Vishnu Sahasranama and Talk:Belief: Difference between pages

Revision as of 14:10, 16 December 2004

Revision as of 18:19, 22 July 2007

Line 1:

{{talkheader}}

[[Image:Vishnu.jpg|right|thumb|Vishnu]]

{{philosophy|class=start|importance=}}

{{WikiProject Psychology|class=start|importance=Mid}}

{{WP1.0|class=Start|category=category|VA=yes}}

Hmm. Im wondering, how come Hume and Kant seem to be quoted so often here in WP.

Certainly they are [[pillar]]s of western thought, but they do have some [[holes]] in their ideas, and besides, I thought we had long ago begun the process of [[weening]] ourselves off of our [[sacred cow]]s of [[westernism]].

----

"Westernism"? What's that? If you mean Western culture generally, um, no, I'm not aware that anyone other than some "postmodern" and extremely politically correct types are making a move to "weaning ourselves" off of this material. We've got to have a huge amount of such material on Wikipedia if it's going to be complete. But this doesn't stop you from adding as much "non-Western" (whatever that means) type material as you like. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

----

Not again... More silly resentment towards "postmodernism" and "politically correct types".... they're not out to kill you. So you disagree with them, get over it. I'd be willing to bet that you (yes, you, Larry Sanger) will be dwelling on this absurd cynicism for a very long time. Postmodernism is just a catch-all phrase for something easy to criticise; the fact is that there is no such thing as a postmodern "movement" or "school of thought" or "belief system"... The obsession with postmodernism is simply a phenomenon among critics who are desperate for a board to throw darts at.

----

The ''Vishnu sahasranama'' (literally: thousand names of [[Vishnu]]) is a list of 1,031 names for [[Vishnu]], one of the main forms of [[God]] in [[Hinduism]]. It is recited, often with a preface, as a [[prayer]] by many [[Vaishnavite]]s (followers of Vishnu).

Would it be relevant (or interesting) to mention the logical convolutions of [[Raymond Smullyan]], eg characters who believe one thing, but consistently lie, so say the opposite, etc?

----

I'm not sure--why would it (on this page)? Wouldn't that belong on [[lying]] or something like that? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

According to [[Hindu]] mythology, the names were handed down to [[Yudhisthira]] by grand sire [[Bheeshma]], who was on his death bed at the battle of ''Kurukshetra'', as described in the Shantiparva of the epic [[Mahabharata]]. Yudhisthira asks Bhisma the following questions:

: Just a thought (I'll crib what I've typed here to pad out the stub on Smulllyan, at any rate). At one point he introduces characters who only believe only false things, yet lie: hence all their statements are true. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]]

# In this universe who is the one Lord of all (i.e., at whose command all beings function.)?

# What is that one supreme status which one should seek to attain?

# Who is the one Divinity by praising and by worshiping whom a man attains good?

# Which according to you is that highest form of Dharma (capable of bestowing salvation and prosperity on man)?

# What is that by uttering or reciting which any living being can attain freedom from cycle of births and deaths?

I wonder what point he was making with that. Sounds interesting...

Bhisma answers by stating that mankind will be free from all sorrows by chanting the '''Vishnu Sahasranama''' which are the thousand names of the one All-Pervading [[Supreme Being]] who is master of all the worlds, supreme over the [[Devas]] and who is [[Brahman]]. The reference from which this citation is taken and adapted is shown below.

==Is belief voluntary?==

Actually, there is something interestingly relevant we could add from the literature in epistemology: it's widely held that most people have no control over most of what they believe... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

: I made a stub section on this matter. Please expand and improve. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 11:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I may add my own experience (and I am quite sure many people would recognize a pattern here)...

I have a firm belief that reincarnation exists because instinctively I can't imagine I could stop being conscious after death, but I also admit I can't live forever. But by rational thinking I also know that nothing to my knowledge can justify reincarnation. This is only one example among others where belief seems to oppose knowledge. I think there are many other such examples, essentially about concepts difficult or impossible to prove, for example involving the existence or non-existance of God.

[[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 09:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

If I find the time... I'll try to add sometime here. Hume (amongst others) noted that we acquire beliefs passively, that the aquisition of them is not subject to the will. Bernard Williams' paper 'Deciding to Believe' investigated this and tries to show that the coneptual relations between belief, truth and evidence rule out voluntary believing. While some have shown that his argument for the incoherence of 'believing at will' is not quite right, most philsophers do believe that decision and belief can't be linked in the same way as, for instance, decision and imagination : I can successfully decide to imagine a scene, but I can't successfullly decide to belief that scene represents truely. However, as Williams noted, this doesn't rule out deciding and influencing our belief by more "roundabout routes". One could embark on a course of action, hypnosis or drugs were his suggestions, such that afterwards you would have brought it about that you belive some proposition or other. Williams remarks that this would make the person "deeply irrational". Some have questioned this but it reamins to be seen whether any convincing account of belief at will can be found. ([[User:Fabulist|Fabulist]] 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

There are Sahasranama for major forms of God (Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, and others), but Vishnu Sahasranama is most popular among common people, especially householders. The others are recited mostly in temples or by renunciants who pray to Vishnu as the Supreme God with personal attributes.

However, the term, sahasranama, by itself, generally refers to Vishnu sahasranama.

Swami [[Shankaracharya]] wrote a definitive commentary on the Sahasranama in the [[8th century]]. Additionally, [[Parasara Bhattar]], a follower of [[Ramanuja]], has also written a commentary.

==Degree of certainty==

== Etymology ==

In [[Sanskrit]], ''sahasra'' means "a thousand" and ''nama'' means "name". The compound is of the [[Bahuvrihi]] type and may be translated as "having a thousand names". In modern [[Hindi]] pronunciation, ''nama'' is pronounced 'naam', with an implied vowel in the end.

Why is there no mention of degree of certainty? If I believe something then it means that I think that the chance that something is true is >50%. I can believe something with 51% or 99% certainty. Quite a big difference [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== Interpretation ==

---

Although all Hindus respect the '''Sahasranama''', this is a major part of prayer for devout [[Vaishnavism|Vaishnavites]], or followers of [[Vishnu]]. This does not mean that they do not believe in the other forms of [[God]], rather they believe the whole universe, including the other forms of God such as [[Shiva]] or [[Devi]], to be manifestations of their chosen one, [[Vishnu]]. Similarly [[Saivite]]s give prominence to [[Shiva]], but also respect Vishnu. In fact, the [[Shri Rudram]], one of the most sacred prayers for [[Hinduism|Hindus]] and Shaivites in particular, describe Vishnu as an aspect of Shiva. Likewise, two of the names in Vishnu sahasranama that refer to Shiva are [[Shiva]] (names #27 and #600) itself, and [[Rudra]] (name #114). [[Adi Sankara]] has interpreted this to mean that Vishnu and Shiva are the same and it is Vishnu that is praised by worship of Shiva. Using these two interpretations, and ignoring the occasional and rare tensions between [[Vaishnavism|Vaishnvaites]] and Shaivites, these two names, from one point of view, an [[Advaitan]] point of view, indicate that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same.

However, the Vaishnavite commentator, [[Parasara Bhattar]], a follower of [[Ramanuja]] has interpreted the name "Shiva" and "Rudra" in Vishnu sahasranama to mean a quality or attribute of Vishnu.

''Attempted anwer'': Certainty looks like an absolute, and it may be hard to see how something can be 'a bit certain', or 'fairly certain'. Perhaps it can only be 'absolutely certain'. Sceptics seem to have a similar problem over ‘knowledge’ and conclude, rigorously, that it cannot be truly achieved. Anyway, if belief is accepted as ‘a strong feeling’ this confusion as to whether it must entail any particular degree of certainty seems to go away[[User:Yanx|Yanx]] 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first few names, in particular, do not describe features of Vishnu in detail and hence are not [[anthropomorphic]] in nature. While Vishnu is commonly portrayed with human features, Swami Tapasyananda, in his book, ''Bhakti Schools of Vedanta'', reminds readers that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. He has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all force, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc.

==Belief system==

As Swami Tapasyananda said, "Vishnu is the Indwelling Spirit in all beings and the whole cosmos constitute His body." As Vishnu is the all-pervading Spirit and the Supreme Personality, anthromorphism is deemphasized in Vishnu sahasranama.

Please help with the [[belief system]] entry at [[Talk:belief system]]. Thanks. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 02:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Pronunciation and Merits of Recitation ==

:Because that article is on VfD and looks to be deleted due to no content, I am moving the associated talk page, which does have content to here:

In the linked preface prayer (But not in the succeeding '''Sahasranama''') non-formal pronunciation is used, since correct representation of pronunciation requires extensive use of diacritic marks. An example: [[Sanskrit]]/[[Hindi]] has three letters representing S, which are represented here as 's' (as in save), 'sh' (as in shave), the third 'sh', as used in the [[Sanskrit]] word ''shatkona'' ([[Hexagon]]), [[Vishnu]], [[Krishna]] and others is actually a retroflex phoneme and has no equivalent in [[English language|English]]. Retroflex phonemes are those where the tongue is slightly coiled back in the palate and released along with the phoneme's sound. An analogous example is the hard 't' in 'tyre'. Do the same thing with a 'sh' sound to get the correct pronunciation of the 'sh' as used in ''Vishnu''. Also, the 'n' in ''Vishnu'' and ''Krishna'' is retroflex. In formal transliteration of [[Sanskrit]] [[alphabet]] to [[English language|English]], this setup is denoted by placing dots above or below the letter 's', which would be too cumbersome to do here.

=== Moved content from [[Talk:Belief system]], currently on [[WP:VfD|VfD]] ===

Although devotion is considered the most important thing while reciting any [[prayer]] or [[mantra]] (Unless used for [[Tantrism|tantric]] purposes, where the sound's vibration plays the major role), use of the correct pronunciation is believed by devotees to enhance the satisfaction derived from the recital, in the case of both vocal and mental chants.

'''Note:''' This entry needs work. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 02:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)<br>

A '''belief system''' (also ''system of beliefs'') is...<br>

Here is my small contribution. It will probably need lots of works,

but after all we have to start from somewhere ;-)

I don't know if the comparison has been used somewhere, but a belief

system really looks like a mathematical logical system with a set of

axioms (unproved beliefs) and inferring rules (reasonnings).

Axioms (beliefs) are very debatable since it usually involves beliefs

in God(s), supernatural, or even science after all (how many people

among you has ever ''seen'' and ''verified'' an experiment in quantum

mechanics? probably not the majority, certainly not my case but I

''believe'' in quantum mechanics) ;-)

Inferring rules (reasonnings) are usually common to most people.

Deduction is the most reliable, induction is used to assert probable

conclusions (although I met someone acknowledging ''only'' induction

as reliable and rejecting deduction).

[[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 08:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)<br>

See also

[[belief]],

[[worldview]],

[[paradigm]],

[[model]]<br>

External links

[http://www.general-semantics.org/library/conf-papers/eddy.pdf On Belief and Belief Systems] by the late [[Bob Eddy]] (Institute of [[General Semantics]])<br />

[http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/theory/beliefsystems.html Belief Systems] by [http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/ CognitiveBehavior.com]

[[User:Eric Herboso|Eric]] [[User_talk:Eric_Herboso|Herboso ]] 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Self-consistent sets of beliefs ==

One difference between transliteration is in the hard & soft 't'. Persons from northern [[India]] usually use 't' for both, while southern [[India|Indians]] prefer 't' for hard t (As in truck), and 'th' for soft t (Like any t in French, or the [[Sanskrit]] ''maruti'' (Son of the wind, a name of Lord [[Hanuman]])). Northeners use 'th' to denote the aspirated t, as in 'throw'. As this article is an amalgam from at least two sources, the exact pronunciation may not be clearly apparent.

I seem to recall something about the application of G&ouml;del's proof to beliefs, to demonstrate that one's beliefs cannot, taken as a whole, be logically self-consistent. It seemed very interesting at the time, but I can't pull up a cite -- can anyone help? (Yes, I know that G&ouml;del's proof actually demonstrates "incomplete or inconsistent", but the argument did something plausible at this point...) -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 07:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Believers in the recitation of the '''Sahasranama''' claim that it brings unwavering calm of mind, complete freedom from stress and eternal knowledge. Sections from Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the concluding verses of Vishnu sahasranama, state the following: "Nothing evil or inauspicious will befall a man here or hereafter who daily hears or repeats these names.. Whichever devoted man, getting up early in the morning and purifying himself, repeats this hymn devoted to [[Vasudeva]], with a mind that is concentrated on Him, that man attains to great fame, leadership among his peers, wealth that is secure and the supreme good unsurpassed by anything. He will be free from all fears and be endowed with great courage and energy and he will be free from diseases. Beauty of form, strength of body and mind, and virtous character will be natural to him.... One who reads this hymn every day with devotion and attention attains to peace of mind, patience, prosperity, mental stability, memory and reputation.... ''Whoever desires advancement and happiness should repeat this devotional hymn on Vishnu composed by [[Vyasa]]''....Never will defeat attend on a man who adores the Lotus-Eyed One, who is the Master of all the worlds, who is birthless, and out of whom the worlds have originated and into whom they dissolve."

[[Gödel's incompleteness theorem#Misconceptions about Gödel's theorems]]: "The theorem only applies to systems that are used as their own proof systems"; it follows that the theorem might imply that you can't be consistent if you justify your beliefs with other beliefs; on the other hand if, as most people, you justify your beliefs from one or several external referrents, the theorem does not apply. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Swami Tapasyananda stated that in orthodox Hindu tradition, a devotee should daily chant the [[Upanishads]], [[Gita]], [[Rudram]], [[Purusha Sukta]] and Vishnu sahasranama. If one cannot do all this on any day, it is believed that chanting Visnu sahasranama alone is sufficient.

== belief is assigning probability greater than 50% ??? ==

== Prayer ==

It is customary to commence the ''Vishnu sahasranama'' with a devotional prayer to Vishnu.

Removed from the article: "To believe something can be interpreted as assigning a [[probability]] of more than 50% that something is true."

''See also: [[Vishnu sahasranama/Full prayer|full text]]'' of the '''Vishnu sahasranama'''.

(also removed "The rule of the thumb from a school of [[epistemology]] that says that certainty should be as big as the corresponding evidence is called [[evidentialism]].", which is useless without the preceding "definition")

== Shlokas ==

=== Recitation and aggregation===

An alternative approach is to say the starting prayer, and then say the names collected in stanzas (As they were originally said by Bhishma.) Such stanzas are called ''Shlokas'' in Sanskrit. The Sahasranama (apart from the initial and concluding prayers) has a total of 108 shlokas.

This has little to do with [[evidentialism]], which is a [[theory of justification]], in any case.

For example, the first shloka is:

Who said that? In what book? Is it so widely accepted among scholars that it deserves mentionning so high in the article? This is not only unsourced, it also looks pretty preposterous to me. When you say "X has a probability of more than 50%", you don't believe that "X", you believe that "X is more probable than not"; this is entirely different. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

: ''Om Vishvam Vishnurvashatkaaro Bhootbhavyabhavatprabhuh''

: ''Bhootkrid Bhootbhridbhaavo Bhootaatma Bhootbhavanah''

== Definition of Belief ==

Notice the aggregation of several words and the omission of their intervening spaces. For example, the last word of the first line of this Shloka:

A [http://www.yesselman.com/glosindx.htm#ReligiousBelief belief], in its varying degrees, can be a guess, a dogma, a hope, an intuition, a leap-of-faith. Belief is to make an hypothesis which then must pass the test of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion#Cash_Value Cash Value]—bringing Peace of Mind. [[User:Yesselman|Yesselman]] 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

: ''Bhootbhavyabhavatprabhuh''

corresponds to:

(edited to correct it in a way)

: ''OM Bhoota Bhavya Bhavat Prabhave Namaha''

->

of the expanded version.

To belief is diffrent from the word believe, believe is to trust and see something in another person.

But belief is like to imagen to trust and have faith into a higher being.

Belief can't just be put out in words it comes from you and is within you.

I think what you ment was believe and even there is a mistake in that.

This joining-together of words is a common feature of Sanskrit and is called [[Sandhi]]. It makes the shlokas compact and easier to remember, which was necessary in ancient India since the religious scriptures were seldom written down and were memorised by [[Brahmin]]s, or the priest class. This collection of memorised knowledge was passed by word-of-mouth from [[Guru]] to disciple.

If you believe in a person you either do it or not you can not just believe have trust and faith in them her him or what ever just 50% else what kind of person would you be?

== Reasoning?? ==

=== Tradition of recitation ===

''Beliefs can be acquired through perception, reasoning, contemplation or communication''

From ancient times, until as recently as the [[19th century]], many Hindus in learned families daily recited the Sahasranama, or a similar set of prayer ''Shlokas'' of their chosen deity. (Such a collection of Shlokas which are used for recital purposes is generally called a ''Stotra'' (Both 't's have soft pronunciation.))

This statement is plain incorrect, How on Earth can resoning be related to 'belief' . Infact they have completely opposite meanings. Obviously if you can reason(or if there is a logical explanation) to something, then there won't be any 'need' to believe because that 'thing' would be undeniable fact(like a maths equation). The point of belief only arises if there is an absence of resoning!!

With increasing [[Westernization]], the practice of the '''Sahasranama ''' [[rituals]] are reducing in commonality, and have been criticized for becoming more mechanical and devoid of feeling. Though a very significant number of [[Hindu]] households still have daily prayer/worship sessions (Called a [[Puja]]. In ancient Vedic times, it was also called a [[Sandhya]]).

The only possibility here is if 'resoning' is being referred to as 'bias' dependent on culture/surroundings etc. [[User:Reasonit|Reasonit]] 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

=== Inclusion of other deities ===

One notable thing about the Sahasranama is that it includes names of other Hindu deities such as [[Shiva]], [[Brahma]], etc. within it. This is an example of ''Vishnu'' considered in His universal aspect, as an aggregation, and basis of all other deities which emanate from Him. In this cosmic aspect, Vishnu is also called ''Mahavishnu'' (Great Vishnu.) By an [[Advaitan]] interpretation, this notation is not suprising as followers of [[Advaita]] philosophy, in particular, [[Smartas]] believe that Vishnu and Shiva are the same and are hence different aspects of the one [[Supreme Being]].

I think this results from a confusion between belief as an unproven fact and belief as a conviction adopted after a reasonning (for example a political position). The difference between the two of them might be thin in some cases. Just a thought... [[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

==References==

cited from ''Sri Vishnu Sahasranama'', commentary by Sri Sankaracharya, translated by Swami Tapasyananda, available at Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai. available at India web site: http://www.sriramakrishnamath.org and US site: http://www.vedanta.com.

Yes. A belief can be adopted based on a number of criteria:

== Quotes about Vishnu Sahasranama and Its Greatness ==

- authority

- experience

- perceived phenomena

- reasoning

- discussion (e.g. clarification/debate)

"Beliefs" don't necessarily have any relation to reason. Especially those induced by authority figures. An associated topic might be rigidity of belief systems and conflicts arising therefrom..

* [[Adi Sankara]], the [[Advaita]] philosopher, in his hymn, [[Bhaja Govindam]], translation available at [http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok19.htm], said that the [[Gita]] and Vishnu sahasranama should be chanted and the form of the Lord of [[Lakshmi]], Vishnu should always be mediated on.

* The great saint, [[Shirdi Sai Baba]], according to reference, [http://www.saibaba.org/newsletter5-29.html#carticle], on commentating about the merits of Vishnu sahasranama, said: "Oh Shama, this book is very valuable and efficacious, so I present it to you, you read it. Once I suffered intensely and My heart began to palpitate and My life was in danger. At that critical time, I hugged this book to My heart and then, Shama, what a relief it gave me! I thought that [[Allah]] Himself came down and saved Me. So I give this to you, read it slowly, little by little, read daily one name at least and it will do you good."

* Swami [[Sivananda]], in his 20 important spiritual instructions, available at reference, [http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/teachings/20instr.htm], stated that the Vishnu sahasranama should be studied systematically.

* Sri N. Krishnamachari, a [[Srivaishnavite]] scholar, at Steven Knapp's web site, [http://www.stephen-knapp.com/thousand_names_of_the_supreme.htm], quoting Vaishnavite scholars, states that there are six reasons for the greatness of Vishnu sahasranama:

"1. Vishnu sahasranama is the essence of the [[Mahabharata]];

2. Great sages such as [[Narada]], the [[Alwars]], and composers including Saint [[Tyagaraja]] have made repeated references to the "Thousand Names of Vishnu" in their devotional works;

3. The person who strung together the thousand names as part of the Mahabharata and preserved it for the world was none other than Sage [[Veda Vyasa]], the foremost knower of the Vedas, who is considered an [[avatar]] of Vishnu;

4. Bhishma considered chanting of the Vishnu sahasranama the best and easiest of all dharmas, or the means to attain relief from all bondage;

5. It is widely accepted that the chanting of this Stotram gives relief from all sorrows and leads to happiness and peace of mind;

6. Vishnu sahasranama is in conformity with the teachings of the [[Gita]]."

== "Is Belief Voluntary?" section ==

== Books ==

There are few books in English, or those with English transliteration and translation. The books given below contain Swami [[Shankara]]charya's commentary on the Sahasranama:

"''Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.''

* '''Sanskrit & English''': Sri Vishnu Sahasranama; Sri Ramakrishna Math, 16, Ramakrishna Math Road, Chennai 600004, India

web site: http://www.sriramakrishnamath.org; US site: http://www.vedanta.com

(Both sites sell a copy of Vishnu sahasranama, the book with the commentary of [[Adi Sankara]].)

Most philosophers!? That's a bold and sweeping statement. I'm not sure if to just suggest that is radically POV or ask for some kind of verification. For now I've added a "citeation needed" tag and left it.

(Math is pronounced 'Madh', the dh is the voiceless hard palatal aspirate, somewhat like the intermediate sound in road-hog. Math is the Hindu equivalent of a monastery. Chennai was earlier called Madras.)

Maybe "many philosophers" would be a better choice of words, and easier to add a few references for. The word "most" suggests that nearly all philosophers past-and-present agree about this - somehow, I seriously doubt that... -[[User:Neural|Neural]] 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Sanskrit & Hindi''': Sri Vishnu Sahasranama, Gitapress, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh 273005, India

== Introduction ==

* For purchase of an audio cd, try http://www.khazana.com ; the late Carnatic music singer, [[M.S. Subbulakshmi]], sung a rendition especially well.

The introduction:

==External links==

* [http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivkuma/personal/music/vishnu-sahasranamam-meanings.htm Vishnu sahasranama names and meanings. ]

* [http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ Vishnu sahasranama with meanings; site features some of Parasara Bhattar's commentaries. ]

* [http://www.chennaionline.com/festivalsnreligion/religion/religion27.asp Article about Vishnu sahasranama. ]

* [http://www.chennaionline.com/festivalsnreligion/religion/religion31.asp Another article about Vishnu sahasranama with a discussion of the different aspects of the Lord.]

* [http://www.chennaionline.com/festivalsnreligion/religion/religion29.asp Another article.]

* http://www.devotionalsongs.com/

(Audio link; click on Vishnu sahasranama, rendition sung by the late [[M.S. Subbulaksmi]].

* [http://www.srivaishnavan.com/tomcat/visnu.html SriVaishnavite comment on Vishnu sahasranama.]

* [http://www.jetwashingtondc.com/vsn.asp Importance of chanting of Vishnu sahasranama.]

* [http://www.stephen-knapp.com/thousand_names_of_the_supreme.htm Circumstances underlying Vishnu sahasranama and commentary by Sri N. Krishnamachari.]

<blockquote>Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification; therefore a belief is a subjective mental interpretation derived from perceptions, contemplation(reasoning), or communication.</blockquote>

[[Category:Hinduism]]

[[Category:Vaishnavism]]

is simply wrong. At least, there is no such definition in my SOD, and if it were the case, one would not be able to believe a verified proposition. Nor is "1+1=2" a "subjective mental interpretation" (Can you think of something that is subjective and yet not mental? Interpretation of what?), yet it is something one might believe.

What is it about introductions to philosophical articles that attracts such stuff? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

==Religion==

The paragraph:

<blockquote>In the religious sense, "belief" refers to a part of a wider spiritual or moral foundation — generally called faith. Historically, faiths were generated by groups seeking a functionally valid foundation to sustain them. The generally accepted faiths usually note that, when the exercise of faith leads to oppression, clarification or further revelation is called for.</blockquote>

has been removed. I can;t see a reason to give prominence to religious belief. Someone may wish to insert it into a new section within the article. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Deductive vs. Inductive ==

It seems that the epistimology section contradicts itself, saying that belief is a deductive process, but the building of the belief system is an inductive one. Am I missing something? I'm in favor of stating all belief systems are inherently inductive, and that all deductive processes used in the belief system are based off of premises that require induction.

[[User:140.233.44.55|140.233.44.55]]AME 2/21/07

:I'd say rather that the whole section is OR,and should be removed. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

== Belief necessarily True ==

I disagree with the lead sentence "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition." This is easily refuted, I and many others believe in God and would agree with a proposition such as "God exists" but would not necessarily argue that it can be proven as "True". In other words you can recognize that you have a belief, such as religion, or race or sexuality, and know that it not necessarily "True" but that you believe it anyway.[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And does that apply to "2+2=4" or "the sky is blue"? Or is there a difference between mere belief,

and Belief with a capital B?

[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: Actually I'm not sure what you consider to be Beliefs and/or beliefs, perhaps you could provide some more examples, which category is the "2+2" in? or the sky? The "2+2" one is obviously incorrect as others have stated above "Gödel had shown that mathematics is both incomplete and inconsistent. Mathematics must be incomplete because there will always exist mathematical truths that can’t be demonstrated. Truths exist in mathematics that do not follow from any axiom or theorem."[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::GIT doesn't have the slightest impact on the necessary truth of 2+2=4.

[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Really? Explain how GIT has no influence on elementary math. Here's my rebuttal when you're done. (and thanks for answering all my questions, I can see this will be productive) "Gödel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction." from [http://www.rae.org/godel.html].[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

rems.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/prove.html GIT does not stop you being able to prove individual theorems] [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly my point about beliefs to begin with. Just as belief in God is accepted without proof and those that accept it know it can't be proved. From the page you cited:"So suppose we accept the axioms and methods of proof formalized in T as valid without proof."[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::But '''that''' point has nothing to do with Godel. We don't need GIT to tell us we can't prove every axiom. (And we can adopt the formalist's approach of defining truth only within an axiomatic system). [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If you think "god exists" is not necessarily true, you presumably think there is some evidence or argument which could disprove it. Would you continue to believe in God if the disproof were presented to you? if not, doesn't that show there is ''some'' connection between truth and belief? [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::That is not true. I do not believe that there is any evidence or argument to disprove it, also no evidence or argument to prove it. Where prove means using empirical, objective evidence and Popperian hypo-thetico-deductive logic. The connection, as you say, between proof and belief is in mine and other believers minds and beyond the reach of scientific inquiry and objective "Truth".[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: You can think what you like, Tstrobaugh, but if you can't find your ideas in the literature, then it can't go in the Wiki. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Point 2: The implication of your opening statement is that one can believe something while holding it not to be true; for example, that one could coherently say "I believe god exists , but it is not true that god exists". See [[Moore's paradox]]. You seem simply to have confused truth with proof of truth. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Removed Paragraph, For Now... ==

"If one has an external inducement to belief, such as a prospective marriage partner, he may be unable to drastically change his true belief in order to obtain the desired reward. The best he might do would be to pretend at belief. There is a possibility that with study, he would come to change his belief, depending on his earlier sources and his confidence in the validity of new ones."

I believe this paragraph needs rewritten, because the example is unclear. What I mean is the relevence to the example given in connection with the topic. (Yes, I know the connection is implied. Yet an encyclopedia is meant to give [[information]] and describe, not [[imply]].) The paragraph also did not seem consistent with the section it was previously in and probably needs moved. If no one else does, I hope to rewrite this, but I'll have to research how beliefs play roles in marital relationships (and since I am not married, well, I'll have to trust sources that are plausibly verifiable.) [[User:69.245.172.44|69.245.172.44]] 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)