But this is not all, for the above-mentioned conception of the symbol is really much too narrow. There are not only figurative or visual symbols but also auditory symbols, a division into two fundamental categories that in the Hindu doctrine are those of the yantra and the mantra. Their respective predominance is characteristic of the two kinds of rites, which relate in the beginning to the traditions of sedentary peoples in the case of visual symbols and to those of nomadic peoples in the case of auditory ones; of course it will be understood that between the two no absolute separation can be made (hence the word "predominance"), every combination being possible as a result of the multiple adaptations that have come about with the passage of time and given rise to the various traditional forms that are known to us today. These considerations clearly show the bond that exists in a perfectly general way between rites and symbols, but we may add that in the case of mantras this bond is to be more immediately seen. In fact while the visual symbol, once traced, remains or may remain in a permanent state (which is why we have spoken of a fixed gesture), the auditory symbol on the other hand becomes manifest only in the actual performance of the rite. This difference, however, is attenuated when a correspondence is established between visual and auditory symbols, as in writing, which represents a true fixation on sound (not of sound itself as such of course, but of a permanent possibility of reproducing it); and it need hardly be recalled in this connection that every writing, at least in origin, is essentially a symbolic figuration. The same is true of speech itself whose symbolic character is no less inherent in its very nature; it is quite clear that a word, whatever it may be, can never be anything but a symbol of the idea that it is intended to express. Thus every language, be it spoken or written, is truly a body of symbols, and it is precisely for this reason that in spite of all the "naturalistic" theories invented to explain it, language can never be either a more or less artificial human creation or a mere product of man’s individual faculties. [NA: It goes without saying that the distinction of "sacred tongues" and "profane tongues" only arises secondarily; with languages, as with the arts and sciences, their profanity is only the result of a degeneration, which may arise earlier and more easily in the case of languages on account of their more current and more general use. (See "La Science des Lettres" in Symboles Fondamentaux de la Science Sacrée, Chap. 6.).] Essays: Rites and Symbols