Talk:Namaste/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unicode Writing/Rendering 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not a stub? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another meaning 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  In American Culture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One meaning deleted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Namaste in popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Namaste and Good Bye 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  photo credit? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spurious attribution to Deepak Chopra 

message: 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)
replies: text: Be bold and change it. --DocNox (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for acute accent? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improper "pranam" redirect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Response? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Namaste True/Literal Definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Religious salutation? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference 7 is misleading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uses 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strange sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the etymology section has been infiltrated by esoteric nonsense 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Convoluted etymology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  accented e in Namesté ?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Meanings and interpretation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture requested 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor sources 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Unsourced will be removed. You can discuss with any wiki Admins for it. Blueyarn (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The fine line between legitimate removal of unsourced content and wholesale systematic deletion of unchallenged content 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Italics or not? 

message: Substituted at 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of Namaste 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The namaste gesture can also mean "no, thank-you" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Read WP:TALK#FACTS and Deal with facts Blueyarn (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Namaste and Buddhism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Namaste in school controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wrong pronunciation key at beginning of article 

message: "/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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: "...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)
thread_title:  The standing posture