Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm
gabrielbranbury wrote: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?
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
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.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:17 am
- Location: Michigan, USA
Mawkish1983 wrote: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?
You beat me to it. I checked it on Wikipedia and the description there was not
helpful in a Buddhist context. Thanks for asking!
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. Li Bai
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests