Something recently stood out to me when reading and re-considering the long definition of “Namaste.” I’ll post it here for quick reference. So here it is:
“I honor the place in you where spirit lives. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light, and of peace. When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are One.”
So there you have it. I have always taken that as a greeting which acknowledges unequivocal, indisputable equality between myself and another. But lo!, notice that it says “when you are in that place in you” and “when I am in that place in me.”
And so you see, “Namaste” is really a social contract. An agreement. In certain settings, upon meeting others, we may be under the assumption that the other person is in that place. And by offering the Namaste to them, we are telling them that they are safe to assume that we are in that place. It is holding one to a high standard of separation from ego-consciousness. Namaste may just be the key to helping one know himself, helping him to stop and consider his spiritual clarity upon meeting others. Not in comparison to others, mind you. Just how clearly he sees his Self, how much of a cleft there is between the Atman and the Brahman.
Namaste should not be given lightly, my friends. We cannot know what state the other is in, but we can know ourselves. Maybe one is not meant to give a Namaste if one does not intend to be “in that place” in himself. Or maybe we are saying something to ourselves just as much as we are to the other person.
Just something to think about.
Jai Hari Aum.