Añjali icon

[piotr]

Hi,

Someone on this board suggested that it would be useful to have an "añjali icon". Here is one:

[tiltbillings]

Not that I use them, but it is nice to have an actual Buddhist icon rather than using a Hindu one.

[green]

Hi,

Someone on this board suggested that it would be useful to have an "añjali icon". Here is one:

Great! I agree, it's great to have a Buddhist one.

[David N. Snyder]

I added it.

[piotr]

Hi,

Great! I'm glad you like it.

[Jechbi]

Thanks you!

[Prasadachitta]

Hi,

Great! I'm glad you like it.

I have refrained from using the other one so thanks.

[tiltbillings]

Can we pass it around? Share it with Zen Forum International folks?

[piotr]

Sure, why not?

[Mawkish1983]

Call me stupid (I'm sorry for my ignorance) but what does Anjali mean? Is it an exclusively Buddhist term? How is it different from Namaste?

[piotr]

Hi Mawkish,

Take a look here: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... 1:293.pali

Namaste has just different spiritual background.

[Prasadachitta]

Namaste = I bow to that (divinity) inherent in you.

That is why it is not Buddhist.


Metta

Gabriel

[Cittasanto]

Love it!
but is their a Buddhist equivalent to Namaste?

With Metta
Manapa

[Jechbi]

I haven't minded using the "namaste" one too much, because I figure it's a nice sentiment even if it might be flavored with mundane wrong view. I've also heard it translated as "I recognize the Buddha in you," and loosely that could mean, I recognize our potential to be enlightened. If we drop the whole me/you duality, then "namaste" becomes a little more "Buddhist." And if we also drop the whole divine/ordinary duality, it becomes even a little more "Buddhist." But the most important part of the emoticon in my mind was the hand-to-hand bow.

Regardless, this new icon is better.

[Prasadachitta]

On second thought the Buddha did not deny divinity and he also recognized the value to be found in acting out of divine intention.

So there is no reason to say that using "namaste" somehow contradicts Buddhist principles except the part about the divinity being "inherent" which Im not sure it means. I got that from wicki.

Metta

Gabriel

[Peter]

On second thought the Buddha did not deny divinity and he also recognized the value to be found in acting out of divine intention.

He did not deny devas, powerful beings born in heavenly realms due to past meritorious acts.

But he did deny the Hindu (Brahman) notion of everyone being part of the same ultimate divine source, which is what "namaste" generally refers to.

If one wants to redefine words to make them fit Buddhist principles... well the Buddha did that all the time but he was clear about doing it. Are you going to explain your redefinitions every time you say "namaste" to someone? Or are you going to reinforce popular misconceptions about what Buddhists believe?

[Prasadachitta]

I Dont use the term "namaste". I was just ruminating. What your saying is that "inherent divinity" or "produced by divinity" is an important part of what "namaste" means. This is what I thought and that is why I dont use it.

Metta

Gabriel

[AdvaitaJ]

Call me stupid (I'm sorry for my ignorance) but what does Anjali mean? Is it an exclusively Buddhist term? How is it different from Namaste?

Mawkish,

You beat me to it. I checked it on Wikipedia and the description there was not helpful in a Buddhist context. Thanks for asking!

AdvaitaJ