Non-Chat Chat

Whether Mantras are language in the strict sense of the word is a difficult question to answer. The diversity of mantric types is one reason for the varying standpoints in regard to this question. The Bija Mantras (HAM, YAM, RAM, VAM, LAM) – also known as seed Mantras – are monosyllabic sounds with no obvious meaning. Nirguna Mantras such as Soham (I am that I am) or Tat Twam Asi (that thou art), by contrast, are derived from Vedic teachings, while Saguna Mantras (OM Namah Sivaya) celebrate divinities.

Abracadabra Words

The academic discourse is likewise characterized by antithetical positions. Some Indologists place Mantras in the context of “abracadabra words”, and stress the primitive, archaic aspects. According to this premise, Mantras are not so much words by which something is described than ones with which something is done. Even if they contain a meaning in superficial terms, their actual significance is concealed in the ritual.

Mantra is not Nature; it is Culture

Other experts view Mantras as clearly a form of language. They stress that in the context of Indian culture – in which language was always viewed as being divine in origin – Mantras could never be considered as autonomous or liberated articulation. As the Hinduism researcher André Padoux states, Mantras can be compared neither with the first meaningless babbling of a child, nor with the speaking in tongues that occurs in Christian communities. Nor do they have anything in common with surrealist poetry or with spontaneously expressed joy, with ecstasy or trance-like states or any other practice associated with liberating the ego. “Mantra is not nature; it is culture.” (André Padoux, Understanding Mantras)

The experts would appear to agree that Mantras have nothing to do with discursive thought. They are not part of the world of common speech, of commerce, of politics or ideology. They are the opposite of “chat” – Non-Chat Chat.