Namaste

Malcolm Smith unpacks the meaning of "Namaste" and asks whether "the divine within me, honoring the divine within you" is a doctrinally sound concept through a New Church lens. -Editor

In India and Nepal the traditional greeting is to say, “Namaste” and bow slightly to the other person with your hands pressed together in front of your chest. In Sanskrit, namaste literally means simply “I bow to you,” but this simple phrase has also been invested with many other meanings. For example, “I honor the Spirit in you which is also in me” and “That which is of God in me greets that which is of God in you.” The authors of the Wikipedia article on namaste argue that it’s just the equivalent of “how do you do you?” and it’s not accurate to say that it means these things.

In recent times the term “namaste” has come to be especially associated with yoga, spirituality and meditation in the United States, Europe, and Australia. In this context, it has been redeployed in terms of a multitude of very complicated and florid new meanings which do not tie in with original meaning or etymologically sound analyses of the word.

However, regardless of whether it is accurate to say that namaste means these things, the idea of that which is of God in me honoring that which is of God in another person is out there and I want to examine this idea from the perspective of some New Church teachings.

There are two main pieces to the idea of that which is of God in me honoring that which is of God in another person: (1) the idea of God being within me and that other person; and (2) the idea of God in one person recognizing/acknowledging/honoring God in another person. Let’s start with the first idea. Divine Providence 57 states that

because anything finite has nothing of the Divine in it, therefore nothing Divine, not even the least, is present in a person or angel as something his own; for a person or angel is finite and merely a recipient vessel that is in itself lifeless. Anything living in him comes from the emanating Divinity conjoined with him by a discontinuous connection, which appears to him as something his own.

If someone reads this quickly, it might seem to him that it’s saying that “nothing Divine, not even the least, is present in a person or angel” and so he might conclude that the New Church teaches that God is not within a person. But if he reads it carefully he’ll see that it actually says that “nothing Divine, not even the least, is present in a person or angel as something his own” (emphasis added). We are recipient vessels. If we didn’t receive life from the Lord—if we didn’t have God within us—we wouldn’t exist. As Jesus said, “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me” (John 15:4).

It’s clear, then, that the New Church supports the idea of God being within people and that that which is of God in a person is not the person’s own—as the passage says, it’s “conjoined with him by a discontinuous connection.”

Now let’s consider the idea of that which is of God in me recognizing that which is of God in someone else. Divine Providence 53 tells us that “the Divine cannot regard anything other than the Divine, and it cannot regard this anywhere else than in things created by it.” And it goes on to explain why this is the case:

The reality of this is plain from the fact that no one can regard another except from the standpoint of some quality that he has in himself. One who loves another regards him from the standpoint of the love that he has in himself. One who is wise regards another from the standpoint of the wisdom that he has in himself. He may indeed see that the other either does or does not love him, or that the other either is or is not wise, but this he sees from the love and wisdom in himself. …

It is the same with the Divine in itself….

In short, it is possible for the Lord to have an abode and dwell in a person or angel only in something His own, and not in something native to them; for their native character is evil, and even if it were good, still it would be finite, which in and of itself cannot encompass the infinite.

So the Lord can only regard/recognize/acknowledge us by means of the love and wisdom that are in us from Him. The same is the case for us: we can only regard other people from the love and wisdom that we have. And we’re supposed to be looking for love and wisdom in our neighbors. “The essence of loving the neighbor is not loving a person, but the good in him” (True Christian Religion 417). “Loving the good in another out of the goodness in oneself is the real love for the neighbor; then the goodness in each kisses the other and establishes a mutual bond” (True Christian Religion 418).

In summary, then, we can say that from the love and wisdom in us from the Lord we are to regard the love and wisdom from the Lord in other people—or, to put it in different words, “That which is of God in me greets that which is of God in you.”

Malcolm Smith

Malcolm has recently become a priest and will be heading to South Africa soon to become the Assistant to the Pastor of New Church Westville (www.newchurchwestville.co.za). He also has a blog (www.newchurchthought.org) that he updates fairly regularly.

Comments

[P]

Great article. I love being inclusive with ideas, but I especially like also being inclusive with a critical eye. Your doctrinal review makes using "Namaste" seem meaningful and fun. I'll have to try it next time I meet a New Church friend. If they wonder what I mean, I can always point them to your article.

Thanks!

[Freya Fitzpatrick]

I really appreciate having some specific passages and clear thought and analysis based on those passages to support (or call into question) an idea in pop-culture. I could theoretically do this sort of research myself, but whether from sloth or lack of time, I seldom do the doctrinal research that I wish I could, so I appreciate your article and the time you took to do it for me.

Freya

[Isaac Synnestvedt]

Namaste, friend! (I cringed there for a minute, thinking nama mightn't ste, but I became reassured as I took in the gently affirming content of your article:)