idea was also sometimes expressed in this connection that inarticulate sounds
or ungrammatrical Sanskrit (or Pra ̄krit) forms, being farther from the norm of
articulate rule-governed speech, were nearer to the Absolute. The notion that
mantras are in essence made ofna ̄da, the primeval subtle phonic vibration which
is the substrate of verbal enunciations, was also founded on the idea of the par-
ticular power and nearness to the godhead of prelinguistic utterances. The bindu
(theanusva ̄ra,m., the nasal phonetic element shown in writing as a dot) which
ends most bı ̄jas, was also the subject of similar developments, being considered
- because it is inarticulate and written as a mere dot – as a concentrated form
of phonic energy both symbolizing the supreme level of the godhead and encap-
sulating the total power ofva ̄c.Differently, but in the same spirit, OM. was often
considered as divisible into its constituent phonemes, A,U,M, followed by bindu
whose subtle sound was conceived as prolonged by eight other ever-subtler forms
of inaudible phonic vibration until it dissolved into the utter silence of the
Absolute, a plane which is also that of the highest, “transmental” (unmana ̄), con-
sciousness. Silence was always held in higher esteem than uttered word or
audible sound. As we have seen, this also goes back to vedism, where mantras
are often used silently. We have also seen that the distinction between three
different ways of uttering mantras was Vedic. In the tantras these three ways
are usually described as “voiced” (va ̄cika), “made in secret” (upa ̄m.s ́u), that is, pro-
nounced so as not to be overheard, and “mental” (ma ̄nasa), each form being (as
in Manu 2.85) higher, but also more effective than the preceding one. Though
this distinction may seem in a way to invalidate the equally stringent rule pre-
scribing the absolutely exact pronunciation of mantras, it remains valid to this
day.
As has perhaps been apparent in the above, Hindus have always tended to mix
up theological, mystico-metaphysical, yogic, and ritual speculation, hence the
(for us) ambiguous and unclear nature of mantras. These hymns or formulas
originally used for sacrificing to the gods not only came to be used in all sorts of
rites or actions, but they were also given metaphysical characteristics and more-
over were put to both ritual and meditative use by means of the somato-psychic
practices of yoga. Tantric texts very often do not distinguish between different
forms or aspects of mantras and mantric practice. In different texts, or in differ-
ent places of the same text, mantras are viewed, defined, or made use of differ-
ently: as mere ritual (but powerful, efficacious) formulas, as esoteric forms of the
divine Word, or as the essence of deities, as what brings them into being and/or
makes them present in their icons, or even as being themselves deities. These
varying conceptions of their nature and role were often used differently, but
sometimes also without apparently distinguishing between them. This appears,
for instance, in the opposing conceptions of mantras to be seen in, on the one
hand, the dualist S ́aiva a ̄gamas, where mantras are often called an.u(which
means minute, atomic, and, in these texts, soul), and as such are considered as
individualized powers, and are therefore made use of as discrete, quasi concrete,
elements to be employed ritually (and/or yogically); and, on the other hand,
in the nondualist S ́aiva traditions (and especially in the Kashmirian Trika
mantra 485