Sound is not a description of the thing. It is the thing.
A mantra is held to work by what it is rather than by what it means, which is why the Veda was transmitted with pitch and meter intact for three thousand years by people who guarded pronunciation far more carefully than interpretation. Om is the syllable the universe is said to be made of.
Mantra is where Hinduism's ritual layer and its philosophical layer meet, and the ritual layer is older. The claim that sound is efficacious in itself explains the extraordinary Vedic apparatus of phonetics, meter and accent — six auxiliary sciences developed to protect pronunciation, and Panini's grammar, which is a byproduct of that anxiety and remains one of the most sophisticated formal systems produced before the twentieth century. Tantra pushed the claim furthest, treating seed syllables with no lexical meaning at all as the sonic body of a deity. The everyday version is unremarkable: a mantra given at initiation and repeated, a Gayatri counted at dawn, a name said at a death. Sanskritists and reformers have both objected that this reduces religion to sound engineering, and the tradition's answer has generally been that it does, and that this is not a criticism.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.
