I’ve been wondering lately: when the instructor at the end of class thanks the class for practicing yoga with her, and tells us “Namaste”, are we to reciprocate or not? I understand Namaste to have a meaning similar to “I bow to that which is Divine within you”, but I’m not sure if this is the instructor’s time to recognize us, or if we are to recognize each other.
Good question!
I believe the transliteration is “bow me you” and thus it is a simple form of greeting and respect. How it is used varies, just as any method of respect afforded another human being varies.
If you are feeling a reverence for the practice and a connection with the teacher and what has been shared of yoga preceding, then by all means feel free to express it in kind. If on the other hand you are not feeling it then there’s no point in reciprocating. In fact in that instance a reciprocation would be contrived and hollow.
gordon
[QUOTE=InnerAthlete;52698]I believe the transliteration is “bow me you” and thus it is a simple form of greeting and respect.[/QUOTE]
Actually there’s no me present in that sentence, it’s more like “(your) name to you”. But it could of course be “(I give your) name to you”, meaning I salute you, or “hello”.
Namah is name and te is you in the dative form, it’s actually two separate words but because of how sandhi works in sanskrit it is written together. The h at the end of namah becomes an s when it meats the t in te, that’s all.
Hi
Namaste is an Indian word to greet the other person. It is used in similar connotation as we use “Hi” in this side of the world.
So, I guess when the instructor says namaste, you need to greet her back with namaste.
From
team member
yogaexpertsonline
[QUOTE=Terje;52836]Actually there’s no me present in that sentence, it’s more like “(your) name to you”. But it could of course be “(I give your) name to you”, meaning I salute you, or “hello”.
Namah is name and te is you in the dative form, it’s actually two separate words but because of how sandhi works in sanskrit it is written together. The h at the end of namah becomes an s when it meats the t in te, that’s all.[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry to call someone’s answer into question, but for the sake of accuracy and pure interest in Sanskrit, I would restate it this way.
Nama is a verb meaning ‘to bow’. The 1st person is implied within the verb. The literal meaning is “I bow to you”. By extension, it also means “I bow to the divinity within you, [which is also within me, which is the union of all of us].” Or at least that’s how I would put it in English.
To answer the OP, I didn’t used to say it until the time came that I really felt gratitute to my teachers for being vessels of yogic knowledge. You can reciprocate if you feel it.
Thanks all. <3
Hi everyone, I have a related question.
Do you bow at the end of the class?
I see it in a number of studios - when teachers say “namaste” and bow slightly after the concluding “ohms”, some (or most) students prostrate themselves in response. As in, do a forward bend from their steated/lotus positions.
On one hand, I feel rude not to join in, but on the other, such response signifies worship to me and seems overly reverent in this context.
What do you think/do?
Lots of oms, shantis, and namastes all around in my class. I do bow to the teacher and my fellow practitioners as a ‘thank you’ for enhancing it. I do love the communal energy in a class.
[QUOTE=Tanguerita;52999] Hi everyone, I have a related question.
Do you bow at the end of the class?
I see it in a number of studios - when teachers say “namaste” and bow slightly after the concluding “ohms”, some (or most) students prostrate themselves in response. As in, do a forward bend from their steated/lotus positions.
On one hand, I feel rude not to join in, but on the other, such response signifies worship to me and seems overly reverent in this context.
What do you think/do?[/QUOTE]
It’s totally up to you, but I personally bow or prostrate myself in lotus when the practice particularly resonated with me. It’s a gesture of humility, and humility is good for you. It is kind of worshipful, but many yogis recognize the divinity within each person, and divinity is a thing to be worshiped. It’s not like worship directed solely at the instructor as if he/she were being regarding as some kind of deity or savior.
As a teacher, if my students chose to do that, I wouldn’t feel like they were revering me personally, and your teacher should know that too. But still, no one is watching you to see if you do it, and it’s not at all rude if you don’t feel it. It actually took me several years of practice until I felt that humility and reverence, and I didn’t do it before I felt it because it would have been phony.
[QUOTE=trinley;52869]I’m sorry to call someone’s answer into question, but for the sake of accuracy and pure interest in Sanskrit, I would restate it this way.
Nama is a verb meaning ‘to bow’. The 1st person is implied within the verb. The literal meaning is “I bow to you”. By extension, it also means “I bow to the divinity within you, [which is also within me, which is the union of all of us].” Or at least that’s how I would put it in English.[/QUOTE]
OK, I don’t agree that nama is a verb and I do wonder then where the h is coming from and what kind of verb ending that would be. It’s been a while since I studied sanskrit, I will check this and get back to you.
As far as I know namah means name and it’s an old indo-european root found in so many languages. It also means salute, but I’d say as a noun, not a verb. What’s wrong with “salute to you”?
By extension namaste may mean all sorts of things but te really is the dative form or the second person singular, “to you”, and at least we seem to agree on that one.
Nama (नम) is in my Sanskrit dictionary as a verb meaning to bow. I think what has caused it to be confused with the noun Nāma (नाम) is that when they’re written in our alphabet, they both look like nama. But, if you can view the devanagari I have used, you see that the first vowel is different between the two words. Namaste is written in devanagari like this: नमस्ते. The root is the verb Nama नम (to bow), not the noun Nāma नाम (name).
I don’t know where the H is coming from either, but I will look into it. It seems like the verb should be in the nominative case, but it doesn’t appear to be. I do know that nama (नम) appears with an H in certain mantras before the name of a deity, one that is being bowed to. For example, Om Namah Shivaya’ (ॐ नमः शिवाय).
[QUOTE=Tanguerita;52999]Hi everyone, I have a related question.
Do you bow at the end of the class?
I see it in a number of studios - when teachers say “namaste” and bow slightly after the concluding “ohms”, some (or most) students prostrate themselves in response. As in, do a forward bend from their steated/lotus positions.
On one hand, I feel rude not to join in, but on the other, such response signifies worship to me and seems overly reverent in this context.
What do you think/do?[/QUOTE]
I have not done so in a while.
What I find most pertinent with this sort of question is the feeling or intention of the student. To do something simply because everyone else does it is antithetical to yoga. Yoga is about defining yourself intrinsically not extrinsically. To bleet along with the crowd is simply being a lemming, it is not freedom or discipline and therefore it could not be respectful (when done only to “go along”).
What I find respectful (coming from my students) is for them to do what they feel based on their level of understanding. Further, it is my job to enrich that understanding as it relates to life/yoga. Nothing is more hollow than that which is done only out of polite training. When a courtesy is extended or a greeting returned it should have a level of sincerity.
If you have not discovered reverence within your practice, to then do something reverent would be in discord with your inner nature.
[QUOTE=Terje;53009] OK, I don’t agree that nama is a verb and I do wonder then where the h is coming from and what kind of verb ending that would be. It’s been a while since I studied sanskrit, I will check this and get back to you.
As far as I know namah means name and it’s an old indo-european root found in so many languages. It also means salute, but I’d say as a noun, not a verb. What’s wrong with “salute to you”? [/QUOTE]
Ok, I’m ready to agree with part of this. In Namaste, namah would have to be a noun since it has no verb ending. But it is a noun form of the verb ‘to bow’, and not the noun nāman (a neuter noun meaning name). So we could say that it literally means “a bow to you” instead of “[I]I[/I] bow to you”. Namas is listed in my dictionary as a neuter noun meaning obeisance (the act of bowing) or homage. There’s nothing wrong with translating it as “salute to you”, but that still is not derived from the noun nāman meaning name and could not mean “(your) name to you”.
[QUOTE=Tanguerita;52999]Hi everyone, I have a related question.
Do you bow at the end of the class?
I see it in a number of studios - when teachers say “namaste” and bow slightly after the concluding “ohms”, some (or most) students prostrate themselves in response. As in, do a forward bend from their steated/lotus positions.
On one hand, I feel rude not to join in, but on the other, such response signifies worship to me and seems overly reverent in this context.
What do you think/do?[/QUOTE]
The bow and namaste hand position, not unlike the tip of the hat, instead of removing it, was one of convenience and traditionally used instead of the verbal exchange when situations suited a silent exchange. In fact bowing and verbalizing was considered redundant for an age.
Reciprocating is so subjective. Some may feel reciprocating when you aren’t feeling it is contrived or hollow, while others might take another stance, even appreciating the effort, the energy exchange as one surrenders a bit of ego, a crack in their psychic armour, and the other receives an exchange and perhaps sets the spark for more genuine warmth to come. Like any communication, case by case and place by place.
[QUOTE=trinley;53038]Ok, I’m ready to agree with part of this. In Namaste, namah would have to be a noun since it has no verb ending. But it is a noun form of the verb ‘to bow’, and not the noun nāman (a neuter noun meaning name). So we could say that it literally means “a bow to you” instead of “[I]I[/I] bow to you”. Namas is listed in my dictionary as a neuter noun meaning obeisance (the act of bowing) or homage. There’s nothing wrong with translating it as “salute to you”, but that still is not derived from the noun nāman meaning name and could not mean “(your) name to you”.[/QUOTE]
Hey, thanks for going through all the trouble. I do think you are right about it not meaning (“your) name to you”. My sanskrit dictionary is in the basement, among loads of other books. It’s gonna take an hour to dig it out, so I haven’t done it yet. It’s long ago and I have forgotten a great deal, never did learn a lot of vocabulary. Interesting about the different nama you mention and the difference was very clear in devanagari.
Hey, how do I get devanagari script here? Or even on my computer?
Anyway, it was the ending in this case and not what the word may be derived from that made me think of it as a masculine noun in the nominative case (or a participle, or an adjective with that type of ending). The ending being -ah, turns to -as when it meets the t in te.
The ending definitely doesn’t look like any kind of verb ending to me, they are very different (-ami, -ti). It may seem that I’m reading this backwards but often in sanskrit that’s what you do becasue you need to deal with the sandhi and the endings first to figure out what the words actually are since everything gets written together.
The meaning, even without a verb, seems easy enough, “salutation to you”. No real verb needed, and exactly where the idea of “… to the divinity within you” comes from is not clear to me but sure, the underlying meaning can be “(here is my respectful) salutation to you”. So, it’s not “hi’ya”, I can agree to that.
There’s another reason for thinking the way I do on this. In buddhism there is a phrase of worship said in respect to the Buddha, it’s in pali and goes “namo tassa bhagavato arahato samasambuddhassa”. All words ending on -ssa are in the genitive/dative case (they are often the same in pali, both in form and in meaning), the two ending on -o are in the nominative case. It would translate something like “(my respectful) salutation to you, the lord, the arahant, the fully enlithgetend one”. Look at it again, remembering that genitive and dative blur in pali you see that “namo tassa” is the same thing as namaste.
These kind of constructions are very common in sanskrit, pali and later also in modern Indian langauges. In sinhala (my wife is sinhalese) they say “having gone (I’ll) come back”, meaning “see ya”. It sounds clumsy in english but in sinhala it’s a simple two word phrase (gehin ennan), just like it would be in sanskrit.
The main reason for this is that the verb system is so terribly complicated (at least in sanskrit) that people try to avoid it. Participles are used very often instead opf verbs. Sanskrit typically says whole sentences in long compounds of adjectives with either a very simply verb at the end or none.
Oh yes, word order is another rerason why I don’t think namah in namaste is verb, becasue unless it’s poetry the verb comes last in sanskrit with it’s regressive word order, so “tenamah” in that case but that’s not how it is because once again, that ain’t a verb! It just acts like one.
Yes, we are agreed that nama is not in verb form here. The discussion that remains is the significance of the word. One reason I say that by extension Namaste includes “… to the divinity within you” is because the word means ‘to bow’ and bowing is a reverential act. But the more important reason is that just looking up the definition of a word will not tell you the connotations of that the word within a culture. Even though you don’t see any roots within the word Namaste that can be defined as “… to the divinity within you”, it is widely accepted that that is a part of it. You can even find this information on Wikipedia. Aadil Palkhivala writes this for Yoga Journal: http://www.exoticindiaart.com/acrobat/namaste.pdf. Here is another article describing the depth and the nuances of the word:
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/acrobat/namaste.pdf. I realize this article appears on a website selling art, but the writer lists some credible references. Furthermore, an Indian writer would be more privy to the connotations of the word than you or I would. A few minutes of Googling will turn up similar explanations. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed to find a source that defines Namaste simply as “Salutations”. Let me know if you do.
You can download the Devanagari font onto your computer. Google “download Devanagari” and you will be on your way.
You may be absolutely right. There is, forinstnace and no comparison whatsoever otherwise, a similar thing with a swedish expression for hello that today sounds more like slang. We say “tjena”, or sometimes the longer “tj?nare”.
In the latter case one of the original words is still there from the full form of the phrase which was “Jag ?r eder allra ?dmjukaste tj?nare”, which means “I am you most humble servant” (so in english it’d be like shortening it to “servant” and later to “serve”).
However, to say that people using “tjena” today are aware of the original meaning isin most cases not right and today it is slang and a less polite but sort of intimate way of saying “hello” in swedish. Hard to tell exactly how namaste has developed over the years.
I’ll check into the devanagari font. I need a good sinhala font too.