Question: Who organized the Pasupata philosophy?

Answer: Lakulish

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. <hl> The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. <hl> Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by <hl> Lakulish <hl> in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

question: Who organized the Pasupata philosophy?, context: Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.


Question: When did Lakulish systematize the Pasupata Shaivism?

Answer: 2nd century CE

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. <hl> The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE . <hl> Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the <hl> 2nd century CE <hl>. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the <hl> 2nd century CE <hl> .

question: When did Lakulish systematize the Pasupata Shaivism?, context: Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.


Question: What school of philosophy did the Pasupatas dislike?

Answer: Vaishnava theology

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. <hl> Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology , known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. <hl> They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of <hl> Vaishnava theology <hl>, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

Pashupatas disapproved of <hl> Vaishnava theology <hl> , known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends.

question: What school of philosophy did the Pasupatas dislike?, context: Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.


Question: What aspect of Vaishnava was unpalatable for the Pasupatas?

Answer: servitude of souls

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. <hl> Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. <hl> They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine <hl> servitude of souls <hl> to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

question: What aspect of Vaishnava was unpalatable for the Pasupatas?, context: Pāśupata Shaivism (Pāśupata, "of Paśupati") is the oldest of the major Shaiva schools. The philosophy of Pashupata sect was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Paśu in Paśupati refers to the effect (or created world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the cause (or principium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognised that those depending upon another and longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than themselves. According to Pāśupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.


Question: What group divided the world into two parts?

Answer: Pāśupatas

<hl> Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. <hl> The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

<hl> Pāśupatas <hl> divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

question: What group divided the world into two parts?, context: Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.


Question: Into what parts did the Pasupatas divide the world?

Answer: insentient and the sentient

<hl> Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient . <hl> The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the <hl> insentient and the sentient <hl>. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the <hl> insentient and the sentient <hl> .

question: Into what parts did the Pasupatas divide the world?, context: Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.


Question: In what staet was the insentient considered to be?

Answer: unconscious

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. <hl> The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. <hl> The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the <hl> unconscious <hl> and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

question: In what staet was the insentient considered to be?, context: Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.


Question: How was the sentient seen as being?

Answer: conscious

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. <hl> The insentient was the un conscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. <hl> The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the un<hl> conscious <hl> and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

The insentient was the un <hl> conscious <hl> and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious.

question: How was the sentient seen as being?, context: Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.


Question: For the Pasupatas, how was the union of the soul with God achieved?

Answer: through the intellect

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. <hl> Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect . <hl>

Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God <hl> through the intellect <hl>.

Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God <hl> through the intellect <hl> .

question: For the Pasupatas, how was the union of the soul with God achieved?, context: Pāśupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pāśupata involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.


Question: What type of philosophy does both Kasmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta share?

Answer: non-dual

<hl> Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. <hl> This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are <hl> non-dual <hl> philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

question: What type of philosophy does both Kasmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta share?, context: Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.


Question: What aspect do non-dual philosophies give to the highest order of worship?

Answer: Universal Consciousness

<hl> Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. <hl> This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to <hl> Universal Consciousness <hl> (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

question: What aspect do non-dual philosophies give to the highest order of worship?, context: Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.


Question: As what does Kashmir Shaivism view the conscious world?

Answer: real

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. <hl> This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real , and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). <hl> Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is <hl> real <hl>, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is <hl> real <hl> , and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit).

question: As what does Kashmir Shaivism view the conscious world?, context: Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.


Question: Which group sees the world as illusion?

Answer: Advaita

<hl> Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. <hl> This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and <hl> Advaita <hl> Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

question: Which group sees the world as illusion?, context: Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.


Question: According to Kashmir Shaivism, what is the goal in belief?

Answer: merge in Shiva

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). <hl> The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace. <hl>

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to <hl> merge in Shiva <hl> or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.

question: According to Kashmir Shaivism, what is the goal in belief?, context: Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita, all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit). Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion (māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and grace.


Question: What are the two most powerful political parties in the United States?

Answer: Democratic Party and the Republican Party

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. <hl> The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party . <hl>

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the <hl> Democratic Party and the Republican Party <hl>.

The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the <hl> Democratic Party and the Republican Party <hl> .

question: What are the two most powerful political parties in the United States?, context: While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.


Question: Name a nation that has a one-party political system.

Answer: China

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. <hl> Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China . <hl> The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as <hl> China <hl>. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as <hl> China <hl> .

question: Name a nation that has a one-party political system., context: While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.


Question: How are political parties elected in democracies?

Answer: the electorate

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. <hl> In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. <hl> Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by <hl> the electorate <hl> to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

question: How are political parties elected in democracies?, context: While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.


Question: What are some countries that have multiple powerful political parties?

Answer: Germany and India

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. <hl> Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. <hl> The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as <hl> Germany and India <hl> and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

question: What are some countries that have multiple powerful political parties?, context: While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate, there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China. The United States is a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.


Question: Around what time did the first political factions start to emerge?

Answer: late-17th-century England

<hl> The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England . <hl> The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in <hl> late-17th-century England <hl>. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in <hl> late-17th-century England <hl> .

question: Around what time did the first political factions start to emerge?, context: The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).


Question: Who was the dominate political party for the first half of the 18th century?

Answer: Whigs

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. <hl> The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. <hl> The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The <hl> Whigs <hl> supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

question: Who was the dominate political party for the first half of the 18th century?, context: The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).


Question: Who was the leader if the Whigs?

Answer: Robert Walpole

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. <hl> The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole , who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754). <hl>

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was <hl> Robert Walpole <hl>, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

The leader of the Whigs was <hl> Robert Walpole <hl> , who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

question: Who was the leader if the Whigs?, context: The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).


Question: In what year did the jacobite rising fail?

Answer: 1715

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. <hl> The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. <hl> The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of <hl> 1715 <hl> against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).

question: In what year did the jacobite rising fail?, context: The first political factions, cohering around a basic, if fluid, set of principles emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution in late-17th-century England. The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Whigs, who were the dominant political faction for most of the first half of the 18th century; they supported the Hanoverian succession of 1715 against the Jacobite supporters of the deposed Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty and were able to purge Tory politicians from important government positions after the failed Jacobite rising of 1715. The leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government in the period 1721–1742; his protégé was Henry Pelham (1743–1754).


Question: Who's liberal political ideas influenced the Whigs?

Answer: John Locke

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. <hl> A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke , and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney. <hl>

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of <hl> John Locke <hl>, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.

A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of <hl> John Locke <hl> , and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.

question: Who's liberal political ideas influenced the Whigs?, context: As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.


Question: Name the two people who's concepts of universal rights influenced the Whigs.

Answer: Locke and Algernon Sidney

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. <hl> A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney . <hl>

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by <hl> Locke and Algernon Sidney <hl>.

A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by <hl> Locke and Algernon Sidney <hl> .

question: Name the two people who's concepts of universal rights influenced the Whigs., context: As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.


Question: Did the Whigs want to limit the monarch's power?

Answer: championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. <hl> As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power , the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. <hl> A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as <hl> championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power <hl>, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.

As well as <hl> championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power <hl> , the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters.

question: Did the Whigs want to limit the monarch's power?, context: As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.


Question: Did the Whigs support or oppose the Catholic king?

Answer: the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. <hl> As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty , and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. <hl> A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.

As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, <hl> the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty <hl>, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.

As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, <hl> the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty <hl> , and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters.

question: Did the Whigs support or oppose the Catholic king?, context: As the century wore on, the factions slowly began to adopt more coherent political tendencies as the interests of their power bases began to diverge. The Whig party's initial base of support from the great aristocratic families, widened to include the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants. As well as championing constitutional monarchy with strict limits on the monarch's power, the Whigs adamantly opposed a Catholic king as a threat to liberty, and believed in extending toleration to nonconformist Protestants, or dissenters. A major influence on the Whigs were the liberal political ideas of John Locke, and the concepts of universal rights employed by Locke and Algernon Sidney.


Question: Who did the Tories oppose?

Answer: Whigs

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. <hl> At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs ", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. <hl> They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition <hl> Whigs <hl>", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

At times they cooperated with the "Opposition <hl> Whigs <hl> ", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party.

question: Who did the Tories oppose?, context: Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.


Question: Who did the Tories occasionally cooperate with?

Answer: the "Opposition Whigs"

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. <hl> At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs" , Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. <hl> They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with <hl> the "Opposition Whigs" <hl>, Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

At times they cooperated with <hl> the "Opposition Whigs" <hl> , Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party.

question: Who did the Tories occasionally cooperate with?, context: Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.


Question: When did the Tories regain power?

Answer: 1760

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. <hl> They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute. <hl>

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in <hl> 1760 <hl> under Lord Bute.

question: When did the Tories regain power?, context: Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.


Question: For how long were the Tories dismissed from office?

Answer: half a century

<hl> Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century , for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. <hl> They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for <hl> half a century <hl>, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for <hl> half a century <hl> , for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742.

question: For how long were the Tories dismissed from office?, context: Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.


Question: Why could the Tories and the Opposition Whigs never form a single party?

Answer: ideological gap

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. <hl> At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. <hl> They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the <hl> ideological gap <hl> between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.

question: Why could the Tories and the Opposition Whigs never form a single party?, context: Although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, for most of this period (at first under the leadership of Sir William Wyndham), the Tories retained party cohesion, with occasional hopes of regaining office, particularly at the accession of George II (1727) and the downfall of the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole in 1742. They acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party. They finally regained power with the accession of George III in 1760 under Lord Bute.


Question: Who was the first distinctive Whig party that emerged from the chaos?

Answer: the Rockingham Whigs

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. <hl> The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. <hl> Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was <hl> the Rockingham Whigs <hl> under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

question: Who was the first distinctive Whig party that emerged from the chaos?, context: When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.


Question: Who was the leader of the Rockingham Whigs?

Answer: Charles Watson-Wentworth

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. <hl> The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. <hl> Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of <hl> Charles Watson-Wentworth <hl> and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

question: Who was the leader of the Rockingham Whigs?, context: When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.


Question: What was the description for the basic framework of the Rockingham Whigs party?

Answer: "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed"

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. <hl> Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed" . <hl> As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as <hl> "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed" <hl>. As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as <hl> "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed" <hl> .

question: What was the description for the basic framework of the Rockingham Whigs party?, context: When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.


Question: Did the Rockingham Whigs ever regain power as a opposition to the government?

Answer: remained out of power as a united opposition to government.

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". <hl> As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government. <hl>

When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and <hl> remained out of power as a united opposition to government. <hl>

question: Did the Rockingham Whigs ever regain power as a opposition to the government?, context: When they lost power, the old Whig leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition to government.


Question: What was the modern Conservative party created from?

Answer: the 'Pittite' Tories

<hl> The modern Conservative Party was created out of the 'Pittite' Tories of the early 19th century. <hl> In the late 1820s disputes over political reform broke up this grouping. A government led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed amidst dire election results. Following this disaster Robert Peel set about assembling a new coalition of forces. Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone.

The modern Conservative Party was created out of <hl> the 'Pittite' Tories <hl> of the early 19th century. In the late 1820s disputes over political reform broke up this grouping. A government led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed amidst dire election results. Following this disaster Robert Peel set about assembling a new coalition of forces. Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone.

question: What was the modern Conservative party created from?, context: The modern Conservative Party was created out of the 'Pittite' Tories of the early 19th century. In the late 1820s disputes over political reform broke up this grouping. A government led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed amidst dire election results. Following this disaster Robert Peel set about assembling a new coalition of forces. Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone.


Question: Who Issued the Tamworth manifesto?

Answer: Robert Peel

The modern Conservative Party was created out of the 'Pittite' Tories of the early 19th century. In the late 1820s disputes over political reform broke up this grouping. A government led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed amidst dire election results. <hl> Following this disaster Robert Peel set about assembling a new coalition of forces. <hl> Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone.

The modern Conservative Party was created out of the 'Pittite' Tories of the early 19th century. In the late 1820s disputes over political reform broke up this grouping. A government led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed amidst dire election results. Following this disaster <hl> Robert Peel <hl> set about assembling a new coalition of forces. Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone.

question: Who Issued the Tamworth manifesto?, context: The modern Conservative Party was created out of the 'Pittite' Tories of the early 19th century. In the late 1820s disputes over political reform broke up this grouping. A government led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed amidst dire election results. Following this disaster Robert Peel set about assembling a new coalition of forces. Peel issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; – the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone.