Talk:Namaste/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Namasté: Indian Salutation

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

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.

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

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)

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)

I almost sure that the BT song Namistai (Movement in Still Life) is a alternative spelling of namaste? 81.208.160.173

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)

Source

The Source for the Depak Chopra quote I believe, is from his "The Peaceful Warrior" series: Way of the Peaceful Warrior, and the Path of the Peaceful Warrior. Namaste. Sephiroth storm 08:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

know such thing as a peacful warrior.--Raidcmdr (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

photo credit?

since when do photos in wikipedia have the names of the photographers under them? Next you'll sign articles with your name???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.68.231 (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, why is it of AL GORE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.170.145 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Literal Meaning

Is "I bow to you" really the literal meaning? The word "nama" is "greeting", no? "I honor th divine light that is within you that is also within me" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.212.213 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

--iFaqeer (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The literal meaning is "greeting" (namas - noun, nominative si.) "to you" (te - sing. 2nd. p. pronoun dative enclitic). I don't think it's really correct to read in all this stuff about "the divine" and " "the light within". OK, you can assume things like that based on your religious preferences, but that's like saying "hi" in English means "my soul greets your soul." This is a standard Sanskrit expression, namas + dative. You can interpret namas along other related lines like glory or reverence, but namaste is clearly just "namas" to you. There's nothing in there about "that X within you."

Wrong. The literal meaning of "namas" is not greeting, but "a bow". And I decry the use of your pejorative term "stuff" in what reads like a rant. This article should be objective for all readers, whether religious, atheists, or all points between. "Namaste" has ancient spiritual roots in Hinduism (that's an objective fact), but it has come to be used by many as a simple, respectful, greeting. 88.105.178.133 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "objective fact", it seems more like an assumption on your part than a fact. Mitsube (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon - http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/

1 namas n. bow , obeisance , reverential salutation , adoration (by gesture or word ; often with dat. e.g. %{rAmAya@namaH} , salutation or glory to Ra1ma , often ind. [g. %{svar-Adi}] ; %{namas-kR} , to utter a salutation , do homage ; ind. p. %{-mas-kR4tya} [AV. TS. &c.] or %{-mas-kRtvA} [MBh. BhP.] ; %{na4mas-kRta} , worshipped , adored) RV. &c. &c. ; food Naigh. ii , 7 ; a thunderbolt , ii , 20 ; gift , donation L. ; m. (?) an inarticulate cry L.

Tarchon (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not wrong. Did you even read the definition I quoted? It's the next paragraph, so it shouldn't be hard to find. Speaking of being disrespectful, how about not hacking up my comment too? Yes, it does mean "bow" and "greeting" at the same time, in the same way "a wave" means "a greeting" and "a hand motion" at the same time in English. In Hindu custom, you greet people with a bow - hence a bow is a greeting in Sanskrit, the same way a wave is a greeting in English. You can decry the use of "stuff" all you want, but it is "stuff". Stuff is poorly thought out, meandering, interpolative commentary that doesn't have anything to do with what it actually means. I pejoratively mark stuff that's bad - that's what we have pejorative terms for.Tarchon (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Spurious attribution to Deepak Chopra

The article reads: "I honor the Spirit in you which is also in me." -- attributed to author Deepak Chopra

This interpretation predates Deepak Chopra for sure, and more than one yoga teacher has told me it's a B.K.S. Iyengar quote, which frankly makes a lot more sense (which isn't evidence so I'm leaving the article as is). Please, someone-out-there-with-the-correct-reference-material: refute this attribution and correct the article! Thanks, and Namasté! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.6.3 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Justification for acute accent?

I understand that adding the acute accent, thus writing namasté instead of namaste, may help the reader pronounce the word correctly. But English is not a phonetic language, and the acute accent is normally used in English only if a foreign word incorporated into English already included it in its original spelling. Growing up in India, I never saw namaste written as namasté, and in fact I never saw é used to indicate an ay sound in transliterated words. The correct place to indicate the pronounciation is in parentheses, as has already been done. The word, as used in Indian English, has always been namaste without the accent. The trailing e in most transliterated words implies the ay sound and no accent is needed or used. Rahul (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another reason why the acute accent should not be used: Somebody entering "namaste" into the Wikipedia search box will not find an article entitled "namasté". (The opposite will also be true, but rarely if ever will somebody search for "namasté".) Rahul (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and change it. --DocNox (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper "pranam" redirect

The term "pranam" redirects to namaste currently, however, this is probably not correct. While both are greetings of varying levels of respect, one does not do namaste to a deity at temple, for example. The deepest pranam I know of is full prostration, more like kowtow is written, currently. The cultural respect overtones are similar; for example, full pranam may be appropriate to family matriarchs/patriarchs, and also appropriate for a devout person worshiping their deity, but this never means that the family member is being worshiped! In other words, pranam (and namaste, in this case) are cultural gestures that are orthogonal to religion, but can be mutually appropriate for other reasons. Anyway, I don't have a reference handy, but it would be nice if someone might un-redirect it, and help write it's own article. I believe this usage in the Indic cultures predates kowtow, culturally, but again, I have no reference here. 65.112.197.16 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A Response?

This article was very informative but still unclear about one thing. Namely, how does one respond to namaste in these various cultures? Does one simply reciprocate or is that considered inappropriate? 173.2.164.68 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Namaste True/Literal Definition

Namaste is actually composed of three Sanskrit concepts, each which contribute to the word. The literal translation of Namaste is 'No Mind Between.'

This is in alignment with the intent of the stated translations, as well as the more eloquent yogic usage of 'The Divine within me recognizes, respects, and acknowledges the Divine within you.

Mark Mullen (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Mark F Mullen/Sadakha

This is only true if you break the word down into its "datu pada" (root forms). Sanskrt is a beguiling mixture of the very precise and the very fluid, each "datu pada" having a wide range of meaning, which only becomes clear from its context and in its combination with other root forms. "No Mind Between" is indeed a literal translation of the word "namaste" at root level, but in the Vedic interpretation, this would expand to something like "Mind is that which feeds the (individual) Ego, so without Mind, there is a clear path between us where there is no difference, and so we can acknowledge that which is the same in each other". 88.105.178.133 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious salutation?

Can someone who knows please make this sentence clearer for ignorant readers (like me!):

In everyday life, namaste can be necessarily considered a religious salutation.

Does this mean that if I were to use this greeting, it would be inconsistent with me being non-religious, or that it would be inconsistent with the second person being non-religious? The rest of the article (on my reading) seems to suggest that it's a general purpose greeting from anybody to anybody. And why "necessarily"? The explanations about suggest respect is involved, but not necessarily religion. For comparison, some people say that the English "goodbye" is short for "God be with you" (I don't know if that's true) but it's certainly used, as are expressions like "godspeed" by people with absolutely no religious intent.84.68.169.124 (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that is a careless sentence. "Namaste" can be used in a religious sense, or simply as a respectful greeting between two people.88.105.178.133 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I have cleaned up the article, removed some unsourced material, and tagged sections. Any comments? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7 is misleading

Reference 7 is taken directly as a quote from an attributed talk by Tom Honey. What the person referencing does not mention (or perhaps, does not know) is that Tom Honey makes a suggested paraphrase of "namaste" which is extremely loose, and which is only implied, at best, in the original Sanskrt. In fact, the phrase "That which is of God in me greets that which is of God in you" is an almost word-for-word quote of a core Quaker belief, which has been at the heart of Quakerism for 300 years (long before Hinduism or Oriental philosophies became studied in the West and popularised). How do we put this right ? I'm afraid I simply don't know how to correct an inaccurate reference and would ask a Wiki Editor to help out in this. 88.105.178.133 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Uses

I have corrected the use of the greeting with regards to people of Punjabi regions Having lived in the regions of punjab the greeting Namaste is rarely used. Though amongst the Hindu populace it is common, But when a Sikh is approached the greeting Sat Sri Akal or appropriate Salama lekham towards a Muslim are used they do not reply with Namaste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidcmdr (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

uses

So why did you incorrect it should i say, what seemed to have troubled you?--Raidcmdr (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange sentence

At the end of the Meanings section it is stated "That said, these are all arguably simple attempts at conflating the perhaps equally dimly understood concept of Aloha with namaste, neither of which has a direct parallel in English, although comparing the functionality of namaste with "How do you do?" would be reasonable, since namaste simply means, "I bow [namas] to you [te]"." How do the interpretations of namaste relate to aloha, and how are these concepts "dimly understood"? This is unclear. Citation and clarification are needed.68.203.14.51 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

From root Nama(sans) NA=not MA=me este=you so means Not me but you, english word Name the root is Nama meaning Not Me this true meaning has been lost in English as with so many English words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.71.232 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup (Sept 2010)

Namaste.       _||_

I've just spent a while tidying up syntax, duplication, putting the linguistic stuff in its own section, making a disambiguation page to clear the clutter at the top and removing POV stuff with citation challenges since 2008.

I would like to think that, considering it's a relatively small though significant subject, that within its scope, its nearing a good standard and have thus jumped it from category Start to category B in both Buddhism and Hinduism quality. I'm really not qualified to comment on its importance in Buddhism, so have left the ??? status. I'm sure someone in the project could hazard a useful guess at this!

I've also removed the guesture image from the "Guestures" template at the bottom, at source, which clearly doesn't belong on every page the template is used. If this incurs "ante" from other realms, maybe some established editors from here might care to support keeping it clean. Edit the template at Template:Gestures. Trev M  ~  00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this tidying, Trev M. You've made a good job of it.

As a widely travelled Buddhist, I can throw some light on the Buddhist greeting. Añjali mudra is generally used, especially by lay people to monastics, and there is scriptural precedent for the latter. In a commonly chanted 'recollection', monks are said to be añjali-karaniyo, usually translated as 'worthy of respectful greeting'. However, the spoken greeting of 'namaste' is never used; what is said (if anything) differs from country to country. So far as use on airlines go, hostesses on Thai Airways use the mudra in welcoming passengers and it is very commonly used between lay people in Thailand. I have never travelled by Air Sri Lanka, but I do belong to a Sri Lankan temple and have never heard the spoken greeting 'Namaste' used. I therefore question whether that greeting is used on the airlines (as distinguished from añjali mudra) and will put a tab by that.

I must say that the article does not make a proper distinction between the añjali mudra and the spoken greeting, especially in the Uses section. Much that is said there is not properly referenced or ought to be in the Añjali Mudrā article instead. If it is not corrected or referenced within a reasonable time, I should be inclined to delete or transfer most of it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

the etymology section has been infiltrated by esoteric nonsense

there is no aham in namaste. even if there were aham doesn't mean false-self, it's just the first person singular pronoun.

the word is a simple compound of namas + te. vide oed. 108.56.216.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

Convoluted etymology

This "Naman Astitva" idea seems to be a vestige of the "Namo Astu" idea that has since been corrected. There is no "asti" in "namaste". It's not 'namāste' after all. I'm scrapping the following as unsourced speculation.

In detail, "Naman Astitva" means the recognition of one's existence by another person. In other words, when one says "Namaste" to another it means "I salute or recognize your presence or existence in society and the universe."

There is a a related (more reverential) salute, "namo 'stu te", where "astu te" means "may there be [respect] unto you", and "namo" there is a contracted form of "namas/namaḥ". But that's unrelated to the meaning of "namaste" itself. --Baba Bom (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

accented e in Namesté ??

I hope someone better at wiki than I am can add a note on the Nameste entry about whether it is proper to accent the e in Namesté. Many well known dictionaries don't have an entry, and it seems that some books like an accented é, but many don't use an accent. Thanks for helping or commenting. Chris (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to the accented é) - Yes, it is proper to accent the é (like so) in Namesté. only to the extent of proper English, as most cultures would not accent their own letters just as we who use English do not accent our letters, only those of another language. I'm actually lead to believe that the English language was the big start in accenting letters in order to show a slight change in the pronunciation from our version of the letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.70.73 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Ho brah theres one lion at da hilo zoo das called namaste. There needs for be one disambiguation page for distinguish between all these different kine namastes. k tanks ah. shoots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.114.57 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanings and interpretation

The interpretations of namaste given in this section are modern speculations by people (judging from the very modern references) who are not recognised spiritual authorities. Lacking official religious sanction, these count by WP guideline as POV and I have accordingly deleted them. At the same time, I have opened the subject for discussion here, hoping that someone with a background in religious scholarship can throw more light on it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The religion of hinduism is based on lores and tales beeing told and retold by grandmothers of mothers to us and by us to our offsprings. There is no scientific validation for everything. In my childhood , i was told that namaskar ment 'God in me greets the God in you.'. And that might just be the true spirit of the word. So just accept the sense of the word. And P.S. In Hinduism there are no spiritual authorities. The spirit is the people who live it. Poticecream (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"I bow to you" seems to be the verifiable etymological meaning. However I have heard the "God in me greets the God in you" or different variations on that so much that it deserves mention as a cultural phenomenon in its own right. My recommendation is to remove all the parts of the "Meanings and interpretation" section asserting this to be the meaning (which appear to have already been tagged "citation needed"), find a source on the origin of this particular interpretation and mention that in its own paragraph with proper citation. Mbarbier (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If the meanings "bow" and "to you" are correct, then no citation is needed to justify the reading "I bow to you." The more metaphorical reading -- the god in me greets the god in you -- should be included, but does need citation. Rmrwiki (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Before reading this discussion, I deleted the citation demand, following the "I bow to you" phrase, for exactly the reason you, Rmrwiki, state. Lengel46 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture requested

If you stumble on a photograph of a sculpture/painting of Buddhist origin representing the anjali mudra, that is the namaste gesture so called, could you please transclude it in the article?

Similarly if you happen on a modern photograph of a person from a Buddhist country (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodgia, Laos, etc.) doing the anjali mudra please transclude it here.

There might be such a picture at article Añjali Mudrā (picture on the right): that one seems to me to be a Buddhist statue.

Thanks.

Contact Basemetal here 18:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor sources

Read WP:RS. following are poor sources 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Namaste&diff=595797587&oldid=595797511 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Namaste&diff=595797511&oldid=595797307 Sorry for photograph removal. Blueyarn (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fine line between legitimate removal of unsourced content and wholesale systematic deletion of unchallenged content

Editor User:Blueyarn has been going around removing entirely non-controversial unchallenged material because it was unsourced.

Granted WP demands sources but this campaign of wholesale systematic deletion by Blueyarn looks more like disruptive editing if not vandalism.

And to top it all he removed a photograph from this article with nary an explanation.

I have tried to reason with him but it's no use.

Time to call in the admins?

Contact Basemetal here 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have requested both on my talk page, where there is a discussion, as well as on Blueyarn's talk page that they come and discuss the proposed changes here. Rmosler | ● 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Unsourced will be removed. Blueyarn (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I know all about Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR but there is also something called disruptive editing, see WP:DIS, and your wholesale deletion of material looks to me like very much like disruptive editing. See particularly Disruptive_editing#Point-illustrating and WP:POINT. I'll bring that up with admins don't you worry. Your wholesale deletion does not look to me like productive editing at all for all of your attempts at Wikilawyering (see WP:LAWYER). Like I said, we all understand the need for reliable sources, but nobody has appointed you here as either the policeman or the censor of WP. Contact Basemetal here 02:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: And we're not even done with your removal of Namaste from WikiProjectBuddhism. Have you finally understood why you have no business telling the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buddhism (without being part of that WikiProject and without discussing with them) if they should or should not include Namaste in WikiProject Buddhism? Contact Basemetal here 02:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced will be removed. You can discuss with any wiki Admins for it. Blueyarn (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Go through Disruptive_editing#Point-illustrating, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:DIS. None support Unsourced. You can mention Wikipedia:Policies that support Unsourced. As I said You can discuss with any wiki Admins for it. Blueyarn (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Italics or not?

It should either be namaste or namaste throughout the article. Is it considered an English word at this point? If it is, no italics at all. If it isn't, italics throughout. Likewise its synonyms when they are used. Does anyone "know" the answer to this? Huw Powell (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, and there won't be one, since we lack an Academy with plumed hats to tell us these things. Mention the options/possibilities at the start, & then stick with one. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Namaste/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Namaste represents a high level of enlightenment in the Hindi understanding of the world. It is the 7th level of enlightenment. If I got that wrong, someone will correct me. Anyway, because this is such a high level of enlightenment, it filters down to those at the lower levels. They will learn and realize they knew it all along. No one was denying them the knowledge. They just have to take it. That's it. That's all i wanted to say. Thank you, God. Namaste.

Last edited at 01:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of Namaste

The meaning of Nama is shown as "I bow", how ever to my understanding it is a little deeper than that. Namaste means Na + Ma + te, Not + Me + you (probably in plural form of you i.e., you all, so Namaste would be used when addressing collection of people and Namaskar(am) when addressing one person - singular).

I heard it in a spiritual discourse long time ago, cannot find a documented source. Can any one corroborate?

Update: I found these links: http://yogachicago.com/2014/03/sayonara-namaste-what-does-namaste-mean-and-when-should-we-say-it/ and http://www.wholelifeyoga.com/blog/the-meaning-of-namaste/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmuralikrishna (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The namaste gesture can also mean "no, thank-you"

Guests who are offered food or drink in India, and who wish to graciously decline, will often use the namaste hands-together gesture accompanied by some language other than the word "namaste". This is common enough that it ought to be mentioned in the Article. I would add it myself except that I can't find any reliable sources for this. But I know this to be true from personal knowledge. Rahul (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Namaste and Buddhism

Someone decided to mention on this talk page that the article Namaste was part of project Buddhism.

User:Blueyarn keeps taking that out, arguing that that showed POV and demanding sources.

I hope this is not going to turn into an edit war and that we won't go to arbitration, but if it is necessary then we will because this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Blueyarn of where POV applies: POV doesn't apply on talk pages. Somebody thought the article Namaste was part of project Buddhism and that's their opinion. If you want to argue against their opinion fine, put it on this talk page. But you wouldn't be allowed to delete a comment they made on a talk page just because you thought it showed POV. That's why it's a talk page. In the same way you are not allowed to just take out the mention of project Buddhism here just cause you think it is not justified. You can simply argue against it. Get it? It's a talk page.

Furthermore there are good reasons to make any Indian cultural item part of project Buddhism: Buddhism originated in India and for about 1500 years was an Indian religion. So anything that is part of Indian culture can be legitimately studied in a Buddhist context. That is well known. Take any history of Buddhism and you'll have your sources.

Contact Basemetal here 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK#FACTS and Deal with facts Blueyarn (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what WP:TALK#FACTS says. It does not mean you can delete other people's stuff on talk pages. If you continue this edit war you'll get into trouble my friend. The talk page is the place to deal with dispute resolution not edit wars. Contact Basemetal here 22:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: And we're not even done with your removal of Namaste from WikiProjectBuddhism. Have you finally understood why you have no business telling the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Buddhism (without being part of that WikiProject and without discussing with them) if they should or should not include Namaste in WikiProject Buddhism? Contact Basemetal here 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Two years after this discussion: isn't this a good start to make explicit in the article that Namaste also has meaning in Buddhism, not just Hinduism: http://buddhaweekly.com/namaste-respect-overcomes-pride/ Angeloh (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Namaste in school controversy

Needs to be in article, right? Especially in an election year of 2016 with the issue of local control of school a hot button topic. --Wikipietime (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

References

wrong pronunciation key at beginning of article

It's clear that a Westerner wrote out the pronunciation of this word, because it's completely incorrect. Not sure why, but Westerners insist on mistakenly putting the emphasis on the first syllable, making it NAH-mas-te. However, this is not an English word, it's a Sanskrit/Hindi word. In the pronunciation key, it should be correctly reflected as it's said Sanskrit/Hindi, the native language that the word is from.

The correct pronunciation is nah-MAS-te. Listen to any native Hindi speaker say it.

Hilariously, even in the audio file where one can "listen" to how to say the word, the Indian speaker is saying it correctly: nah-MAS-te, not NAH-mas-te. For the sake of accuracy and consistency, this needs to be corrected and reflected in the pronunciation key.

I just noticed this now and am not familiar with the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia, so if someone with Wikipedia expertise could make this change, that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.11.28 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"/ˈnɑːməsteɪ/, nah-məs-tay" ... I'm sorry, but the -tei or -tay ending is simply wrong. Unfortunately this is a common mistake whenever English native speakers are trying to pronounce a word of foreign descent ending with an e (e.g. 'per se'). No, it's not Namastay! (and it's not 'per say'). Perhaps it would be more plausible to go by 'nɑːməsteh' or 'nɑːməsté'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.245.190.103 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Namaste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226125638/http://www.csuchico.edu/~cheinz/syllabi/asst001/fall97/2chd.htm to http://www.csuchico.edu/~cheinz/syllabi/asst001/fall97/2chd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Do we really want to cite an American sociologist for the meaning of namaste? Perhaps a measure of how much the West has co-opted Hinduism.

Why is it OK for westerners to be reliable sources about geographical formations, cellular activity, and interstellar phenomena, but when the subject of inquiry is the meaning of "namaste", suddenly a westerner can't possibly be considered knowledgeable on the subject? If one of them knows that "namaste" conveys "I bow to the divine in you", if the assertion isn't made in a patronizing way and it isn't at odds with anything a knowledgeable Hindu would say on the subject, and if that person happens to be the source a Wikipedia editor came up with, suddenly it's The West Co-opting Hinduism? (I understand and endorse the concepts of co-opting and appropriation and the concerns associated with them. It's some of the circumstances in which those charges are raised that I question.) Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course a westerner can know this, but it appears that a westerner coined it in the first place, which is a little more suspect, given that it is offered up as an a Hindu interpretation, without attribution.Mukogodo (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You think a westerner coined "namaste"? The attribution was the source that you deleted and that you're criticizing, so I don't understand what you mean. Unless you mean you expect reliable sources cited here to, in turn, cite their own reliable sources. But that isn't a requirement.

For what it's worth, that's pretty much what a Pakistani-American Muslim friend of mine told me about "namaste" when I was studying Hindi and tried it out on him. Most of what I said to him was the same in Urdu as in Hindi, but he told me they don't say "namaste", and he told me why. Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I am questioning the attribution to the cited meaning of namaste as "“the sacred in me recognizes the sacred in you”". It seems that a 2017 reference from an American sociologist gives the impression of a recent (Western) coining. If this interpretation as deeper roots, they could be cited also. I am afraid that "confirmation" from a Pakistani Muslim ("sure, that sounds right") does not come anywhere near fitting the billMukogodo (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

And we can cite only sources written by 5th century Romans when writing about things that happened in 5th century Rome, is that it? And only sources written by plants in articles about botany? Largoplazo (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No, merely some indication whether this particular "meaning" is a recent or older formulation, regardless of whether it is Eastern or Western (or Muslim). Mukogodo (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Racism

The state of Alabama is lifting a 20 yr ban on yoga, however it is still illegal to say "namaste" to another person. Shjacks45 (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Haha, that's fake Facebook news for you. Pure and undiluted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Namaskar-India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The standing posture

"...the standing posture incorporating it is Pranamasana." Does it means in yoga. If yes, it would be included.--BoldLuis (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The falsehood of the COVID-19 contribution here

@BoldLuis: The sentence you added, "From the COVID-19 pandemic, namaste is becoming the alternative that is replacing handshake in the whole Planet", is a grandiose claim not supported by any of the three sources you supplied.

The first one says, in the first sentence, in a vague and obviously hyperbolic manner, with no substantiating details to support it, that "In the age of the coronavirus, the world, it seems, is looking at the traditional Indian ‘namaste’ to greet, convey respect and also maintain a safe distance." Note: "It seems"; "is looking at", not "doing". It does get more specific in the very next sentence: "Several world leaders and others are now using the simple joining of hands to say “Hello”, “Hi” and “How do you do” the Indian way." Several. This comes nowhere near support the assertion made by your contribution that namaste is becoming the alternative that is replacing the handshake in the whole planet. The source conveys nothing of the swell of enthusiastic adoption conveyed by your text.

The next source says only that "the Namaste gesture is now catching up, with people politely declining to extend their hand to greet". The next two paragraphs squarely put the focus on the subsidence of the handshake, not on the namaste gesture, and with no implication that "catching up" means anything other than that there's less handshaking, it it says nothing about it being a worldwide phenomenon. (Then, bizarrely, after the second paragraph, with no mentions of namaste after the first, the source leaves the subject of greetings altogether and veers off into the impact of the pandemic on the garment industry. This is not exactly a coherent article.)

The third one makes no claims of any kind about any greeting. It notes that hand shaking is no longer advisable, and suggests a number of alternatives culled from gestures of greeting around the world, of which namaste is only one (i.e., namaste is not "the alternative"). It supplies no support for your text.

You've provided no relevant basis for your superlative claim, which I found doubtful in the first place. Largoplazo (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@BoldLuis: I see that despite what I wrote above, you haven't responded and, after User:DpEpsilon altered your contribution, you reverted their changes, leaving the edit summary "Sources were added. Neutrality and sources." As I point out above, you haven't added sources that demonstrate your assertion. It isn't neutral, it's hyperbole: It reads like "Hey, kids, this is the latest greeting that's taking the planet by storm!". Largoplazo (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This was read later. First I read the article, later my talk page. No message there. Later, I saw your message here. Nothing was said about the talk page. No hurry, this namaste changes are not going for a day or two. Let's go to the topic:

As said, there are not only this three. There are tons of them signaling to the same direction and that complete the image that people are not using handshakes (banned in social use) and replace by another greetings. This change is not only by social use, also health and all kinds of authorities recommends it. I understand that you in the business sphere, think than nothing has changed. But few people that use handshake, are risking. Personally, I do not do it, because affect with a case related with this.

• https://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/health/namaste-5-greetings-that-have-replaced-the-handshake-due-to-coronavirus-44579872 . From Africa. : Namaste: 5 greetings that have replaced the handshake due to coronavirus. In the same title of the article. "As the coronavirus continues to spread all across the world, some people have dropped the most frequently used form of greeting - the handshake.". Some greetings are someway risking. For example, foot shake is not recommend because you do not respect social separation. Because of this namaste (also known with other names in different cultures) is inclusively more used than never before.
• https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-13/coronavirus-namaste-greetings-handshakes-noncontact Los Angeles. Joined palms, hands on hearts, Vulcan salutes: Saying hello in a no-handshake era. Pressing your palms together (shortly, pressing palms or namaste) "Handshakes? Not advised. Fist bumps? Not recommended. Kisses on the cheek? Absolutely not. " It is not only replacing handshakes, but any type of social violating distance greetings. "Even elbow bumps are too close for comfort, according to the head of the World Health Organization." It is not you or it is not. It is WHO. "As we enter the era of social distancing...". "It will not be easy: Handshakes and hugs are so ingrained in our culture — a movement that is nearly akin to an automatic reflex — that it seems cold, if not downright hostile, to withhold the gesture, especially in encounters with relatives, friends and even colleagues. The coronavirus pandemic has compelled public health authorities to seriously suggest forms of greeting that avoid contact." It was a cultura change. I also like kisses and hughs, but only with my family (because live in the same home), from now on. ;-( "One gesture that WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus recommends is the Hindu greeting of namaste" (or pressing same person both hands together, to say it in a humourly manner, to avoid confusion with pressing another people hand/s]. "Many world leaders have ditched the handshake and opted to use that gesture in recent days."(...)"Recently, some friends began leaning away when he reached out to greet them. It was awkward. “But I think this is a positive change,” he said. “I’m aware that we’re in a critical situation, and this is something that’s necessary to stop the virus from spreading. So I’m happy to do it.”" (...) “An epidemic like this can really bring us to our humanity,” he said. “In a way, it eliminates all of these stereotypes that we have about how certain groups behave the way they do. It’s hygienic but, more importantly, it’s also a sign of respect and endearment.'”.
• See this (I did not suspected): "In 2018, for instance, a Swedish Muslim woman placed her hand over her heart instead of extending it to a job interviewer. The interview was terminated. The woman filed a successful discrimination complaint.Earlier, in 2016, Switzerland suspended the naturalization process for the family of two teenage Muslim brothers who declined to shake hands with female teachers. In 2018, France denied citizenship to an Algerian woman who decline to shake the hand of a male official during a naturalization ceremony." Mandatory handshakes are antihygienic and racist. Wow!!!.
• The same source: Bowing, a gesture with roots in Asia and Europe, has also been suggested. Nothing about European origin of bowing was included in the article.
• https://www.msn.com/en-za/health/healthnews/namaste-5-greetings-that-have-replaced-the-handshake-due-to-coronavirus/ar-BB112nMQ "Namaste: 5 greetings that have replaced the handshake due to coronavirus. As the coronavirus continues to spread all across the world, some people have dropped the most frequently used form of greeting - the handshake".
• http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200512-say-hello-to-the-worlds-new-greetings BBC:"Say hello to the world new greetings". "Covid-19 has fundamentally changed the way we interact, and physical greetings with potential to spread the virus are among its cultural casualties. But the ways people around the world are adapting to this new reality suggests that we haven’t yet lost the human urge to say “hello”." Alessandro Duranti, professor of anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles, participates in the article. "From the ancient, clasped-palmed Indian “namaste”". Another way to say censored (do it really must be a taboo or censorship?) namaste ---> clasped palms. "'“‘The most important thing in the world is people,’” Matamua said, quoting a Maori proverb. “So, if customs and traditions are not applicable or harm people, we change them.”"
• https://globalnews.ca/news/6623121/coronavirus-handshake-alternatives/ "People around the world are coming up with new substitutes for traditional greetings like the handshake, the hug, the high-five and the cheek-kiss, amid rising concern about the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.The virus spreads through tiny water droplets expelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes or exhales, according to the World Health Organization. These droplets can infect a person if they come in contact with the eyes, nose or mouth — and one way they can get there is by hitching a ride during a handshake."
• https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/487099-handshakes-are-declining-thanks-to-coronavirus "Handshakes are declining thanks to coronavirus. Here's what's replacing them. Health officials warn that handshakes can spread germs, including those that cause COVID-19." "Dr. William Petri, an infectious disease expert at University of Virginia School of Medicine, says, “Handshakes are definitely out, and frequent handwashing and the use of hand disinfectants are in." "According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI): “Handshakes have the potential to transmit infectious organisms directly between individuals.” A 2014 study suggests that a single handshake transfers 124 million live bacteria on average." Wow!!!. I did not know it was that huge amount!!!.
• https://www.communityrun.org/petitions/say-hello-by-namaste-and-goodbye-to-handshake “Say Hello with Namaste and Goodbye to Handshake”.
• https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/ajinkya-rahane-on-training-coronavirus-vaccine-celebrations-1675008-2020-05-06 May be handshakes will be replaced by a Namaste: Ajinkya Rahane on celebrations post Covid-19 outbreak. India batsman Ajinkya Rahane opened up on possibilities of cricket after coronavirus outbreak and change in the style of celebrations post the pandemic.
• [[1]] A handshake is a globally widespread, brief greeting or parting tradition in which two people ... In India and several nearby countries, the respectful Namaste gesture, sometimes ... Calgary, Tomas Feasby, suggested that fist bumps may be a "nice replacement of the handshake" in an effort to prevent transmission of the virus.
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/covid-19-pm-netanyahu-encourages-israelis-to-replace-handshakes-with-namaste/article30988766.ece COVID-19 | Prime Minister Netanyahu encourages Israelis to replace handshakes with ‘Namaste’ "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrated at a press conference how the Indians do ‘Namaste’ while greeting people". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday encouraged his countrymen to adopt ‘Namaste’ — the Indian way of greeting — instead of the normal handshake as one of the measures to prevent the spread of the deadly coronavirus. At a press conference following a review meeting to fight the spread of coronavirus, Mr. Netanyahu said that several measures will be announced to prevent the spread of coronavirus but some simple measures like avoiding the normal handshake while greeting people may possibly be replaced with other forms of greetings like the Indian ‘Namaste’. He also demonstrated at the press conference as to how the Indians do ‘Namaste’ while greeting people.
• https://www.inquirer.com/news/coronavirus-handshake-ritual-namaste-bow-east-west-20200421.html "After coronavirus, will the handshake go the way of the hat tip?" "In the age of coronavirus, handshakes are verboten. Besides, the assistant professor of human resource management at Temple University’s Fox School of Business is cocooned at his Philadelphia residence, teaching and meeting via Zoom, without much opportunity to engage in firm grips"...“I will be a staunch advocate of namaste for as long as this COVID thing is an issue,” he said, mentioning the customary, contact-free Hindu greeting often accompanied by a slight bow of the head and palms pressed together (a gesture known as anjuli mudra). “I’ll be leaning into that, both because it’s beautiful but also because of safety." (quality added to hygienic, as said before). For a virus-shaken public, reengaging in old habits may not come easily. Of foremost concern, arguably, is that germ transferring ritual known as the handshake. Our five-digit appendages, after all, touch our faces all the time (as has become abundantly clear when asked not to), get used to blow our noses, suppress sneezes (when the elbow protocol is forgotten), and are used to clean ourselves in the bathroom. Despite the custom’s ancient history and cultural significance in America, the handshake may be seeing its time come and gone, like the hat tip. "Certainly, that would be the case if Anthony Fauci, the demigod of all things coronavirus, has his way. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House coronavirus task force suggested recently that Americans should never shake hands again."

“When you gradually come back, you don’t jump into it with both feet,” Fauci said in a Wall Street Journal podcast. You say, what are the things you could still do and still approach normal?’ One of them is absolute compulsive handwashing. The other is you don’t ever shake anybody’s hands."" "Then the doctor added: “I don’t think we should ever shake hands ever again, to be honest with you.”" "Could the handshake really come to an abrupt halt for all time? Kudesia argued that the likelihood is pretty small. He ventured that in three years, any reduction in the practice would be negligible. Consider the Lindy effect, Kudesia said. That’s the idea that the longer something has been around, the longer it is likely to stick around in the future. " . “The handshake wasn’t born out of courtesy or goodwill, but fear',” said Pamela Eyring, president of the Protocol School of Washington that offers business etiquette and communications skills around the world." Wow. “Fauci is talking about a paradigm shift in our culture in a moment when people are tuned in,” she said. “The whole COVID pandemic is like a global cue to action. It’s really important to leverage it.” "Frasso, also an associate professor of public health, teaches her students about the stages of change model. The first three of six stages are precontemplation, when a person is unaware his behavior is causing a health problem; contemplation, when he starts weighing the pros and cons of that behavior; and preparation, when he decides to take action soon for a healthier life, she explained."

• [Ufff lazy of writting here the sources; but you asked for them and there are tonnes of them about disappearing handshake out there, more than for and ended doctoral thesis in this field of my speciality ...]
• https://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/keep-your-hands-to-yourself-indian-namaste-rises-to-prominence/article_8d95049e-5f35-11ea-9291-2f2f975c42f1.html ‘Keep Your Hands to Yourself’: Indian Namaste Rises to Prominence Amid Coronavirus Outbreak. Indian actor Anupam Kher has urged people to opt for Namaste to greet people to contain the spread of Coronavirus."But when you meet someone, how do you know if he/she has spent 20 seconds washing their hands as prescribed? So, according to many, the best way to minimize the risk is to avoid handshakes altogether and adopt the Indian way of greeting: Namaste." Time for humour

"If you continue attempting to shake hands, your attempts will be rebuffed, just like German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s were. Earlier this week, Germany’s interior minister was caught on camera refusing to shake the hand of Merkel. He acknowledges the gesture in a widely circulated video but keeps his hands to himself."

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-spain/frances-macron-models-virus-proof-greeting-the-namaste-idUSKBN20Y27S "France's Macron models virus-proof greeting: the namaste. Mindful of the coronavirus outbreak, when French President Emmanuel Macron greeted Spain’s king and queen on Wednesday, he replaced the traditional handshake with an Indian-style namaste, pressing his palms together and bowing slightly"..."European public health authorities say people should avoid shaking hands' to curb the spread of coronavirus, which can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact. Heir to the British throne Prince Charles deployed the namaste-style greeting instead of handshakes earlier this week as he greeted guests at a Commonwealth event in London. "
• https://theconversation.com/is-coronavirus-the-end-of-the-handshake-133185 Is coronavirus the end of the handshake? “Please refrain from hand shaking,” read a sign at an event in London I recently attended. Underneath the words was a small image of two disembodied hands shaking, surrounded by a red circle struck through with a diagonal line. while Italians, reeling from the highest numbers of infections in Europe, are trying out new rules of social engagement that represent a drastic departure from their high-contact normal social gestures of kissing and embrace.But perhaps the most extreme example comes from Denmark, where naturalisation ceremonies have been suspended because a handshake has been a legally mandated part of the ceremony since a conservative change to the law in 2018. Widely criticised at the time as an anti-immigration (xenophoby, racism) initiative, the law is now making hundreds wait for Danish citizenship because of the pandemic." "Bruce Aylward, Team Lead WHO-China joint mission on COVID-19, offers an elbow to a reporter reaching out for a handshake. " "The coronavirus outbreak is causing people to rethink the handshake and seek other gestures that perform similar functions without touch"."This global health crisis calls into question the role of touch in culturally specific gestures of greeting and expressions of connection. Removing the assumption that we will probably touch one another fundamentally changes the repertoire of gestures we have at our disposal. The request to “refrain from hand shaking” has the potential to significantly re-script how we perform our relationships to one another. A global response might result in moving toward new performed gestures that redefine how we interact with one another."
• https://www.nimdzi.com/namaste-is-the-new-handshake-will-covid-19-redefine-greeting-etiquette/ "Namaste Is the New Handshake': Will COVID-19 Redefine Greeting Etiquette?" the way we greet each other is changing due to the coronavirus pandemic. Experts are advising to put handshakes, kisses, hugs and any other gestures violating a person’s personal space on hold. We can easily spread germs with a simple handshake, so we better keep our hands in our pockets." "Greeting each other is an automatic gesture, sometimes even difficult to control. Therefore, authorities have been warning about the dangers of doing it right now and recommending alternatives. New creative ways of greeting have emerged in the last few days, such as elbow bumps or leg shakes. The old-fashioned waving with your hand from a prudent distance has also been very popular these days. World leaders such as Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and even Donald Trump have borrowed the traditional ‘namaste’ greeting from India." "Everything will be back to normal (or a new normal, perhaps) in a few months."
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-and-the-rise-of-namaste-2116537.html "Coronavirus and the rise of Namaste The world is now ditching the handshake, which can transfer an average of 124 million colony-forming units of E coli"."In addition to yoga, another aspect of traditional Indian lifestyle—greeting others with a namaste or namaskar— is storming the globe"."Physicians and world leaders are advising the people to minimise social contact. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, while advising people to avoid handshakes, even demonstrated how Indians greet each other with a namaste." "Today, amid the outbreak of coronavirus, people are afraid of such physical contact as this might compromise their hygiene to a great extent. " "Handshakes are known to spread a number of microbial pathogens, due to skin-to-skin contact. There are several academic studies in different parts of the globe to study how germs spread through handshakes. In a 2014 article in the journal American Journal of Infection Control, two researchers—Sara Mela and David E Whitworth—illustrated that a handshake transfers an average of 124 million colony-forming units of Escherichia coli— almost twice as high as that during high-fives and about 20 times more than in the case of fist bumps. In fact, handshakes cover a large contact area—24.4 square inches, and also last longer (three seconds, on an average) than high-fives or fist bumps. Earlier, during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, Thomas Feasby, the dean of medicine at the University of Calgary, Canada, suggested that fist bumps may be a “nice replacement of the handshake” to prevent transmission of the virus. In a 2009 article in BMJ, one of the world’s oldest general medical journals, Malvinder S Parmar of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine opined against handshakes by mentioning that “it is time to re-think this form of greeting or salutation to avoid unnecessary physical contact and proximity among people”. Parmar advocated the use of the Indian-style namaste instead, as an example of a greeting where “close physical contact is avoided without causing insult or negative feelings among the parties involved”."

I hope I have done a good picture of the situation and that you enjoy it as much as me writting it. I am going happy to answer any remarks you want to do. --BoldLuis (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Running through what a number of these sources say and comparing them to your text:

• "From the ancient, clasped-palmed Indian “namaste” to the brand-new elbow bump used by US politicians, the ways people are reshaping their greetings for coronavirus also reveal insights into their respective cultures. " does not equate to "namaste is becoming the alternative that is replacing handshake in the whole Planet". In fact, every source you provided that mentions namaste as one of a number of alternatives contradicts your assertion that namaste is become the alternative, as your sources demonstrate that, to the extent that it's in use at all, it's only one alternative out of many.
• Reports that named individuals (Prince Charles, Emmanuel Macron) are using it or that "some people" are using it does not equate to "namaste is becoming the alternative that is replacing handshake in the whole Planet".
• Nor do predictions such as "May be handshakes will be replaced by a 'Namaste': Ajinkya Rahane" equate to your statement that it is already an established worldwide phenomenon.
• Nor does anything you posted that consists of someone suggesting that people adopt it, such as "In the interest of health hygiene for everyone, I’d like to propose replacing “handshaking” with “namaste” for anyone greeting another person as they go about their everyday life " or "Some people are encouraging "namaste" as a respectful greeting, which proponents claim reduces transmission to zero." or Binyamin Netanyahu or Anupam Kher recommending it. None of these supports a statement that namaste has become not only a replacement, but the replacement for the handshake, worldwide.

After reviewing at least a dozen of your sources, I see none that support your addition to the article. I may have skipped a few, but the ones I did review indicating that you don't really get what it would take for a source to support what you'd written, so I feel safe assuming that the others you selected don't support it either. Largoplazo (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)