the sense of it. Let everything be done for the common good. 27 If any man makes use of a tongue, let it not be more than two, or at the most three, and in turn; and let someone give the sense: 28 But if there is no one to give the sense, let him keep quiet in the church; and let his words be to himself and to God. 29 And let the prophets give their words, but not more than two or three, and let the others be judges of what they say. 30 But if a revelation is given to another who is seated near, let the first be quiet. 31 For you may all be prophets in turn so that all may get knowledge and comfort; 32 And the spirits of the prophets are controlled by the prophets;

But from v27 he explains that only a few people, at most, should speak the nonsense and someone else entirely should interpret it for everyone. The usual way of giving "oracles" if you want to see it that way. He says the same of "prophets" so its all the same ("oracles").

 

Speak some gibberish (tongues) or some "cold reading" or other vague statements (prophecies) and the interpreter is the go-between. This impresses the yokels whether they're the existing flock (tongues) or the converts (prophecies). Nothing new to see here. It's just "socialized" so that everyone could offer up their magical powers as opposed to going to some place like Delphi and having the specialist do it.

 

The key is there would be no actual hard and fast linguistics behind this because it's all done via the "spirit" and that could very well vary depending on the people involved and how it "moves" them (so to speak). This is why an interpreter is needed during the session. Presumably they would have the same "spirit" and be able to take whatever is being said , no matter the gibberish "language," and let the actual meaning be known with the aid of this common "spirit." Read chapters 12-14 to get the whole idea (this concept is mainly chapter 14).

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

This is an area of interest in religious experience. I enjoyed reading how there is a contrast between tongues speaking and meditation. From one of the links above,

 

"Newberg noted that the glossolalia responses were the opposite of those of people in a meditative state. When people meditate their frontal lobe activity increases, while their parietal activity decreases. In meditation, one loses the sense of self while controlling one's focus and concentration. "

 

I have experienced tongues speaking in my early Christian experience and to try to find words to describe it would be very primal, very visceral.It essentially seeks to 'reconnect' oneself with the body, almost, by shutting down the reasoning mind. In a sense of the word for some people that can be a therapeutic exercise. (Of course please never mind the supernatural clothes put on it - those vary on the culture practicing it, whether Christians or Zulus or ancient Greeks, that's just incidental). In a way I can almost see the appeal in our culture who has no sense of body-self, no grounding. If someone missed that in their personal or cultural development, it can serve as a type of regression therapy, where you go back and experience something in order to move beyond it to the next stage of growth.

 

To me though, for that to define ones height of religious experience seems sort of Retro-romantic. It's like saying our true nature is the man and woman standing naked in front of a bonfire howling at the moon. That was the height of our evolution at one point, and one that is part of us today having evolved up from there (we always build on what we mastered earlier). But today with our rational minds, to not find a way to experience states of religious experience as expressions of the human spirit which embraces the rational mind, seems instead to embrace infancy over maturity.

 

Today I practice meditation and experience what was described above as 'no-self', yet you are highly engaged mentally, more so than even in normal waking states, but the experience goes beyond a reasoned state. That is a way to engage the human spirit, as it were, beyond entanglement with the rational processes. What the difference is really is that one state is a prerational engagement, and the other a transrational one, going beyond rationality as opposed to going before it in shutting it off. Both operate outside reasoning itself, but one shuts it off, and the other includes and goes beyond it. One experiences the primal, the other the transcendent, speaking from my personal experience with both.

 

Very interesting. I'll ponder this more.

[midniterider]

I thought speaking in tongues was crazy even when I was a Christian. Most of my dad's side of the family is still Pentecostal, minus him and his brother who kept their families in Baptist churches.

 

So obviously, I know we all think it's just babbling, but I was wondering - does anyone know of any good articles/information to where we can prove scientifically and linguistically that what they are speaking simply cannot be a language? I've considered doing a documentary on this topic myself actually, as it's always been something that I've found so flat out weird that it's interesting. I mean, there is no sentence structure, syllables are repeated over and over again, and yet people legitimately still believe that they are speaking in the "tongue of angels" by the power of the holy ghost! It's absolutely crazy. The ignorance of my relatives is driving me insane.

 

I was told in church that there were those who could speak in tongues but they never knew what they were saying. There were other's who could 'interpret' what the tongue speakers were saying but weren't, themselves, able to speak in tongues. And once you were able to convince someone that this theory made sense then speaking in tongues could not be disproven. Somehow. lol. As long as an 'intrepreter', using his imagination the holy spirit came along claiming to know what the speaker just said in tongues, the belief was maintained. Some of my churchies tried to get me to speak in tongues a couple times...they said, "it may seem silly at first....", duhhhhh. Too silly for me to make an ass out of myself in public, apparently.

 

At the Pentecostal church I attended we had people speaking in tongues, like you said repeating the same multi-syllable bullshit over and over and nobody thought it was weird.

[midniterider]

Here's a good place to start:

 

http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html

 

But, really, the Internet is full of information about this topic. I suggest you start your Google search with the term glossolalia (the scientific word for speaking in tongues) to find some factual articles instead of just silly woo-woo written by people who actually believe in "tongues."

 

That article is golden! I ROFLed when I read "There is evidence that while speaking in tongues people experience a sharp decrease in frontal lobe function, the area of the brain that enables reason and self-control."

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I thought speaking in tongues was crazy even when I was a Christian. Most of my dad's side of the family is still Pentecostal, minus him and his brother who kept their families in Baptist churches.

 

So obviously, I know we all think it's just babbling, but I was wondering - does anyone know of any good articles/information to where we can prove scientifically and linguistically that what they are speaking simply cannot be a language?

Amateur linguist present. Bear with me, I'm no expert and lack articles on this specific topic. This is my own .02 based on my understanding. But yes, I can prove linguistically that what they are speaking simply can't be a language.

 

This:

there is no sentence structure

Yes, there are languages, such as those of monkeys, where certain calls represent certain prey, but those calls meanings are known to the creatures that use them. Also, they're very simple, much to simple for humans, and needless to say, for the holy spirit. Though in a sense, they too have a "sentance structure" of sorts, as a sentance conveys a very specific message, and has a subject and a verb at least. Those calls basically say "there is" (verb) "a predator" (subject noun). So speaking in tongues is even less of a language than that.

 

syllables are repeated over and over again, and yet people legitimately still believe that they are speaking in the "tongue of angels" by the power of the holy ghost! It's absolutely crazy. The ignorance of my relatives is driving me insane.

Speaking in tongues, , and listening to songs in foreign languages you don't understand, all have an effect that is very powerful. Its the same basic effect IMO. I speak in tongues to figure out what I want my languages to sound like (well sort of... more like just come up with different sounds and pretend to be speaking in a different language, minute differences), and listen to german rock bands to jam outl. Can be fun. But to believe it is divine language, that's crazy.

[Discern]

The tongues issue is interesting, and I wish there was more sceptical documentation on the subject. For those who speak in tongues, it's a powerful chain that keeps you ensnared in christianity longer than perhaps those in other denominations. The experience of it truly makes you think God is real - because if He isn't, where did you get this language?

 

On top of that is the fact that the tongues phenomenon is so scarcely documented outside of christianity. That makes the subject hard to refute. From what I understand, Plato once referred to certain people speaking in tongues - so that could be evidence of it happening before Acts. Also, one big problem is that in Acts the people around the disciples said they were speaking actual foreign languages, not gibberish. As mentioned in previous posts, tongues as it is today is just 15-20 syllables on repeat. You're lucky if you have enough 'words' to make up one sentence, let alone an actual language.

 

I for one am really interested in finding out where on earth the early christians got (stole) it from.

[Margee]

The tongues issue is interesting, and I wish there was more sceptical documentation on the subject. For those who speak in tongues, it's a powerful chain that keeps you ensnared in christianity longer than perhaps those in other denominations. The experience of it truly makes you think God is real - because if He isn't, where did you get this language?

 

Discern, you couldn't be more 'right on' for me and my experience! When my girlfriend dragged me, at 20 years Old to her Pentecostal church - my first impression was that they were all fuckin' nuts. I mean that. But something enticed me....maybe the music.....? the whole atmosphere was like a magnet to me, so I continued to go on Sundays - even though I did think they were all crazy.

 

One night, we had a guest speaker who we were told had the ability to help people 'receive' the gifts of speaking in tongues. I told my girlfriend (in a bet) that I was going down to the alter to receive this very special gift. I used to make fun of it when we would drive home and my girlfriend used to say, ''Margee, I don't think you should make fun of this''. I was a jokester (and still am).

 

Anyway, Down to the front of the church I went and stood there amongst 200 other people. All of a sudden - I wasn't laughing - I got VERY serious for some reason. With every ounce of sincerity in me - I asked the lord to show me if all this was real and if it was to 'bless' me with this gift of speaking in tongues. I didn't even have the prayer out of my mouth, when a 'small, still voice spoke to me (in my mind) and said. 'speak the language''.

 

With that, (no help from the 'healer') - I fluently spoke this new language and it totally convinced me that this whole Pentecostal movement was true and right.

 

All the years I tried off and on to escape and the tongues kept me going back. I thought for sure god 'blessed' me with this - to prove to me that he was real.

 

To this day.....I can still put on a good show with this 'language'......................

[Suzy]

This is an interesting website too: http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net/

 

It's Christian but warns to be cautious about speaking in tongues. It cites several examples of the practice from pagan religions from before Pentacost.

 

Throughout recorded history there have been many occasions where people have spoken in what was called ecstatic tongues. Note most of these accounts predate Pentecost and were of non-Christian origin. Christians therefore can not say with confidence that every occurrence of glossolalia must be an expression of the will of God even though many do subscribe to this view. Those practicing speaking in tongues today portray Pentecost as the supreme example of supernatural tongues; however, the recorded cases of glossolalia go back as far as 1100 B.C. On that occasion a young Amen worshiper attracted historical infamy when he became possessed by a god and began to make sounds in a strange ecstatic tongue.

 

Seven hundred years later, the Greek philosopher Plato demonstrated that he was well acquainted with the phenomenon of speaking in tongues as he referred to several families who practiced ecstatic speech, praying and utterings while supposedly possessed. He also pointed out that these practices had even brought physical healing to those who engaged in them. Plato and most of his contemporaries asserted that these occurrences were caused by divine inspiration. He suggested that God takes possession of the mind while man sleeps or is possessed and during this state, God inspires him with utterances which he can neither understand nor interpret. This does NOT mean of course that one practising speaking in tongues as seen today is possessed or not saved. That of course is just simply not true. When God confused the languages of His people who were rebelling at Babel in Genesis 11, they also spoke in “new tongues” and note this happened without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

In the last century before Christ, Virgil described the speaking of ecstatic tongues of the Sybilline priestess on the Island of Delos as the result of her being unified with the god Apollo. This happened while she meditated in a haunted cave amidst the eerie sounds of the wind playing strange music through the narrow crevices in the rocks.

 

Several of the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world record the same phenomenon of speaking in tongues. Some of those most often listed are the Mithra cult of the Persians; the Osiris cult originating in the land of the Pharaohs, and the lesser known Dionysian, Eulusinian, and Orphic cults cradled in Macedonia, Thrace and Greece. Another indication comes from Lucian of Samosata (A.D. 120-198) who in De Dea Syria describes an example of glossolalia as exhibited by a roaming believer of June, the Syrian goddess, stationed at Hierapolis in Syria. It is also interesting to note that the term glossolalia used so widely today comes from the Greek vernacular which was in existence long before the day of Pentecost. It should be frightening to all Christians that what we see now in the Church today, resembles these occurrences of ecstatic tongues that took place in these ancient cults before the day of Pentecost and that what took place at Pentecost does not in any way resemble these occurrences. At Pentecost, it was undoubtedly and unarguably the speaking of foreign languages.

 

Believe it or not, speaking in tongues as seen in the Church today is a fairly recent phenomenon in Christianity. It came about in four waves. The 1st wave of speaking in tongues started around 1901 and was founded in the traditional Pentecostal movement by Charles Parham of Bethel College, Kansas. The 2nd wave of tongues speaking, neo-Pentecostalism or the Charismatic movement entered most Churches in the early 1960’s in Van Nuys, California, under Dennis Bennett, Rector of St Marks Episcopal (Anglican) Church. In ten years it spread to all major Protestant families of the world, reaching a total of 55 million people by 1990. It included the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and many others. The 3rd wave, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement started in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1967 among students and faculty of DuQuesne University, and by 1993 it touched the lives of over 100 million Catholics in over 238 nations. The 4th wave of speaking in tongues, the Evangelicals started in 1981 at Fuller Theological Seminary with John Wimber. By 1990, 33 million in the world were moving in signs and wonders, though they play down labels such as “Pentecostal” and “Charismatic”.

[Antlerman]

I for one am really interested in finding out where on earth the early christians got (stole) it from.

They didn't steal it from anyone, necessarily. Speaking in 'tongues' is a phenomena of certain religious ecstatic experience. What you could say is they adopted the practice of this ecstatic experience from surrounding religions in the area. The book of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 goes into some length about the practice, trying to set some guidelines that all things should be done in an 'orderly' manner in the churches. Why? Because right down the road from them was the Temple of Diana where going into trances and uttering ecstatic speech was happening. Why shouldn't it have found its way into early Christian religious experience when it's practitioners came with their own religious experiences? That how these things evolve.

 

Many religions have this happen in certain states of mind, certain conditions, and they are generally understood as expressions of their particular deity inhabiting them. Voodoo is a good example of this. It is a significant experience to those in those states, but it should never be understood as "proof" of ones particular god (aka, The Holy Spirit), as then all the others are proofs of theirs too. They can be useful in religious insight, but not in any literal way. To make them that pisses them away into some sort of doctrinal god, not spiritual insight. Experiences are not the end all be all of religious pursuit, and if they are sought as such, then they are a cheap, sensationalist, recreational drug trip centered on ones own ego.

[Suzy]

The Bible says speaking in tongues is a sign for non-believers. That's pretty funny when we consider how many pagan religions around them practiced it as well...

 

Even if they convinced themselves that their kind of speaking in tongues is different, more special, why didn't God choose a "sign" of that there isn't an example in pagan religions?

[MikeMo]

I cannot prove the problem scientifically or linguistically, but I can prove it doctrinally, which always does the most damage to the Christian believers...to say, "But the Bible says." All of the situations of this speaking in tongues in the book of Acts revolve around actual languages. The purpose of speaking in tongues is to reconcile the division of languages at the Tower of Babel. So, whereas God divided all languages from heaven in Genesis, he was now reconciling all languages to heaven through Christ. Therefore, "every man heard them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:6). Furthermore, Apostle Paul says this, "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world...tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" (I Corinthians 14:10, 22). Furthermore, Apostle Paul says that if there are no interpreters interpreting the tongue speakers in order, then there should be no speaking in tongues out loud at all (I Corinthians 14:27-28). So, there become three doctrinal questions arising when Christians speak in tongues: where are the unbelievers you are trying to reconcile by your tongues, where are your Church interpreters, and why can I hear you speaking out loud without these conditions? And so far we have only addressed the "tongues of men." When Christians say they are speaking in their "spiritual language," or in "tongues of angels," then I wonder why those tongues sound like "tongues of men." Look at every single Biblical instance where the Angels met with a man or woman, and tell me where the Angels spoke like these Christians. Rather, the Angels were understood to every man and woman...they spoke in a language they understood. However, the tongues of Angels were always revelations and visions, so that when a person speaks jibberish "tongues of men," sounding more childish than a child learning how to speak, I wonder how they example the "tongues of angels." There is no Biblical documentation of this nonsense. And so, the "tongues of man" were the actual languages of the world, while the "tongues of angels" were the revelatory and visionary languages of heaven. Jesus spoke in heavenly tongues (since he came down from heaven) when he gave parables, and he had to become the interpreter to his disciples, so that they could understand the heavenly significance. So, Israel heard Jesus speak their wordly language, but they did not understand the heavenly language of the parable. The former is the "tongues of men" and the latter is the "tongues of angels." Likewise, in Acts, the listerners who heard tongues in their language responded, "What meaneth this" (Acts 2:12). They heard their wordly language, but they knew not the heavenly language of the words. And then Apostle Peter interprets the revelation and vision of those spoken tongues.

[expat674]

As my degree is in modern languages, this speaking in tongues has been a moot point for me all through my xtian experience. I was always lead to believe that I was somewhat "less of a true Xtian" as I could not or would not babble on in a made up language at the drop of a hat.

 

This is because from a linguistic point of view, speaking in tongues as seen in modern Pentecostal churches is as close to nonsense as you can get. A language has to impart meaning to its speakers, so how can babbling in something that sounds like a cross between Dutch, Arabic, French and German convey any meaning to anyone. It cannot, and in many churches, even when someone comes to the front or worse still, starts to sing in tongues in front of the whole church, there is often no interpretation. How can there be, nobody else on earth knows what on earth they are saying...

 

If there were a "heavenly language" or "language of the angles," then why hasn't someone come up with a codified, standardized version, like exists for Modern French? After all, the day of Pentecost pre-dates many of the modern European languages by at least 500 - 900 years. But then, I guess christians would probably spent 1500 years arguing about the vocabulary, syntax and grammar. imagine the mid-week meetings.. "no brother, it's Abba-shamma-lacha, not Shamma-lacha-abba. Just saying in love.."

 

It is also interesting that the often used verse in Acts 2 that is presented as an excuse for this linguistic tomfoolery would actually suggest that the disciples were speaking in the intelligible languages of those present, and certainly not what we hear today.

As I said before, in any other setting, this kind of behaviour would lead to questions about mental health, but in certain churches, it is perfectly legit.

 

I am so glad that now, the only thing that I hear after the word "Abba" is 1970s Swedish pop...

[Zephie]

This has nothing to do with linguistics but a church that we went to we were commanded to speak in toungues for like 20 minutes a service. I resent being told to speak in tongues as well as I was called a witch in the Baptist school I went to as a child. Ugh. Silliness.

[Ouroboros]

Shackabahaya. I still can speak in tongues at the drop of a hat.

[Ouroboros]

Experiences are not the end all be all of religious pursuit, and if they are sought as such, then they are a cheap, sensationalist, recreational drug trip centered on ones own ego.

So it's not a good thing?

 

Most tongue-speaking people probably consider their experience valid and valuable. How and why should this particular experience be ranked lower than another, like mediation? I saw you compared the activation of different parts of the brain, but why should that matter? Isn't that just an appeal to physical and material aspects for why something is "good" or "bad"? I'd like to understand why this practice is "cheaper" than meditation and on what grounds that is argued? Should some religious experiences be considered less valid because science says so?

[Inqui]

You can just tell those people that a church never speaks in tongues when they're asking for money.

[Legion]

Glosso-la-la-lalia

Not to be confused with

Glossy labia

 

[Antlerman]

Experiences are not the end all be all of religious pursuit, and if they are sought as such, then they are a cheap, sensationalist, recreational drug trip centered on ones own ego.

So it's not a good thing?

 

Most tongue-speaking people probably consider their experience valid and valuable. How and why should this particular experience be ranked lower than another, like mediation? I saw you compared the activation of different parts of the brain, but why should that matter? Isn't that just an appeal to physical and material aspects for why something is "good" or "bad"? I'd like to understand why this practice is "cheaper" than meditation and on what grounds that is argued? Should some religious experiences be considered less valid because science says so?

This was a little while ago when I posted this and my views on tongues have changed somewhat since then, but still, I don't think even in here I was saying it is lower than meditation. I say that even in meditation practices you have rather profound experiences and even in them you have those that make the experience the entire focus of the practice. You can call them wave jumpers, hopping from one peak experience to the next. That was and is my criticism of that sort of experience-seeking approach. The point should be about something deeper than that, and if you look at my full post you quoted this from I believe I said that.

[Deva]

I have never been able to make any sense out of this practice. It seems to me anyone can make up a bunch of sounds, repeat them and have it be "tongues". In the Christianity I was raised that this practice was an error. I never saw it, and I honestly would feel extremely uncomfortable around it.

 

I think it is no different than people losing themselves in any other emotional type activity.

[Ouroboros]

This was a little while ago when I posted this and my views on tongues have changed somewhat since then, but still, I don't think even in here I was saying it is lower than meditation. I say that even in meditation practices you have rather profound experiences and even in them you have those that make the experience the entire focus of the practice. You can call them wave jumpers, hopping from one peak experience to the next. That was and is my criticism of that sort of experience-seeking approach. The point should be about something deeper than that, and if you look at my full post you quoted this from I believe I said that.

Are you sure everyone speaking in tongues only do it for experience "hopping" or is it possible that they believe there is more to it than just that? How long is your experience and knowledge about speaking in tongues?

 

The belief we had in my church was that it was a duty and a language of spiritual warfare. We were fighting for God and his promises in the spiritual world. We didn't see it as something we would to do get a "kick". We didn't do it because we wanted a shot of the drug. We did it because we thought it would do something.

 

This is an area of interest in religious experience. I enjoyed reading how there is a contrast between tongues speaking and meditation. From one of the links above,

 

"Newberg noted that the glossolalia responses were the opposite of those of people in a meditative state. When people meditate their frontal lobe activity increases, while their parietal activity decreases. In meditation, one loses the sense of self while controlling one's focus and concentration. "

 

I have experienced tongues speaking in my early Christian experience and to try to find words to describe it would be very primal, very visceral.It essentially seeks to 'reconnect' oneself with the body, almost, by shutting down the reasoning mind. In a sense of the word for some people that can be a therapeutic exercise. (Of course please never mind the supernatural clothes put on it - those vary on the culture practicing it, whether Christians or Zulus or ancient Greeks, that's just incidental). In a way I can almost see the appeal in our culture who has no sense of body-self, no grounding. If someone missed that in their personal or cultural development, it can serve as a type of regression therapy, where you go back and experience something in order to move beyond it to the next stage of growth.

 

To me though, for that to define ones height of religious experience seems sort of Retro-romantic. It's like saying our true nature is the man and woman standing naked in front of a bonfire howling at the moon. That was the height of our evolution at one point, and one that is part of us today having evolved up from there (we always build on what we mastered earlier). But today with our rational minds, to not find a way to experience states of religious experience as expressions of the human spirit which embraces the rational mind, seems instead to embrace infancy over maturity.

 

Today I practice meditation and experience what was described above as 'no-self', yet you are highly engaged mentally, more so than even in normal waking states, but the experience goes beyond a reasoned state. That is a way to engage the human spirit, as it were, beyond entanglement with the rational processes. What the difference is really is that one state is a prerational engagement, and the other a transrational one, going beyond rationality as opposed to going before it in shutting it off. Both operate outside reasoning itself, but one shuts it off, and the other includes and goes beyond it. One experiences the primal, the other the transcendent, speaking from my personal experience with both.

Seems to me that you're putting down tongues and lifting up mediation. No? Perhaps you've changed your mind, I don't know, but I'm not sure if it's your place to criticize tongues as something less or "primal" even.