Talk:Namaste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unicode Writing/Rendering 2 Pronunciation 3 Image 4 Overprominence of esoteric interpretations 5 How accurate is the whole "I bow to you" stuff? 6 The new age links on the page 7 POV 8 Not a stub? 9 Another meaning 10 Namaskar 11 Namasté: Indian Salutation 12 In American Culture 13 In a religious context 14 One meaning deleted 15 Namaste in popular culture 16 Namaste and Good Bye

[edit] Unicode Writing/Rendering

Writing Sanskrit in Unicode is difficult. From what I've learned of Sanskrit, two consecutive consonants without a vowel between them are written by omitting the vertical bar from the first consonant and joining it directly to the second one. But Unicode doesn't seem to support this. I had to add a virama to the sa consonant to stop the word from being namasate. Probably some ancient Sanskrit Guru would have killed me for this. — JIP | Talk 6 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

I'm not (at all) sure about this :) But I know that unicode font renderers are supposed to be able handle things like this automatically. Maybe you just write it normally, and a good font renderer will do the bar thing for you? -- Jel 10:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone include a small pronunciation guide here? I will not use a word I do not know how to pronounce. -jocago

From what I understand, practically every language other than English is pronounced more-or-less as written, i.e. the same letter always represents the same sound. Therefore "Namaste" should be pronounced as if it were Finnish or German. Sorry, I don't know IPA, and I'm not trying to make up a bastardised quasi-word in English to try to imitate its pronunciation. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps most languages are pronounced as written, but how that sounds depends on the language. If the Spanish J makes an English H sound, but the German J makes an English Y sound, I should expect other sounds to be different too. French also has many rules about how to pronounce a character in relation to the characters surrounding it. Also, what about syllable emphasis? I would really have to know the language to know how to pronounce the word, which I don't. - jocago 18:18(Eastern) July 28th 2005.

Having looked at the IPA article, I would presume its pronunciation is (in an ASCII rendition of IPA) something like [namaste]. Where the syllable emphasis goes, I haven't the foggiest. I would pronounce it [na'maste] but that's only because I'm Finnish, and Finnish always emphasises the first syllable. — JIP | Talk 06:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting to know about the Finnish emphasis. Thank you. -jocago 1506(eastern) July 29th 2005

I'm not sure, but I remember hearing somewhere that the 't' in "namaste" is a voiceless retroflex plosive. Of course, simply pronouncing it as /namaste/ would do fine, but I think the native pronunciation of the word is retroflex. Berdidaine 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

All this talk about voices, retroflexes (retroflegi?) and plosives is gibberish to me. I guess it comes with my native language being one with the fewest (grammarically significant) phonemic variations in the western world. What, in layman's terms, is the difference between the "t" in "namaste" and your average "t"? Can you give some examples from other languages? — JIP | Talk 15:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the sound is very much like a "normal" English 't'. The main difference between the two is that the tongue is curled up slightly (the "retroflex" part). The tongue is placed in the same area as /t/ in English, though (the alveolar ridge). The "voiceless" simply means without vibrating the vocal cords, just as in /t/. A person with an thick "Indian accent" tends to replace a lot of their 't's and 'd's with their retroflex counterparts, so you've probably heard what they sound like before. (This is all, of course, assuming that the 't' in namaste really IS pronounced this way, 'cause if it isn't then I just typed all of this for nothing :) --Berdidaine 17:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting it in simple terms, the t in namaste is a soft t. The emphasis is on the second syllable. Sarabseth 13:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

By soft, you mean dental (on the teeth), right? That's how it is in Nepali. Also, the stress is on the last syllable in Nepali. BovineBeast 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding pronounciation... I speak and write quite a few languages and I can assure you that the notion that pronounciation "is as it is written" is far from true. This goes for danish (my mothertongue), swedish, german, swiss and french and propably applies to many other languages as well. Thanks for an otherwise great desciption of namaste as I know and practise it by the way :) IQvixen

Most english speaking people simply pronounce it: gnaw-mus-tay

[edit] Image

Umm, why is there a picture of Anna Kournikova on this page? Was it that difficult to find a picture of an actual Indian person giving the namaste greeting? Airosche 07:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter? I didn't put the picture on here...but the great thing about religious phrases is that they can transcend political and cultural boundaries.Iluvchineselit 06:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. You don't have to be Indian to use the word namaste, and while I wonder if using someone who is almost a sex symbol is totally appropriate here, I do think it's good to show that the term and its gesture can be fully used by others, without it being out of place. -- Jel 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overprominence of esoteric interpretations

"Namaste" is not a word that was invented by yoga practitioners. By a factor of hundreds of thousands to one, "namaste" is used as a simple greeting or farewell, and its etymology is barely more interesting than "I bow to you". I'm sure that if asked, the vast majority of Hindi speakers would not suggest it meant anything more than that.

For that reason, I see no justification for the prominence of esoteric interpretations on this page. The page should be friendlier to people who are simply looking for an accurate definition of this common word, as it is used among Hindi speakers. In fact, it is not even clear from this article that "namaste" can be used as "good-bye", but it does tell us what some nameless group of monks in Tibet think, without citation.

The esoteric interpretations deserve their place, but I suggest that most of this article could be sectioned off under "Esoteric interpretations and meanings" or even given their own article.

Furthermore, even among the esoteric interpretations, I don't see any citation or evidence that namaste can mean such things as "I salute the potential within you to become a god." The claim is not supported by the etymology or common usage. It may have acquired such meanings among adherents of a particular religious practice. But if so, this should a) have a citation, and b) be relegated to a more specific section.

This article has more than a whiff of Orientalism. Such elaborate concepts are only common among Westerners who see India as a realm of magic and spirituality. Let us remember that people in the subcontinent are well, real people; they are not always wandering around in a haze of spiritual bliss. Hello is just hello. Flipzagging 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Flipzagging, this has been discussed previously; see below (in particular, where I made a comparison to saying good morning in English). Lots of people use the word "meme" to mean quizzes on a blog. Nonetheless, it has a much deeper and more significant meaning, which is not invalidated, no matter how many people use the term incorrectly or unknowingly. Furthermore, "namaste" is a transliteration, adopted into English. It's perfectly natural that, in English, one of the less common definitions has become the usual one. In the west, it tends to be used in a deep sense. Everything I've heard about the original meaning suggests that this is the original intent of the word. As for citations: if it needs a citation, then one should be found. That, again, does not invalidate the text, any more than the text "1+1 = 2" is invalid without a citation. It simply means that citations need to be added.

1+1=2 is correct by definition and truly common knowledge. So of course it does not need a citation. You are claiming that "namaste" has complicated and obscure meanings, which is against common knowledge. So, citations are needed.

With your analogy to "meme", you are suggesting that "namaste" originally had some deeper meaning but that in common use, it has become degraded. However, the difference once again is that the original coinage of "meme" is easily citable (Richard Dawkins, 1976). You cannot just assert that "everybody knows" or "I've heard this a lot". It may be a common belief among yoga practitioners or western devotees of Hindu esoterica, but this is still at variance with a billion or more native Hindi speakers.

In the articles about "What Wikipedia is Not", there is a principle called "undue weight" (WP:UNDUE). I believe this article is a good example of undue weight given to certain religious beliefs and should be substantially rewritten. Esoteric beliefs should be a part of the article, but clearly marked as beliefs.

However, another flaw is that the article describes many different and contradictory meanings of "namaste". Sometimes words do have many meanings, but such specific and flowery concepts defy plausibility:

* I receive the free spirit in you.

* I recognize that within each of us is a place where Divinity dwells, and when we are in that place, we are One.

* I salute the potential to become a God that lies within you.

While there's some overlap among the proferred meanings in the article, I selected the three above because they are irreconcilable. They cannot all be true in the normal sense of truth reserved for dictionaries and encyclopedias.

If the article is to honestly discuss esoteric beliefs, it should get its facts straight and provide citations. There should not be random references to Tibetan monks and so on; to my eyes that's a bid to place the assertion in some lofty, unquestionable plane, beyond the reach of evidence. But hey, Wikipedia has a pretty good article about Tibet; it should be possible to find out if Tibetan monks *really* think that way. Flipzagging 07:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How accurate is the whole "I bow to you" stuff?

I was in India for four months (December 2004-April 2005), two of which were spent in Hindi speaking places (Bodh Gaya, Bihar and Rishikesh, Uttaranchal), and I heard "namaste" said a lot. When it was said, not once did it ever sound like "I humbly bow to you" or as if "it recognizes the equality of all, and pays honor to the sacredness of all." It sounded like "hello." Now, the root of the word may be that, but I think that article should at least mention that it generally means just "hello," and not a whole lot more. It's similar to "How are you?" in America: it's used as a greeting without any expectation of the person to whom it's said to take you literally. I'm hoping to hear some more (dissenting?) thoughts on this. Namaste, --Blackcap | talk 01:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

On "I bow to you"... that is exactly what the word means. Again, people in India may not think of it that way every time they say it, but the word means what the word means, regardless of that. People in India do use the word with full knowledge of the meaning, when they bow at special ceremonies etc., so somewhere in their minds, they are aware of its full meaning. Either way, this is not about India. The word has wider use, throughout Asia and the world. -- Jel 09:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. I always wondered if that actually was what it meant, and I'm not saying that that should be taken out. It should definitely stay, it's inherently notable. What I wanted to be said was that the word was used as an equivalent to hello, and now that's mentioned. I figured that I ought to justify that and say my opinions on this talk page. BTW, I doubt that other Asian countires use "namaste" any differently than India does. --Blackcap | talk 16:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a technical meaning and a slang meaning. Many (Most?) spanish people I know use bueno http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bueno as hello http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hello on the phone. The technical meaning is simply "good" or "fine". A word (namaste) does not have to always be used sincerely. From Blackcap's experience and its interpratation in much of the US seems to be a bit looser, and less accurate. Its like God Bless You. Most people don't say it prayerfully after someone sneases. I find people who are really pushy for real meaning, and others who say whatever. Perhaps the strict meaning should be noted as such and common meanings listed or noted as such. --pmheart6 | talk 12:20, December 24, 2005 (UTC)

In common usage, namaste is exactly like hi or hello. I'm a 51 year old Indian, and I have been using namaste my entire life. Till I looked it up here I had no idea it meant all this beautiful fancy stuff. I suspect that if you did a survey in India, about 85-90% would say the same thing. Somehow the real meaning of the word never comes up as you go through school and through life. Sarabseth 13:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new age links on the page

I removed the links to both the Living Enrichment Center and to the Namaste Retreat Center because the word "namaste" has nothing to do with some New Age groups, except for that the New Age uses "namaste" as a greeting, which isn't enough of a connection to consider it a related topic. The Namaste Retreat Center does have "namaste" in its name, but that doesn't make it related either, it just means that it has "namaste" in its name. --Blackcap | talk 01:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

There is a lot of POV in this article. I haven't put up a POV notice as I hope that this can be cleaned up, but please look at this:

The actual gesture used when bowing in Gassho or Namaste -- bringing
both hands together in front of us -- is a very symbolic mudra in
itself. One hand represents the our higher, spiritual nature, while
the other represents our worldly selves. By bringing both together,
while focusing on another person and bowing, we are quite literally
uniting every part within ourselves, resolving internal conflicts,to 
focus on a single purpose. We rise above petty squabbles or
differences, and connect with something deeper within ourselves and
the person we bow to.

However, at the same time, we do not lose sight of the wordly nature
of things -- we do not deny that we might sometimes find others hard
to live with, but we love them anyway. In this sense, it is more than
a bow of respect -- it is a bow of love. We also accept our own
flaws, and overcome them, focusing our goodness in the name of a
common humanity, accepting the other person, even with their flaws,
as someone worthy of the deepest love and respect we can possibly
create within ourselves.

This is POV city, and I removed it. It speaks from the "we" standpoint—obvious POV—and talks about "resolving internal conflicts" and "rising above petty squabbles." This is almost meditation propaganda, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. More thoughts are welcome, but I can't see how this could ever belong here. --Blackcap | talk 21:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blackcap :)

I don't see that it's POV to explain the thinking behind a gesture. You may be right that people in India do not mean much when they say Namaste to each other -- that's a natural consequence of using a word every day. But that does not mean that the word itself means less, and certainly not when deliberately used by people who choose to use the word because it expresses what they want to say.

Look at it this way: lots of people use expressions like "good day to you" in the UK. Many say it without any meaning, as they're rushing to work, or even as a way of saying "Sure, I'll be polite if I have to, but that's the longest conversation I wish to have". Nonetheless, I have seen old men use that phrase with a deliberate, thoughtful timing, and a warm smile, that gives no doubt that they fully mean it.

To the best of my knowledge, calling on the years I've spent learning about Asian religions, the word Namaste means exactly what I've described here. I think it would be a shame to dilute the article just because some people use the word flippantly. That flippant use is present in all sorts of words that people use, even when the actual meaning is clear, and they're using it incorrectly. "That begs the question..." is a very obvious example. -- Jel

Never mind -- your edits are close enough :) I thought, when you said you'd deleted my work, that you'd just reverted to the less detailed article. This will do for me :) -- Jel 10:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's not POV to explain what's behind a gesture (note that I kept in the meanings, just reworded them and trimmed it), however, it is to do so in the manner shown above, stating it as if the listener is experiencing the meaning as the gesturer is ("...we are quite literally uniting every part within ourselves" etc.) and as if the meanings and symbolisms are actually occuring as fact ("We rise above petty squabbles or differences, and connect with something deeper within ourselves..." etc). This is the meaning, not the happening. I've seen a lot of people bow, and that's never happened; if it had, I'd have argued that the physical action of bowing had little to do with it. Symbolisms and meanings are facts and are verifiable. Religious or spiritual happenings are not, and therefore cannot be here (unless we speak of them as facts, such as, instead of, "Jesus speaks to George W. Bush," something like, "George has said that Jesus speaks to him," or "X believes that God speaks to Georgie" etc). I'm glad you're comfortable with it. --Blackcap | talk 16:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. I did get a bit carried away there, I guess :) But my intention was not to speak for everyone who ever did namaste. I'm used to speaking from a teacher's perspective, and telling people how things are when they're done well. I used "we" just as I might say "we" when telling a class what "we" aim for when programming: security, quality, etc. We do agree though, so no problem here :) Jel 22:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a stub?

should the stub tag be removed??? I read this article not knowing anything about what namaste meant and now I feel that I have a good understanding of it. How much more could the article hope to have? --206.209.15.68 15:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Stub tag gone. --Blackcap | talk 23:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another meaning

Namaste can also mean the god in me and the god in you is the same god meaning that the greeting party is recognising the identical god. That is why the hands are clasped when this greeting is said. The two hands (the two internal gods) are clasped together as one. --Shell 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namaskar

I'm not sure if the statement "Namaskar is the term for such greetings, but is not used as a greeting itself." is accurate. Both Namaskar and Namaste are used quite widely and interchangably (including the regional equivalents of these words like "Namaskaraa" for example).

Yes, I agree. It is not at all uncommon to say Namaskar instead of Namaste. Sarabseth 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any objection if "Namaskar is the term for such greetings, but is not used as a greeting itself" is replaced by "Namaskar and Namaste are exactly equivalent words, at least in terms of their common usage"? Sarabseth 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In Nepali, Namaskaar is formal, Namaste is informal. I wouldn't know about Hindi BovineBeast 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namasté: Indian Salutation

This should probably just be merged with this entry? Sarabseth 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In American Culture

The members of the Hanso corporation on the TV show Lost use this word at the end of their speeches and it is also the last word to appear in Melba Pattillo Beals' Warriors Don't Cry about the Little Rock Nine. This stuff might be worth mentioning in a section or so, n'est-ce pas?--172.145.85.160 06:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On [Gilmore Girls] their next door neighbor uses this phrase at the end of his answering machine message.

[edit] In a religious context

In the statement "In a religious context this word can be taken to mean any of these:", can someone explain what is meant by "In a religious context"?

I have never seen Namaste used in a religious context, so I'm curious what this refers to. Hindu religious ceremonies in Hindi-speaking areas are conducted in Sanskrit, and Namaste isn't a Sanskrit word. So Namaste isn't really used in the context of religious ceremonies, as far as I know. Sarabseth 13:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First, namaste IS a Sanskrit word - comes as a "sandhi" between namaH and te. And it does occur in religious texts. Also, it appears as various conjugations/declensions of you - like namastubhyam or namaskaromi or namastasyai, or of the verb nam - as in namaami (first person singular) or namaamaH (plural) etc. Most ignorance about the meaning of this word in India is due to the lack of knowledge of Sanskrit and, worse, no desire to learn it. The word (more namaskaar than namaste I think - at least in my part of the country) is usually first learnt (at least to be spoken) while worshipping God during all the religious festivals etc. and so, inherently, has respect and divinity associated with it. When used with people, it does retain some of that value at least at the back of our minds. But I do agree that most Indians would be ignorant of the complete meaning of the word.

Also, Hindu religious ceremonies are mostly conducted in Sanskrit - more likely in Vedic - even in the US and Canada (those are the only two places I know it happens for sure).

I'll try to get references soon. (Antarnaad 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

"The word (more namaskaar than namaste I think - at least in my part of the country) is usually first learnt (at least to be spoken) while worshipping God during all the religious festivals"

That's not true for me, nor for any of the friends I checked with (5 or 6). All of us a) learned it as a greeting, b) are not aware of ever having heard it in the context of worship, and c) have only used it as a greeting all our lives. Sarabseth 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, even I know people who have used it only as a greeting, and know nothing else about it, but there definitely is more to it ...

Here are some references - as promised - please tell me if I should convert these to the Roman script ...

नमस्ते नमस्ते विभो विश्वमूर्ते नमस्ते ... नमस्ते नमस्ते तपोयोगगम्य नमस्ते नमस्ते ...

from vedasaarashivastotram (वेदसारशिवस्तोत्रम्)

(http://wikisource.org/wiki/वेदसारशिवस्तोत्रम्)

नमस्ते शरण्ये शिवे सानुकम्पे नमस्ते ... नमस्ते जगद्वन्द्यपादारविन्दे नमस्ते ...

from durgaa aapaduddhaaraaShTakam (दुर्गा आपदुद्धाराष्टकम्)

(http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_sa/durga-a8_sa.html)

नमस्ते वायो । त्वमेव प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मासि । त्वमेव प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्म वदिष्यामि । ...

from taittiriiya upaniShad (तैत्तिरीय उपनिषद्)

(wikisource.org/wiki/ तैत्तिरीय_उपनिषद् )

(Antarnaad 05:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I still think that "The word (more namaskaar than namaste I think - at least in my part of the country) is usually first learnt (at least to be spoken) while worshipping God during all the religious festivals" is not an accurate statement for most Indians.--Sarabseth 12:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree :) ([[User:Antarn

[edit] One meaning deleted

Someone deleted this a few days ago without explanation:

I bring together my body and soul, focusing my divine potential, and bow to the same potential within you.

Should it be restored?--Sarabseth 11:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As you observed above, the meaning of "In a religious context this word can be taken to mean any of these:" is quite unclear. I suppose that, in a religious context, some people can take anything to mean anything. I support removing all the listed meanings. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of restoring the deleted meaning, and I don't support deleting any of the others. --Sarabseth 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm "actually" NOT in favor. This verbose definition should be deleted since it is more succently captured by some of the other definitions. The same applies to this definition: "I recognize that within each of us is a place where Divinity dwells, and when we are in that place, we are One". There is nothing wrong with this, but other definitions capture the same essence in half the words. Let us apply the elegance of Occam's razor and keep what is simple, simple. Does not the second definition: "I greet that place where you and I are one" capture it all? - Geronimo20 11:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namaste in popular culture

Namaste is used alot in the Lost (TV series) universe. Should a small section saying that it's being used in the show be on this article? dposse 20:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

--Yes, given the international success of the show, and that more people are familiar with this word from this show than from its original Sanskrit divinational origins.

Seriously beg to differ. The audience of this show has to be miniscule compared to the population of the Indian sub-continent and the other South-East Asian cultures which use namaste as a traditional greeting. --Sarabseth 11:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namaste and Good Bye

The etymology of "good bye" is "God bless you," but how many people think this when saying "good bye"? Very few, if any. Das Baz 15:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the statement above, not enough. Namaste is a reflection, as are all things in samsara. A mind mired in dichotomy loves percentages and many have been offered here. What is the percentage in any given populous for the awakened, those not asleep, not mechanical...call in what you like, compared to the rote? Someone mentioned Occam, then I ask why not use lex parsimoniae, or better yet...awaken to define namaste? Namaste is the beginning of awareness, interconnectedness and understanding. Hello should be a good start for most, God bless you even better. (Jack)(now)