text:
Talk:Li Zongren

Untitled
Any note on the constitutionality of Chiang retaking the presidency after he had resigned? --Jiang 09:10, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It was legally justifiable because Li was not a successor, legally or realistically. Li was merely acting -- and didn't even possess the full power acting pres. usually has. Li was warming the seat until a real president comes.

 * How Chiang's presidency resignation letter is so plastically unofficial and can be rescinded twleve months is beyond me. I've only read Li biographies (mostly from Mainland), and those ones didn't mention the details how Chiang sneaked back into power. --Menchi 09:27, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Chiang resumed his duties as president on March 1, 1950. Who was officially in charge between Nov 1949 and Mar 1950? --Jiang 04:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think Li was the one officially in charge, but perhaps Chiang was the one in real power. But still, when Li flew to the U.S. the president Truman still recieved him as the legal president. Chiang's return to presidency in Taiwan is weird. He returned to power in a government in exile, a position no better and no higher than the nationalist armies in Burma.Mababa 07:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cant make anything out of ROC or PRC leadership. Was Hu hammin supposed to be ROC/KMT leader from 1927-'31/'32 or what?! Was chiang leader from 1928-'75 or '31-'75? it hints at him rising to power in '28 but then it just goes to some weird quote.it implies he had supreme power yet choose not to exercise it. was the guy who was pres. from '88-2000 supreme ruler or was the party leader? How long was li acting leader? who was ROC leader from 1915-'18? -Vital Component 7:53 am EST.

 * see list of leaders of the Republic of China. From 1915-1928, China was fragmented into numerous fiefdoms ruled by warlords (see Warlord era (China). The internationally recognized government during this period was run by warlords in Beijing. Sun Yat-sen set up a rival government Guangzhou, which controlled mainly Guangdong province, in 1917/1921/1923 (he was expelled twice). Hu Hanmin initially succeeded Sun Yat-sen upon the latter's death in 1925, but the Military Government he headed was reorganized into the Nationalist Government under Sun's comrade-in-arms Wang Jingwei. It was during the Northern Expedition that Chiang Kai-shek, head of the army, consolidated his power and declared a government in Nanjing (with himself as head) that overwhelmed the Wang Jingwei government that had settled itself in Wuhan. so by 1928, Chiang emerged as the most powerful person in China, and it would remain so until 1949 when he fled to Taiwan.

 * Lee Teng-hui was both Chairman of the KMT and President of the ROC from 1988 to 2000. He was not "supreme leader" of Taiwan: the system had democratized under his predecessor Chiang Ching-kuo and even more so under Lee himself.--Jiang 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont buy that Ji. Ive dealt with alot of the communist countries and i see simularitites in leadership structure between General Secretaries of Workers' Parties leading and KMT leadership.

Sung Chiao-jen (1912-1913) Sun Yat-sen (1913-1915, 1918-1925) COUP 1915-1918 Hu Hanmin (1925-1931) Chiang Kai-shek (1931-1975)

for Kai I was going to split that into 1931-48, 1950-75 I understand that he had complete power by '28 but not complete authority. thats why he wasnt the ruler from 1928-1975. I'm not even sure if he has power as early as 1931 with Imperial Japan in play. I have a main line then im willing to place signifigint warlords in that.

Important also is this is my list of paramount leaders from 1928-'48. And when i asked about Lee I meant was he the leader as president or was he simply appointing the true leader, the PM like say the Slovene President does? Which is the executive position? The PRC is also annoying in this aspect. I'm going to try orginizing their leaders, Mongolia's, and the U.S.S.R.'s soon. - VC

Also Yen Chia-kan became Pres. in 1975 until 1978. Was he the true leader or chiang? And the article on Taiwan's VPs is stating Li lost authority in december 1949? Which is it? - VC 4:46 am EST 3-17-06

 * The Chinese government under the KMT from 1925-1948 was very much a party state inspired by the Soviet Union. Its basic structure was put together by Soviet advisors when the Nationalists were still in Guangzhou.

 * I'm not sure what article you are referring to, or that you are planning to create an article, but the concept of "paramount leader" has nothing to do with constitutional authority and everything to do with power. Deng Xiaoping never rose beyond the vice premiership and never became head of the CCP, but he was recognized by everyone to be the person in charge - the paramount leader in China. Chiang Kai-shek, not Hu Hanmin, was clearly in charge starting in 1928. Though Hu was ranked higher in the party, Chiang headed the Central Military Commission and the National Government.

 * From 1937-1945, large parts of eastern China were occupied by the Japanese, so we ended up with four competing authorities: Chiang Kai-shek in Chongqing (the internationally recognized government), Mao Zedong in Yan'an (recognized by no one and nominally under the Chiang Kai-shek government in the Second United Front), Wang Kemin in Beijing (Japanese puppet) and Wang Jingwei in Nanjing (Japanese puppet).

 * Lee Teng-hui was clearly an executive president. Under his leadership, he pushed through constitutional amendments to strengthen the presidency after a minor power struggle with Yu Kuo-hwa, Lee Huan, and Hau Pei-tsun in the early part of his presidency. Yen Chia-kan was largely a figurehead president, with power delegated to Premier Chiang Ching-kuo.

 * The first few months of 1949 is a more tricky situation. Chiang resigned without making it clear whether his resignation was permanent: he remained head of the party and military and continued to give orders as if he were in control, at times sideling Li Zongren.--Jiang 11:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is to make a list compiling the supreme leaders of the ROC. I thought Yen was a figurehead. aND I have got sources saying he resigned in '48 not '49. How much power did Li have?? I dont count japanese occupation zones because the leaders there were leaders of "puppet" states not the ROC. Im drawingt out a list of Supreme ROC Rulers 5:42 pm

"To this day, some Nationalists supporters view him as a traitor to the democratic cause."
democracy in 1965? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.173.51 (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Li Zongren
http://books.google.com/books?id=MOT_axUIWooC&pg=PA199&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lzisAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA112&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=h5_tSnygvbIC&pg=PA1876&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Kl3IpJfVarcC&pg=PA322&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Le-sxf8U5p0C&pg=PA857&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y36aAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA524&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ONWxWuI3udgC&pg=PA603&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=li%20tsung%20jen%20national%20socialism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dQmst3Ima2AC&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a-alUIaAAqm70QH_1IH4Cg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgK

http://books.google.com/books?id=lg4WAQAAMAAJ&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a-alUIaAAqm70QH_1IH4Cg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBzgK

http://books.google.com/books?id=O19wAAAAMAAJ&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a-alUIaAAqm70QH_1IH4Cg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgK

National socialism

Page 517

http://books.google.com/books?ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&id=1vwZAAAAYAAJ&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&q=++socialism+resembles#search_anchor

http://books.google.com/books?ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&id=1vwZAAAAYAAJ&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&q=Kwangsi++socialism#search_anchor

Title	Current Biography Yearbook, Volume 3 Contributor	H.W. Wilson Company Publisher	H. W. Wilson Co., 1942 Original from	the University of Virginia Digitized	May 1, 2008

http://books.google.com/books?id=bLSDTRdhgKMC&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg

Title	Current Biography: Who's News and Why, 1942 Authors	Maxine Block, E. Mary Trow Edition	reprint Publisher	Hw Wilson Company, 1942 ISBN 0824204794, 9780824204792 Length	940 pages

In November 1935 Li Tsung-jen and Pai Tsung-hsi did not even attend the Fifth National Kuomintang Congress, and at the ... Li Tsung-jen used to call the system of government introduced in Kwangsi "national socialism," although it resembles ...

Page 23

http://books.google.com/books?id=XG1xAAAAMAAJ&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw

http://books.google.com/books?ei=pOOlUMbnI4Tl0QGazYCADw&id=XG1xAAAAMAAJ&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&q=national+socialism+quite#search_anchor

Li Tsung-jen calls the politico-economic set-up "national- socialism" — though it is quite different from the Nazi brand. Under this benevolent administration Kwangsi became known to foreigners as the "model" province. A well trained and ...

Title	The Chinese army: its organization and military efficiency, by Evans Fordyce Carlson ... I.P.R. inquiry series Inquiry series, Institute of Pacific Relations Authors	Evans Fordyce Carlson, Yuquan Wang Publisher	International secretariat, Institute of Pacific relations, 1940 Original from	the University of Michigan Digitized	Sep 10, 2008 Length	137 pages

Page 208

http://books.google.com/books?ei=a-alUIaAAqm70QH_1IH4Cg&id=MLQTAAAAIAAJ&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialists#search_anchor

National Socialists of Kwangsi Provii led by two of China's topnotch n men : Generals Li Tsung-jen an Chung-hsi. These men are intense tionalistic, and have the interests ( people at heart. General U has siit since the Communists gave up thi ...

Title	The China Monthly Review, Volumes 88-89 Publisher	J.W. Powell, 1939

Page 208

http://books.google.com/books?ei=a-alUIaAAqm70QH_1IH4Cg&id=7ylQl35VwhkC&dq=li+tsung+jen+national+socialism&q=li+tsung+jen+national+socialists#search_anchor

The National Socialists of Kwangsi Province are led by two of China's topnotch military men : Generals Li Tsung-jen and Pai Chung-hsi. These men are intensely nationalistic, and have the interests of the people at heart. General Li has said ...

Title	China Monthly Review, Volume 88 Publisher	Millard Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1939 Original from	the University of Michigan Digitized	Jul 30, 2009

Page 459

http://books.google.com/books?ei=u-OlUOyeLMu_0QH9y4DQCA&id=7gUWAQAAMAAJ&dq=Pai+chung+hsi+national+socialism&q=Pai+chung+hsi+national+socialists#search_anchor

The facts show that the Communists and the National Socialists (led by Li Tsung- jen and Pai Chung-hsi) have been among his most loyal supporters, and have made monumental contributions to the successful Chinese resistance. It is the ...

Title	Amerasia, Volume 3 Editor	Philip J. Jaffe Publisher	Amerasia, Incorporated, 1940 Original from	Indiana University Digitized	Dec 2, 2010

Page 138

http://books.google.com/books?ei=3umlUKSQC5S60AHi_YHgDA&id=fB3pAAAAIAAJ&dq=Pai+chung+hsi+national+socialism&q=Pai+chung+hsi+national+socialist#search_anchor

And when the special train drew alongside it contained not only General Li but General Pai Chung- hsi, Deputy Chief of ... their administration in Kwangsi was called a rightist government, and in others it was termed national socialist ( though ...

Title	Twin stars of China: a behind-the-scenes story of China's valiant struggle for existence, by a U.S. Marine who lived & moved with the people Author	Evans Fordyce Carlson Publisher	Dodd, Mead & Company, 1940 Length	331 pages

Rajmaan (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these links. I'll look them over and update Li's bio the next time that I have more time!Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Li Zongren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903203252/http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/zhuang/zhuang19.htm to http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/zhuang/zhuang19.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Li Zongren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121214211251/http://mcel.pacificu.edu/barlow/vita.php to http://mcel.pacificu.edu/barlow/vita.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206211629/http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/ZHUANG/zhuangintro.htm to http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/zhuang/zhuangintro.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208024655/http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/ZHUANG/zhuang20.htm to http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/resources/zhuang/zhuang20.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Li Zongren


text:
13th arrondissement of Paris

The 13th arrondissement of Paris (XIIIe arrondissement) is one of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. In spoken French, the arrondissement is referred to as le treizième ("the thirteenth").

The arrondissement is situated on the left bank of the River Seine. It is home to Paris's principal Asian community, the Quartier Asiatique, located in the southeast of the arrondissement in an area that contains many high-rise apartment buildings. The neighbourhood features a high concentration of Chinese and Vietnamese businesses.

The current mayor has been Jérôme Coumet (originally elected as a Socialist, now miscellaneous left) since 2007. He was reelected by the arrondissement council on 29 March 2008 after the list which he headed gained 70% of the votes cast in the second round of the 2008 municipal election. He was again reelected on 13 April 2014 and on 11 July 2020.

The 13th arrondissement is also home to the Bibliothèque nationale de France's François Mitterrand site and the newly built business district of Paris Rive Gauche.

Demographics
The 13th arrondissement is still growing in population, mainly because of an influx of Asian immigrants. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the first wave of Vietnamese refugees from the Vietnam War settled in the arrondissement, largely concentrated near Masséna Boulevard. Later waves of refugees and Asian immigrants transitioned from being exclusively ethnic Vietnamese to include ethnic Chinese from Vietnam, Laotians and Cambodians. These migrants largely settled in the southern area of the arrondissement, creating an Asian quarter and establishing a commercial district and community institutions. Teochew, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Lao and Khmer are spoken by many residents in the community.

At the last census in 1999, the population was 171,533. The 13th arrondissement is also rapidly growing in business activity, thanks to the new business district of Paris Rive Gauche. In 1999, the arrondissement contained 89,316 jobs, a number that has since grown.

Economy
The head office of Accor, including the company's executive management, is in the Immeuble Odyssey in the 13th arrondissement. This facility is the company's registered office.

Ubisoft has its business office in the arrondissement.

Education
Senior high schools:
 * Lycée Rodin
 * Lycée Claude-Monet
 * Lycée professionnel Corvisart-Tolbiac
 * École nationale de chimie physique et biologie de Paris
 * École Yabné
 * Groupe scolaire Notre Dame de France
 * Groupe scolaire Saint Vincent de Paul
 * Lycée Le Rebours
 * Lycée Technique Privé de l'École Technique Supérieure du Laboratoire

The 13th arrondissement is home to engineering graduate schools Arts et Métiers ParisTech and Télécom ParisTech. The teaching and learning center is settled at the number 151.

Places of interest

 * Paris's main Asian district, the Quartier Asiatique, also locally called la Triangle de Choisy or la petite Asie ("Little Asia"), is located in the southeast of the arrondissement. The following can be found in this area:
 * Les Olympiades, Super-Italie and various other towers among the tallest in Paris
 * Tang Frères and Paristore Asian supermarkets and grocery stores.
 * Bibliothèque nationale de France (François Mitterrand site)
 * Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital
 * Butte-aux-Cailles
 * Gare d'Austerlitz
 * Gobelins Manufactory
 * Art Ludique - Le Musée, first French museum dedicated to the art of entertainment
 * University of Chicago Center in Paris
 * 6 Villa des Gobelins - residence of Hồ Chí Minh from July 1919 to July 1921
 * Notre-Dame de la Gare, Historic church from the 19th century
 * Stade Sébastien Charléty, home of football clubs Paris FC and Paris Saint-Germain Féminines
 * Cité de la mode et du design, a creative schedule of events built around innovation, culture, and style.
 * Street Art 13 frescoes
 * Teddy bears of the Gobelins, photographed around the neighborhood
 * Parc Kellermann, a public park

Streets and squares

 * Rue Zadkine
 * Rue Paul-Klee
 * Rue Marcel-Duchamp
 * Boulevard de la Zone
 * Place d'Italie
 * Place Jean-Michel Basquiat

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 13th arrondissement of Paris


text:
The Way of the Exploding Fist

The Way of the Exploding Fist is a 1985 fighting game based on Japanese martial arts developed by Beam Software, by a team consisting of Gregg Barnett, Bruce Bayley, Neil Brennan and David Johnston. Originally developed on the Commodore 64 and published in June 1985 by Melbourne House, ports were made for Amstrad CPC, ZX Spectrum, BBC Micro, Acorn Electron and Commodore 16.

Gameplay
The game has various backgrounds that change as the player progresses through the levels: inside a dojo, an outdoor field with snowy mountains and volcanoes, a Buddha statue, or some pagodas.

The player takes part in a series of one-on-one karate matches, all overseen by a wise old expert who appears in the background. Once the player defeats an opponent they move up to the next stage and a more difficult adversary. Fights are not won using the energy-bar style found in modern fighting games; instead, the player needed to get two complete yin-yangs. Any move that connected with the opponent would end the round; a loosely timed or borderline kick or punch would obtain half a yin-yang icon, while a well-executed move would obtain a full icon. Two complete icons ended the bout and progressed to the next level.

This system of scoring, known as shobu nihon kumite, is used in real life in many traditional styles of karate. A half yin-yang represents a waza-ari (a committed but not decisive technique) and a full yin-yang represents an ippon score (full point, decisive finishing blow).

The game control is via joystick or direction keys and a "fire" key. 18 different movements can be made, including jumping kick, roundhouse kick and a variety of punches and kicks, high and low. The game features a variety of backgrounds against which the fighting takes place. After completing a number of progressively harder stages, the player is charged at by a bull in a bonus round. The player must knock the bull out with a single hit. The bonus round mirrors the feats of Mas Oyama, a karate expert who purportedly killed bulls with a single strike. This bonus round was not present in the ZX Spectrum version and some of the early Commodore 64 versions.

Production
Before creating The Way of the Exploding Fist, designer Gregg Barnett converted The Hobbit and Sherlock, two adventures from Beam Software, to the Commodore 64. It was one of the first games to borrow heavily from the Data East arcade game Karate Champ, which was released the previous year. The Commodore 64 version uses over 600 sprite images to animate the player's movements. Karate champion Jeoffrey Thompson was signed to promote the game but was not sufficiently well known to have the game named after him. A Nintendo Entertainment System version was developed by Beam Software but it was never released.

The game's soundtrack was written by Neil Brennan and it is based on the 1952 orchestral piece Dance of the Yao People. It has been praised for the excellent atmosphere it provided and was one reason behind the popularity of the game.

Reception
The Way of the Exploding Fist topped the UK software sales charts for two months, in September and October 1985, until it was replaced by Monty on the Run.

The Way of the Exploding Fist became the best-selling computer game of 1985 in the UK. It sold 150,000 copies for the ZX Spectrum by 1987, and a total of 500,000 copies across all platforms in Europe.

The Commodore 64 version received a positive review in Zzap!64 magazine, which called it a "Sizzler" and praised the game's sound and graphics, scoring it 93% overall. Your Sinclair reviewers praised the visceral sound effects.

Accolades
The game was voted Game of the Year at the third Golden Joystick Awards, with Melbourne House picking up Best Software House. It also received the "Voted Best Game" award at the Saturday Superstore Viewer Awards. The ZX Spectrum version was placed at number 67 on the "Your Sinclair official top 100" list in 1991. In 1996, GamesMaster ranked the game 76th on their "Top 100 Games of All Time" list.

Sequels
There were three sequels: Fist II: The Legend Continues (1986) and Fist II: The Tournament (1987) and Exploding Fist +. Of these three, Fist II: The Legend Continues is not a fighting game involving player-versus-player, but a scrolling adventure game with one-on-one fighting elements. Exploding Fist +, on the other hand, returns to the style of the first game. It features combat with three characters, an idea followed from International Karate +, though in this case it is possible for players to control the three characters simultaneously.

title: The Way of the Exploding Fist


text:
Talk:Wonalancet (sachem)

Untitled
This page needs several of its links disambiguated, but I don't know which to disambiguate them to. Koyaanis Qatsi 09:17, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wonalancet (sachem)


text:
Talk:Finland

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2024
In the third paragraph in the "Geography" section, the following:

 * "However, in the northern regions, including areas bordering the Scandinavian Mountains, the terrain features mountainous elevations. Making Halti at 1,324 metres (4,344 ft) the highest point in Finland."

Should be changed to something like:

 * "However, in the northern regions, including areas bordering the Scandinavian Mountains, the terrain features mountainous elevations. At 1,324 metres (4,344 ft), Halti is the highest point in Finland."

This fixes the second sentence (in bold) to not incorrectly start with a verb. Splasse (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ thank you!  Star action  ( talk  |  contribs ) 02:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Estonia is not Finland's neighbour
There is a sea between them. Like The UK is not USAs neighbour, or Libya Italy's neighbour Uslager (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 * UK is often seen as France's neighbour? I don't think countries have to be adjacent with a land border. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Neighbouring countries can either share a border or be visible from each other. The latter is the case here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't their territorial waters meet halfway across the Gulf of Finland?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but I am not an expert on the topic. Here are some sources:
 * https://iilss.net/maritime-boundaries-between-finland-and-estonia/
 * https://www.baltictimes.com/mep_madison__estonian__finnish_territorial_waters_should_be_restored_to_maximum_breadth/
 * Baltic Sea
 * Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Australia and New Zealand are commonly described as neighbours. They are 1500 kilometres apart across the Tasman Sea. (Really part of the Pacific Ocean.) It helps that they are very similar culturally and linguistically. Australia is geographically closer to three other nations, but they are less culturally similar, and less often described as neighbours. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Uranium (as of 2024)
2024-June-18: Finland seems to be in a special position (in the EU) in regard to Uranium.--Source YLE.fi, "Suomi on nyt Euroopan ainoa uraanin tuottaja – Sotkamon uraanikaivos tuottaa polttoainetta yhden ydinvoimalan tarpeeseen", Link, https://yle.fi/a/74-20094118. Should uranium (or a uranium-related article) be mentioned in the Finland article? Please edit the article (while i fix other articles). 80.67.37.2 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Economy_of_Finland is very lackluster, consisting of just a list of notable mines. It should contain an overview of the minimg industry in Finland, like most countries. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request of Note 2
The second sentence of Note 2 (Bolded):

"Finland was the first nation in the world to give all (adult) citizens full suffrage, in other words the right to vote and to run for office, in 1906. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant all (adult) citizens the right to vote, in 1893. But women did not get the right to run for the New Zealand legislature, until 1919."

might be better as the following:

"Finland was the first nation in the world to give all (adult) citizens full suffrage, in other words the right to vote and to run for office, in 1906. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant all (adult) citizens the right to vote in 1893, but women did not get the right to run for the New Zealand legislature until 1919."

as the extra comma is removed and the last sentence no longer begins with "but".

Tedward.best (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

✅ --TylerBurden (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
Please change this: According to the 2012 constitution, the president (currently Sauli Niinistö) leads foreign policy in cooperation with the government…

To this: According to the 2012 constitution, the president (currently Alecx Stubb) leads foreign policy in cooperation with the government, 2A00:23C6:E09B:DC01:E90F:3F7D:CF8E:3658 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Geardona (talk to me?) 18:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Finland


text:
Talk:Hinayana

Untitled

 * Talk:Hinayana/Archive 1 Talk up till 17 July 2004
 * Talk:Hinayana/Archive 2 Talk up till 26 August 2004
 * Talk:Hinayana/Archive 3 Talk up till 21 September 2004
 * Talk:Hinayana/Archive 5 Talk up till 17 May 2005

Note to Editors
Welcome to those who are interested in the Hinayana article, especially if you are new to wikipedia. Please remember to strive for a Neutral Point of View, and that we are writing an encylopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). Please read the archives above, as there are many issues which have been covered in some manner or another. Moreover, there is a collaborative replacement article championed by Munge at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. Discussion below focusses as much on that as it does the current article.

Sandbox - opening para.
Amended to indicate what the inferiority actually applies to. I am also aware of the more subtle implication - that the followers of an "inferior" path are also somehow inferior. This is why it's important to indicate exactly what the inferiority is concerned with. In the Pali, IIRC the only being currently engaged in the path to Samyaksambuddhahood is Maitreya.

 * The statement that Hinayana is a "term coined by Mahayana Buddhists applied to the doctrines, practices, and texts which are concerned with the achievement of Nirvana as a Sravaka-Buddha or a Pratyeka Buddha as opposed to the achievement of liberation as a Samyaksam-Buddha" is a statement that is not accepted as factual by many Theravada Buddhists. In fact, it is a statement of Mahayana doctrine.

 * If a statement is accepted by one sect but rejected by another, an impartial encyclopedia cannot present that statement as fact. The statement is therefore not encyclopedic.

 * --Munge 07:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Munge; I contend your point. First of all, (IIRC) traditionally, the Theravada do not make a statement regarding 'Hinayana'; it is a Mahayana (coined and used) technical term. The current Theravada position regarding the term 'Hinayana' is a reaction to the term: many people have established that the Theravada moved to Sri Lanka before the Mahayana (and thereby the term 'Hinayana') arose. So, the statement that 'Hinayana [is] applied to the doctrines etc... does not have an equivalent within the Theravada. It is therefore completely fine, as long as it is qualified, which in this case it is - where we say "coined by the Mahayana". As you point out, the statement is one of Mahayana doctrine, which is correct.

 * Your point about impartiality would be true if the statement were saying that "Buddhists assert that Hinayana ...", but the claim is solely that of the Mahayana, as is evidenced by stating "coined by the Mahayana". If you feel that such an issue needs to be strengthened - for instance, for those whose first language isnt' English, we could amend the sentence to: "...is a controversial term coined and used by Mahayana Buddhists  applied to the doctrines, practices and texts..." - I have no particular issue with that. I shall amend accordingly.

 * The original statement was factually wrong, certainly in the context of Mahayana doctrine. Maybe, if you see it has value, we could put it back in as: Whereas, the Theravada consider the phrase refers to those (doctrines, etc) that possess inferior capacity to carry people to the "other shore" (nirvana), compared to the Mahayana "great vehicle" - but I don't think that it is a good idea.

 * At least some traditional Mahayana schools (e.g. from Bengal, and late North India - as represented by Atisha, Santideva, etc) accept the Sravakayana as being foundational to the Mahayana - so, far from being inferior, or unnecessary, it is the bedrock that the Mahayana rests on (for instance, see Lamp of the Path, by Atisha - and the entire Lam Rim tradition made famous by Tsongkhapa). Here, the meaning of "Hina-" (inferior) solely applies to the idea that a Sravakabuddha is inferior to a Samyaksambuddha (IIRC, something which is not opposed by the Theravada) and in no way is to be considered as applicable to the Sravakayana methods, traditions, or traditions.

 * I found the second paragraph more difficult. I have copyedited it accordingly. (I have attempted to keep the same basic assertion) (20040302 09:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC))

In relation to Munge's changes to the Sandbox paragraphs
I think I get where you are coming from, but I don't like "contemporary" - after all Candrakirti and Atisha were hardly contemporary! I also understand the more neutral proposal of "Buddhists who reject the provenance of the Mahayana Sutras", but this possibly opens up a huge can of worms - there are many Mahayana schools who only accept some Mahayana sutras, and there may well have been non-Mahayana schools who accepted some Mahayana sutras also. Moreover, it focusses on the usage of 'Hinayana' as referring to schools/doctrines, rather than practices, whereas the emphasis of Hinayana in Mahayana sutras is on practices, rather than schools. Lastly, there is an inconsistency of numbers in the Lotus sutra - the 'haughty monks' that walk out of the discourse are far less in number than the Sravakas etc. present: To me, this indicates that the early Mahayana knew many followers of the Sravakayana that did not reject the Mahayana sutras: Something that I consider eminently feasible. After all, IIRC the initial assertion of the Mahayana is that it is worthwhile walking the longer journey of a Bodhisattva than it is to take the swifter journey of a Sravaka, albeit developments of Mahayana (Ch'an, Tantra etc.) talk about 'lightning' paths to Buddhahood.

I am not sure of any scriptural evidence AGAINST the statement that Hinayana is "concerned with the achievement of Nirvana as a Sravakabuddha or a Pratyekabuddha, as opposed to the achievement of liberation as a Samyaksambuddha", maybe you could be more explicit in describing your objections to it? (20040302 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

More nuanced English definitions of Hīnayāna needed in the opening paragraph?

 * Giving "Inferior Vehicle", "Deficient Vehicle", the "Abandoned Vehicle", or the "Defective Vehicle" as the only English equivalents of Hīnayāna in the prominent opening sentence of the article (particularly without a citation) seems rather extreme and over the top to me. Was the editor who wrote this trying to push a particular, non-neutral, POV (i.e. that the term is always used in a derogatory sense)?

 * No doubt, in some (perhaps many) cases, the term Hīnayāna may have been deliberately used in such a manner - but not always so. If, as this sentence suggests, the term was always used in the derogatory sense implied by the only English definitions currently given, are we implying that all the authors of all the texts where the term Hīnayāna is used were breaking the fundamental Bodhisattva/Mahāyāna precepts "not to disparage the Hīnayāna", or "not to abandon the Hīnayāna"?

 * In many cases "lower vehicle" would seem to be a much better translation than any of those given- and by "lower" it seems the sense "basic" or "foundational" vehicle was often intended.

 * In many Mahāyāna texts it is clearly stated that practice of the Hīnayāna is a necessary basis for the practice of the Mahāyāna - and that one a person enters the Mahāyāna, one must not abandon the practice of, or keeping the pledges of, the Hīnayāna (indeed that doing so would be a fundamental downfall). Just as a firm foundation is the necessary basis of a building, the Bodhisattva regards the Hīnayāna as the necessary "lower" basis or foundation for his or her Mahāyāna practice. Does a good architect or builder disparage a firm foundation?

 * Of course "lower vehicle" still implies that there is something above it - so it is not strictly neutral. But lower vehicle does not necessarily imply "Deficient" or "Defective" - and, according to the Bodhisattva precepts of the Mahāyāna, that "lower vehicle" or Hīnayāna is never a vehicle to be "Abandoned".

 * A second, more minor, point: The opening paragraph currently reads that the term "applied to the Śrāvakayāna" - with no mention that in Mahāyāna commentaries the term Hīnayāna is generally explained as being inclusive of (or shorthand for) both the Śrāvakayāna and the Pratyekabuddhayāna. I think this needs to be mentioned.

 * Chris Fynn (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What is Hinayana?
While on the topic of the opening paragraph, this article does a great job of saying what it is not to be confused with, but WHAT ARE THE CORE CONCEPTS OF THIS TAKE ON BUDDHISM? I came here to find out, and instead of a clear concise description of this sect, I get a comparison to other sects I haven't ever heard of. In the interest of a clear encyclopedia, I feel this should be addressed. Thank you, 96.226.243.86 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

8,000 Verses on main article
In the main article I've posted a cite that suggests that the term was not coined simply to refer to the paths leading to those two achievements. Rather, the passage refers to bodhisattvas who reject the provenance of the 8000 Lines. The passage doesn't consider them sravs or prats. Similar to Conze. See esp. Lopez. --Munge 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank-you for your contribution. I was somewhat uncomfortable with both the length and the lack of context with the citation that you've found. The long-standing Mahayana (and it is a Mahayana text) interpretation of this excerpt makes it clear that it is addressed to Bodhisattvas, for Bodhisattvas. The point being made is that once he has chosen it, a Bodhisattva should not reject or belittle the path to Samyaksambuddhahood. However, I believe that you were attempting to make the claim that Buddha was saying that the Sravakayana is objectively inferior - a reading which I consider contrived, in light of historic interpretation. Note that the sutra is clear to identify just what sort of person qualifies for this discourse: a Bodhisattva.

 * In light of the above, I have shortened the citation, and kept the immediate point of reference, and moved the external link down to the external links section.

 * I was somewhat uncomfortable with both the length and the lack of context with the citation that you've found. The title of the section is "Origins of Hinayana: Vehicles and Paths". The cite may be the actual origin of the term. That sounds like context to me. This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara. Think about that. --Munge 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No, it does not. What it says is that Bodhisattvas who doubt Mahayana sutras are afflicted by Mara. It says nothing about those who are not Bodhisattvas. Therefore, your emphasis is misplaced. I thought about it. Now it's your turn! (20040302 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

 * The chapter starts off: "Subhuti: The Lord proclaims virtues of sons and daughters of good family. Are any obstacles here which arise in such ones?

 * The Lord: Many obstacles are here, and are seen and thought of as the deeds of Mara.

 * Which is understandable, and not remarkable. The sutra is using Mara as is normally used: obstacles to the path of a Bodhisattva are seen as the deeds of Mara. What is not understandable is when we think that the sentence regarding a Mahayana practitioner doubting his/her own practice pertains to a wider audience, or casts aspersions of any sort on the Hinayana (outside the obvious fact that actions which lead away from Samyaksambuddhahood are inferior when one is walking the path to Samyaksambuddhahood - if Maitreya were to give up his path to Samyaksambuddhahood, and become a Sravakabuddha, it would be a fall –because he is on the path to Samyaksambuddhahood). Munge, just for a moment, why don't you reconsider your conviction? Maybe I am right - at least be gracious and show me how I am not right. (20040302 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

 * I wrote "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara." You wrote "No it does not". I think the passage speaks for itself, and it lets readers decide for themselves. The author indicates that Mara influences unintelligent bodhisattvas toward hinayana. This occurs in what may be the first instance the word ever occurs in a Buddhist text, perhaps any text. I don't know what you're refuting. This section needs to establish the origin of the word. --Munge 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the cite is good, I feel that you are broadening the scope of the cite in a manner which is misdirecting. This is how: You wrote "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with those who are afflicted by Mara." This does not indicate the restriction to Bodhisattvas. I am happy with: "This first cite associates the term, directly or indirectly, with Bodhisattvas who are afflicted by Mara." The context that I have been referring to is that of the scope of the text, not the text itself. Most importantly, the text does NOT claim that 'those who follow Hinayana are afflicted by Mara'. I have amended the article accordingly (20040302 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

 * It is all very well to talk of the PP8000 as an early example of the use of the term "Hinayana", but there is a difficulty here when one talks about the completed text as we have it now that makes it difficult to determine whether the use in that Mahayana text or any other candidate text is "early".  The difficulty is, of course, the question of stratification.  Most Mahayana sutras are heavily stratified, both in terms of interpolations of sentences and paragraphs into pre-existing materal and the insertion of additional whole chapters which then in turn have their own interpolations at the sentence level.   The earliest PP8000 to which we have access is the Chinese version attributed to Lokaksema.   A Dutch scholar, Aad Verboom, did his Phd reconstructing the likely form of the original PP8000 from this Lokaksema version. One suprise, that is relevent to this whole discussion, is the likelihood that the term "bodhisattva" was not used at all -- the PP8000 originally being written in quasi-Prakrit language -- but "bodhisakta" (one who cleaves to bodhi).--Stephen Hodge 03:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Small Pull
I pulled the following Attachment to the view of self contravenes the teachings of no-self (anatman), non-attachment (viraaga), and right view (sammaditthi) attributed to the historical Gautama Buddha, and accepted throughout history by nearly all Buddhists.

Of course I accept this, but I don't think that this is the place to start having to comment cites. The article is getting long enough already, and I trust that most people who have got this far into reading the article know enough about Buddhism (or can use hyperlinks to wiki articles) to understand this. I do get your point, so added a wikilink to anatman. I have made several other edits, primarily to reduce the bulk of your comments, without losing their purpose (except of course where you broaden the scope of the text to indicate that non-Bodhisattvas are also subjects of the text) (20040302 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Spelling
The hyphenation of samyaksambuddha as "samyaksam-buddha" is wrong, both in terms of spelling and as a guide to etymology. It wrongly implies that there is an element "samyaksam". Actually there are two layers of compounding here:
 * 1) Sam+buddha = "perfectly enlightened" (from sambudhyate "know perfectly") = sambuddha
 * 2) Samyañc+sambuddha = "thoroughly perfectly enlightened one" = samyaksambuddha

A prefix like "sam" is normally considered an integral part of the word it is attached to. So you could hyphenate "samyak-sambuddha", but not "samyaksam-buddha". It is better not to have any hyphen at all, though.RandomCritic 11:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Sutra cite
Why does the article contain text (in parentheses) indicating that the Diamond Sutra cite refers to bodhisattvas? i didn't notice the word "bodhisattva" in that chapter of the Sutra. Muller does use the phrase "any person" in the relevant paragraph. And why does the article say that "..the Diamond Sutra associates the term hinayana with practices and doctrines that lead to Sravakabuddhahood or Pratyekabuddhahood"? I didn't notice any reference to those categories in theDiamond Sutra. --Munge 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Why does the article contain text (in parentheses) indicating that the Diamond Sutra cite refers to bodhisattvas? I agree that in this case, it does not.

 * However, I'm not convinced by this translation. Compare, for instance, with Cowell, Muller, Takakusu or Buddhist Text Translation Society or A. F. Price, The Plum Village or Roach (page 48) - the Tibetan of which is a good translation directly from Sanskrit. (Tibetan is much closer to Sanskrit than Chinese).

 * Taking Roach for example: O Subhuti, those who are attracted to lesser things are incapable of hearing this presentation of the Dharma. Neither is it something for those who see some self, or for those who see some living being, or for those who see something that lives, or for those who see some person. the Tibetan (translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan by Shilendra Bodhi and Yeshe De) reads: "དམན་པ་ལ་མོས་པ་རྣམས...", which is "those who attracted to lesser things". Moreover, it is not those who are attached to the view of self - the Tibetan says OR those who are attached to the view of self, etc.

 * Therefore, I feel that the whole supposed Diamond Sutra reference to the Hinayana is weak. The term Hinayana is not used in translation (Tibetan, this would be "ཐེག་དམན་") - though the term hina- is. The Tibetan translators had a strict manner for translating from Sanskrit, and they would have used ཐེག་དམན་ if Hinayana were present. I am going to pull the entire cite as suspicious. (20040302 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Lotus Sutra cite: Why?
Diamond Sutra...would have used ཐེག་དམན་ if Hinayana were present.

For that matter, I'm not aware of any passage from the Lotus Sutra that uses the word hinayana. Perhaps you can clarify that, or perhaps we should delete those paragraphs as well. --Munge 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Williams: hinayana "abusive", sutras' "antagonism"
A long time ago in a Talk: page not so far away, 20040302 wrote:

I also refer you to Paul Williams' book

Some months back, I bought Buddhist Thought by Williams,. From p96:

 * ...the undoubted antagonism found in some Mahayana sutras toward those who fail to heed the message of the text. These people persistently continue to follow what the Mahayana sutras themselves term--using an intentionally polemical and abusive expression--an ˈInferior Wayˈ, a Hinayana...In some cases, perhaps increasing as time passed, this Great Way is contrasted with an Inferior Way (Hinayana) and sometimes this contrast is marked by the use of rather immoderate language. Followers of the Inferior Way are, as one Mahayana text puts it, ˈlike jackalsˈ...

The "like jackals" thing is footnoted so anyone can chase that down if they like. The reference is to Williams' Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, p21

Sure, there are apologias. Sure, you can argue the insulted parties are all dead. Sure, M vs. H is fundamentally different kind of opposition, unlike Protestant v. Catholic. What is clear, though, is that Williams perceived the term as "polemical" and "abusive". A term containing a value judgement, not simply a category. --Munge 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure - this is something stated by Williams. But that doesn't make it true. It makes it a statement by Williams. I will get back to you on this. Work is particularly busy right now. (20040302)

Conze: hinayana "pejorative"; Lotus "polemics"
"...Hinayana, inferior or lesser vehicle: pejorative for those Buddhists who did not accept the new Mahayana teaching..." from the glossary of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines & its Verse Summary, translated by Edward Conze, 1973, Four Seasons Foundation, San Francisco, p324.

Also, the title of Chapter 5, section 2 of Conze's Buddhist Scriptures is "Mahayana polemics against the Hinayana". What's in that section? It's the chapter of the Lotus Sutra that includes the parable of the carts. Munge 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * See above. I remain unconvinced. (20040302)

Still, if there's no explicit use of the word hinayana in the Lotus, I support deleting the Lotus cite and all the interpretive text currently there. We could revisit that later. It's pretty low priority, considering what needs to be done here. --Munge 05:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Apart from similar epithets, the term "hinayana" itself appears 3 times in the Lotus Sutra.--Stephen Hodge 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I will explain the import of the Lotus regarding hinayana later. see above. However, I agree that the cite from the lotus is extensive and could be reduced. - but though it may not explictly use the term 'hinayana', describes and typifies the triyana. The Vajracutter/Diamond cite was not typifying or describing the triyana, so it is much harder to identify hinayana as being the subject, regardless of the use of 'hina-' - which is found in contexts other than the triyana. (20040302)

 * Actually, you've made your position clear. So how about a cite? You seem to defend a view that the term was coined with complete objectivity and perfect respect for the people and scriptures it refer to. Other than Wikipedia, what source ever put forth such an idea? --Munge 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotus: Do not associate with sravaka aspirants
To amplify what I linked to last year, the Lotus Sutra (e.g. see this page translated by Burton Watson) also discourages or forbids contact between bodhisattvas and those who aspire to be sravakas (which Watson translates as "voice hearers"). True, bodhisattvas are also discouraged or forbidden to associate with non-Buddhists, hunters, and so on (including wrestlers, actors, heretics, and so on). But those in training to be sravakas are singled out for special extra avoidance measures, e.g. bodhisattvas aren't supposed to stay in the same room or attend the same talk.

If we decide that the Lotus is truly relevant to the Hinayana wiki, the part about keeping their distance from sravaka aspirants seems just as important as the parable of the carts. --Munge 05:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in making generalizations about Mahayana, especially early Mahayana, is that there seem to have been unconnected, different Mahayana communities dotted around Indian, working within or affiliated with existing non-Mahayana groups. The possible dynamics and implications of this situation are described by Joseph Walser in his recent book "Nagarjuna in Context". One might surmise that the use of the term Hinayana only arose in the texts belonging to Mahayana followers who had reached critical mass in terms of dominance. In situations where they were still in the minority, the terminology would have been less pejorative, hence the use of Sravaka. But an interesting feature of some early Mahayana sutras is that they even speak of bodhisattva sravakas and at times the two terms are even used as synonyms. The case of the Lotus Sutra is interesting. It suggests a situation of considerable conflict -- both towards Sravakas and also towards other Mahayana groups of which it does not approve. One might even imagine that when it was being compiled, its protagonists were holed up in just one or two small beleaguered communities. The millenarian undertones may be diagnostic of this. In any case, all the Mahayana groups in India were very small in number wherever they were. Gregory Schopen suggests that in the early medieval period there were probably more Mahayanists in China than in India.--Stephen Hodge 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Care to say what are the attitudes expressed by the Nirvana Sutra toward sravaka and hinayana? Elsewhere I noted wide variations in attitudes toward sravaka as expressed by different Mahayana sutras. --Munge 05:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In fact, the Mahaparinirvana-sutra (MPNS) is one of the texts to which I was alluding above.  First, it should be noted that the MPNS is a stratified text, so the overall situation is a bit fluid.   Nevertheless, the MPNS tends to slice up the territory differently.   The term "hinayana" is never used [in the core chapters of the sutra - Faxian and Tibetan - whereas it does occur in the long Dharmakshema form of the sutra], although "Mahayana" does occur, as does "bodhisattva".   I have not done a full stratification of the text, but my impression is that for the initial compilers there were just shravakas and shravakas -- some of whom are praised for being bodhisattvas or even bodhisattva-shravakas.   At a later stage, there is a contrast in certain contexts between the shravakas and the bodhisattvas -- the latter having a better or more mature understanding of the intention of the Buddha's teachings.   But there is no outright hostility or invective against the immature shravakas -- the idea is that they are capable of growth.   The main division of individuals in the MPNS revolves around two topics:  i) those who properly maintain the authentic Vinaya contra those who follow a false and indulgent Vinaya, and ii) those who accept the tathagata-garbha teachings contra those who reject and denigrate them.   The first theme is the earlier.  But, in both cases, those who are here vehemently criticized are termed "icchantika" -- those who can never be liberated because they have destroyed their wholesome  roots.  Interestingly, the early Madhyamikas are clearly included among the icchantikas of the second category.    So the overall division in the MPNS =  (bodhisattva contra shravaka) contra icchantika, where the contrast between bodhisattva and shravakas is less important than that between them and the icchantika false monks.--Stephen Hodge 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * PS: Read also my comment above under the 8000PP heading.--Stephen Hodge 23:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Occurrences of hīnayāna in the Lotus Sutra
I formerly thought there were no occurrences of 'hīnayāna in the Lotus but thanks to S. Hodge for correcting me.

Elsewhere, links to The Lotus Sutra, translated by Burton Watson, 1993, Columbia University Press, are now broken. Here are the excerpts that I believe correspond to the occurrences of the word or word part hinayana:
 * Chapter 2: "there is only the Law of the one vehicle,
 * there are not two, there are not three...
 * The Buddhas appear in the world
 * solely for this one reason, which is true;
 * the other two are not the truth.
 * Never do they use a lesser vehicle
 * to save living beings and ferry them across
 * The Buddha himself dwells in this Great Vehicle...
 * If I used a lesser vehicle
 * to convert even one person,
 * I would be guilty of stinginess and greed,
 * but such a thing would be impossible."

 * Chapter 6: (Subhuti and two other monks say in unison)
 * "...whenever we recall the errors of the Lesser Vehicle,
 * we do not know what we should do
 * to gain the Buddha's unsurpassed wisdom.
 * Though we hear the Buddha's voice
 * telling us that we will attain Buddhahood,
 * in our hearts we still harbor anxiety and fear..."

Sanskrit is here two occurrences in chapter 2, verses 55 and 57; one occurrence in chapter 6, verse 13.

In identifying Mahayana with ekayana, it seems to say that teachers who do not accept the authority of this sutra commit a serious error; perhaps due to cowardice or even greed. And maybe the parable of the prodigal son in Chapter 4 implies a pathetic quality to the error. --Munge 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There are a number of occurrences of hīnayāna in the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā but on the whole they do not refer to "the Hīnayāna". I've written about some of them here: Hīnayāna reprise. So for example we see the phrase: ekaṁ hi kāryaṁ dvitiyaṁ na vidyate | na hīnayānena nayanti buddhāḥ || ||55|| "For there is only one method, not a second. The Buddhas do not lead by a defective way". This says that the Buddha's do not teach a hīnayāna and we must conclude that the idea of śravakayāna or theravāda as a hīnayāna is not plausible. Jayarava (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fundamental attribution error"—attribution?

 * Those who assert that the term was coined in a merely classificatory manner, generally consider the pejorative accusation to be a Fundamental attribution error.

Preciesely who asserts that the term was not coined in a pejorative manner?

According to Fundamental attribution error article, a person makes such an error occurs when making incorrect assumptions about someone else's disposition. In what case do those who criticize the usage of hinayana criticize the disposition of Mahayanists, authors who commit errors, or anyone else?

I have occasionally read statements by Mahayanists asserting hinayana practices are upaya for those of inferior disposition. That, my friends, just might be a fundamental attribution error. --Munge 07:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Asanga's strong language criticizing hinayāna

 * By the 3rd Century CE, in the ethics chapter of Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi, we find an explicit injunction not to criticise or reject the Hīnayāna texts or traditions, where Trainee Bodhisattvas are instructed not to "disparage the Hīnayāna, or over-encourage others to learn Mahayana". (from current version of article)

At Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox I've arranged some quotes and translations from Asanga's Mahayanasutralamkara and Vasubandhu's commentary on that work. Most notably, Asanga compares hinayāna with things that are best avoided, namely "poison, weapons, lightning bolts, and enemies" (from a translation edited by Robert Thurman). In another passage, strategically located in Chapter 1, verses 3-4, Thurman et al apparently agree with articles by Samuels and also by Cohen, who translate Asanga as saying that Mahayāna and hinayāna are mutually contradictory in terms of their goals, teachings, and practices (and these translators substantially concur, despite their different attitudes toward the subject, and despite the fact that the passage in question doesn't explicitly use the word hinayāna. In part, they agree because surrounding passages make the context quite clear).

Vasubandhu's commentary identifies sravakayāna as "only for the individual's ultimate liberation, instruction is for that purpose only". Tradition holds that Vasubandhu was Asanga's half-brother, and was converted from Sarvāstivādin to Mahayāna dharma by Asanga. Though he might have had a convert's fervor, still, Vasubandhu's interpretation carries substantial weight if only because he was a contemporary of Asanga.

Bottom line: Asanga strongly amplified preexisting criticism against hinayāna. Citing a quote from him as an example of goodwill toward "hinayānists" is unjustified. --munge 09:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

who are the many's and the some's??
''For those that view the term as being relevant to traditions, some hold the view that Hīnayāna is cognate with solely the Early Buddhist Schools, while others hold the view that Hinayana is also cognate with the modern Theravada tradition. Moreover, many hold that the term was coined to be purposely pejorative, while others do not''

I don't know how this article should be tagged, it needs some template on the top. could anyone who knows put it there? Greetings, Sacca 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made quite a few edits to balance the article. The issue of the Many's and some's remains. It needs some references to publications.Greetings, Sacca 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vimalakirti Sutra
In the section headed "Origins of Hīnayāna: Vehicles and Paths", there is a quotation puportedly from the VS. However, the form given in the recently published Sanskrit edition (Institute for Compreghensive Studies of Buddhism Taisho University 2004) is different. It merely has namaḥ sarva-buddha-bodhisattvebhyaḥ, with no reference to anybody else. The salutation, as given in the article, derives from the Tibetan translation. Furthermore, it is not foound in any of the three Chinese translations. Therefore, I suggest that this quote has little probative value for the situation in India -- it seems more likely that the salutation was expanded by somebody in Tibet.--Stephen Hodge 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Classificatory"

 * There remains an open and active debate regarding the issue of whether Hīnayāna was coined to be pejorative or merely classificatory.

I see someone deleted the uncited use of the phrase "fundamental attribution error". I support that deletion. But the above statement also appears to be incorrect. I am not aware of any such debate except on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, nobody in history, except the author of the statement, asserted that Hīnayāna was coined in any other way but as a term of disparagement.

Somewhat OT, tonight I made some forward motion on Hinayana/Article Sandbox--munge 08:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinayana Sandbox (draft article) moved
The rough draft article formerly at Hinayana/Article Sandbox is now at Talk:Hinayana/Sandbox. My understanding is that some people supported the move because they believe that the draft should not be in the main namespace of Wikipedia, but that it's OK to be in the Talk: namespace.

There are still some extensive notes at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. Considering that I seem to be the only one who makes contributions of substance to that page, maybe I should move those notes, maybe to User talk:Munge/Hinayana Notes. Comments? --munge 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Add 'According to the Mahayana Sutras, the Mahayanist believed that" might help
The points were quite ironic and contradicting. This article seemed to be pro-mahayāna. If a Theravadians(Striving mainly for Arahantship) were not Hīnayāna, yet striving for any attainments other than the Samma-sambodhi is a Hīnayāna, isn't that pointing directly to beings who strive for arahantship and Paccekabodhi, which includes Theravadas?

Maybe by adding this sentence "According to the Mahayana Sutras, the Mahayanist believed that..." before all definations of 'Hīnayāna', in context to attainments, that will neturalise the whole article.

The term "Hīnayana" does not exist in the Pāli Tipiṭaka. In the eyes of Theravada, Arahantship is not Hīna at all.

Furthermore, in the eyes of Theravada Suttas regarding the difference between a Buddha and a Arahant was:

"So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released?"

... ...

The Blessed One said, "The Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one — is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterwards become endowed with the path.

"This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released."[]

Thus, respecting the viewpoints of different tradition, it is beneficial to state the points clearly, that such views and defination about Hīnayāna is purely a Mahayāna idea.

Buddhosavaka (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paths & goals
There's often confusion between these. Perhaps things could be clarified. In Theravada they are

 * mahabodhisatta on the path to become a sammasambuddha
 * paccekebodhisatta on the path to become a paccekabuddha
 * savakabodhisatta on the path to become a savakabuddha

In Theravada the term arahant covers all 3 goals, as in theory does buddha, tho' that is usually confined to sammasambuddha.

Mahayana normally, if not exclusively, uses bodhisattva to refer to mahabodhisatta & arhant to refer to savakabuddha. It often seems to use savaka to mean savakabuddha, & perhaps sometimes to mean savakabodhisatta. As far as I know it uses Buddha only in the sense of sammasambuddha. It uses pratyekabuddha to refer to both path & goal (see intro to the Waymans' translation of the Srimala for this). Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vajrayana pulled from 'brief'
''In the Vajrayana practice tradition of Buddhism the Hinayana is seen as one of the three major yanas (or 'vehicles') of Buddhism, alongside the Mahayana and Vajrayana. According to this view, there were three 'turnings of the wheel of dharma'. In the first turning, Shakyamuni Buddha taught the dharma as the Four Noble Truths at Varanasi which led to the Hinayana schools, of which only the Theravada remain today (although they object to the term 'Hinayana'). In the second turning, the 'Perfection of Wisdom' sutras were taught at Vulture's Peak and led to the Mahayana schools. The teachings which constituted the third turning of the wheel of dharma were taught at Shravasti and expounded that all beings have Buddha Nature. This third turning is described as having led to the Vajrayana.''

I pulled this for several reasons - first of all, it's not about Hinayana but about the Yogācāra interpretation the turnings of the wheel of Dharma - so it shouldn't be in the 'in brief' section. Secondly, the structure of the three turnings of the wheel does NOT belong to Vajrayana, but to the Yogācāra tradition. There are many Vajrayana traditions which are Madhaymaka rather than Yogācāra (such as the Gelugpa school), so there is no entailment that Yogācāra means Vajrayana. It maybe that the cited reference states what is written above - in which case the structure of the paragraph needs to qualify that. To be clear, the Gelugpa accept Asanga and Vasubandhu as valid and significant teachers, but they maintain that regarding Sunyata, the Madhaymikas got it right.

Another problem that I have with this inclusion is that it ignores the contents of the preceding paragraphs - as the article states, the term 'Hinayana' is not about schools as much as it is about doctrines, practitioners or thoughts. (20040302 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

 * Wouldn't adherents of the Gelugpa school consider that they practice both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna; and that their Mahāyāna teachings include teachings of both the Yogācāra and Madhyamaka traditions? Otherwise why did Tsongkhapa and hid followers write such lengthy commentaries on Yogācāra as well as Madhyamaka texts as well as the teachings of the vinaya - which they regard as "Hīnayāna"? And why do the Gelugpa spend do much time on debate which is rooted in the teachings of Dignāga and Dharmakirti - whom they assert followed the Yogācāra? Although as you say the Gelugpa "maintain that regarding Sunyata, the [Prasaṅgika] Madhaymikas got it right" - I think that, in common with most other Tibetan schools, the Gelugpa generally regard themselves and their teaching as being inclusive of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna (the later which they say also includes the Vajrayāna or Mantrayāna) - and also inclusive of Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, and some other schools.
 * Chris Fynn (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Longer Etymology pulled
I'm not totally convinced that pulling out entire dictionary sections is a good idea - and I believe that the article is mature enough not to need the following. Likewise, as mentioned in the edit, we should have just one etymology section on the article, not two. If we are to have one higher up, it needs to be brief. If we are to have a lengthy one, then we should remove the one at the top. (20040302 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

The Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary
The Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899), gives a translation of 'Hīnayāna' as: ''Proper Noun: "simpler or lesser vehicle. Name of the earliest system of Buddhist doctrine (opposite to Mahayana; see Yana)."

Hīna is defined in the same dictionary as follows:
 * hīná mfn. left, abandoned, forsaken RV.

 * left behind, excluded or shut out from, lower or weaker than, inferior to (abl.) Mn. MBh. &c.
 * left out, wanting, omitted MBh.
 * defeated or worsted (in a lawsuit) Yājñ.
 * deficient, defective, faulty, insufficient, short, incomplete, poor, little, low, vile, bad, base, mean ŚBr. &c. &c
 * bereft or deprived of, free from, devoid or destitute of, without (instr., abl., loc., acc., or comp
 * , 'bereft of breath or life'
 * mantrād or mantrato h○, 'devoid of sacred knowledge') KātyŚr. Mn. MBh. &c
 * lost or strayed from (a caravan) i, 4, 23 Kāś.
 * brought low, broken down in circumstances ŚrS.
 * m. a faulty or defective witness (of five kinds, viz. anya-vādin,, nôpasthāyin, nir-uttara, āhūsa-prapalâyin) Yājñ. Sch.
 * subtraction (= = vyavakalana) MW.
 * Mesua Ferrea L.
 * (ā), f. a female mouse ( for dīna) L.
 * (am), n. deficiency, want, absence (velā-hīne 'before the right time', unseasonably') Yājñ.

Pali Text Society Dictionary
According to Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (1921-25), the word 'hīna is defined thus:

Hīna:
 * 1) inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable
 * 2) deprived of, wanting, lacking

 * Normally I would agree, but because the usage and meaning is so contentious I think the longer etymology section is justified and adds something. Perhaps it could be reincorporated a little more elegantly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 * You want to have a go? Personally, I feel that the article expresses the fact of the contention in a reasonably balanced manner without needing the dictionary submission.  20040302 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it would do to included just a bit more of the PTS version. I'll work it in.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I like the way in which the etymology has been handled. Thanks, Sylvain 20040302 (talk)

Nattier quote
In a footnote in A Few Good Men: the Bodhisattva Path According to The Inquiry of Ugra  (pg. 173), Jan Nattier provides an interesting summary of the argument for the derogatory nature of the term hīnayāna: "It is important to point out that the term hīnayāna does not mean 'small vehicle'. The Indian epithet hīna, from the root √hā 'discard, shun; be deficient', carries a range of strongly negative associations, including 'lower, weaker, deficient, defective, low, vile' and 'mean' (see MW 1296b-c); the standard Tibetan equivalent theg-pa dman-pa 'low vehicle' accurately captures this negative connotation, as does the express lieh-sheng 劣乘 'inferior vehicle' used by Dharmarakṣa and some other early Chinese translators. In fact, the English expression 'small vehicle' is not based on the Indian term at all, but on the Chinese expression hsiao-sheng 小乘 'little vehicle' used by Kumārajīva and others. It may well be that Kumārajīva (whose own background was originally Sarvāstivādin) deliberately chose a less offensive, though technically inaccurate, expression to translate hīnayāna." Perhaps some of this material would be appropriate to quote in the article.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with interpreting Mahayana
I think in addition to the various issues that have been talked about here, there are some fundamental problems with trying to analyze the Mahayana sutras. That is to say, they usually take transcendent stances and often use seemingly-contradictory language in an attempt to communicate higher truths. For example, in the Lotus Sutra, we have quotes about the Buddha saving people however they need to be saved: as a shravaka, bodhisattva, tirthika, or anything else. In the 16th chapter, the Buddha tells a parable about a doctor saving his sons, providing the various vehicles as skillful means, to return them to their health when they refuse the highest teaching. Then there is the parable of the carts, which people are very quick to interpret, and often wrongly in my opinion. Mahayana sutras are often quite difficult in this way to use for scholarly purposes because they require substantial interpretation.

My main feeling, after reading many Mahayana sutras, is that a consistent position is that shravakas are at times criticized for being interested in their own salvation. However, successful shravakas who have reached the arhat stage are very revered for their accomplishments, although they are still viewed as not being at the end goal (buddhahood). Bodhisattvas are not criticized in the same way, because in Mahayana, it is viewed that a bodhisattva is moving closer to buddhahood by letting go of everything and not grasping samadhi or any other attainments. Therefore, the Mahayana sutras don't worry about bodhisattvas not reaching the supreme vehicle, because the bodhisattva vehicle will eventually lead there by cultivating samadhi through prajna, rather than just going into higher and higher samadhi stages, and becoming stuck in the nirvana with remainder.

As for the term "hinayana", I don't believe it refers to any one fixed thing, but rather is a label for any path that is viewed as clinging, especially to ideas about suffering. That is, if someone thinks "I'm suffering and I need to be saved", a bodhisattva might scorn this thinking as the hinayana because there is a sense of self. Whereas a shravaka sees suffering, a bodhisattva aims to realize the equality of all things by letting go and disengaging the five skandhas. This is very clearly communicated even in the tiny Heart Sutra by negating each of the Four Noble Truths. At its core, Mahayana has a very different way of interpreting the Sutra Pitaka, which often aims what it views as the highest interpretation.

We should also remember that Mahayana monks in India (and still today in Mahayana countries) use vinayas from the early Buddhist schools. That means that technically all Buddhists monastics who follow the precepts are in fact from the early Buddhist schools. Also, in India, monks would have first studied the Sutra Pitaka, which is referenced commonly in the Mahayana sutras. Therefore, the teachings of the Sutra Pitaka formed a basis for the Mahayana teachings. It seems problematic to me that there could then be a simplistic Hinayana / Mahayana dichotomy, given the common traditions and common textual basis.

I just wanted to provide a few things to consider, even if you read them and disagree with me. Tengu800 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What were the Hinayana criticized for?
What exactly did the Mahayana, or Bodhisattvas, criticize the Hinayana for? I've always thought that it was because the Hinayana did not seek the liberation of others, but only for themselves. Is this accurate? This paragraph was the most I could find which clearly specified what the Mahayana were critical of (though it is often said that they were indeed critical), "'The Mahayanists were bothered by the substantialist thought of the Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas, and in emphasizing the doctrine of emptiness, Kalupahana holds that they endeavored to preserve the early teaching.[21] The Theravadins too refuted the Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas (and other schools) on the grounds that their theories were in conflict with the non-substantialism of the canon. The Theravada arguments are preserved in the Kathavatthu.[22]" yet that paragraph is not very clear to the uninitiated. I feel like others may have the same difficulties in understanding when I have when they read this page, and may benefit from a clear explication on this topic on this page. makeswell (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * In later times that became a criticism -- that they were only interested in liberation for themselves. However, in earlier sutras such as the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, the aspiration to become an arhat is criticized as simply being a lower goal than that of buddhahood, and it is considered that those who aspire to it lack the wisdom to aim for buddhahood. In the Lotus Sutra, they are criticized for believing they had reached the final goal, and the idea that they have reached final nirvana is rejected, because they have not also reached buddhahood. Rather, it is considered to be a deep and empty state of cessation, which is compared to a drunken stupor -- arhats only developing samadhi with cessation in a one-sided way. It is considered that their samadhi is pure, but they still have obstructions to wisdom. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha says that they can stay in this samadhi until they are roused from it, and then they will proceed to buddhahood as a bodhisattva. The Lankavatara Sutra describes arhats as being masters of samadhi, but still having outflows, and lacking the nirvana of the buddhas. Most Mahayana sutras that do mention it (and not all do by any means) will mention it in passing for clarification, and each time they will hilight some aspect of the issue. However, the basic idea that they all conform to, is that arhatship is a limited and impermanent state that does not represent the final truth in Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Just wanted to add that you make a great point that the actual reasons for the use of the term "Hinayana" are never really discussed in Buddhist scholarship. It seems like they just attribute it to sectarian antagonism and gloss over the actual philosophical matters involved, which are related to the two main vehicles and their practice methods. Maybe this stems from the early misunderstanding that "Hinayana" and "Mahayana" were two schools of Buddhism, rather than terms for two different paths of practice which we know often coexisted in the same monastery and in the same nikaya (Dharmaguptaka, Sarvastivada, Sthaviravada, etc.). Tengu800 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the word "Hinayana" found in the Pali Canon?
The article starts with the statement: "Hinayana is a Sanskrit and Pali term...". Where in the Pali Canon is the term Hinayana used? 02 October 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.178.141 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 * That's a very good question. As far as I know, hinayana is not used in the Pali Canon. In fact, I'm not sure if any classical Pali literature uses that term. In that case, it would make sense to change the text to identify Sanskrit as the primary language for this term, with the caveat that it was probably also current in some prakrits as well. Tengu800 05:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Individual doctrinal differences
From the article: "To identify entire schools as "Hīnayāna" that contained not only śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, but also Mahāyāna bodhisattvas as well, would be attacking the schools of their fellow Mahāyānists as well as their own. Instead, what is demonstrated in the definition of Hīnayāna given by Yijing, is that the term referred to individuals based on doctrinal differences with the Mahāyāna tradition"

That is good to know. But a section describing these actual differences individual "Hīnayāna" figures had with the Mahāyāna tradition would be a real nice addition to all this etymology :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:441A:BF6C:2288:ACE1 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hinayana


text: User talk:62.78.138.108

title: User talk:62.78.138.108


text:
Arianna Huffington

Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington (Αριάδνη-Άννα Στασινοπούλου, ; born July 15, 1950) is a Greek American author, syndicated columnist and businesswoman. She is a co-founder of The Huffington Post, the founder and CEO of Thrive Global, and the author of fifteen books. She has been named to Time magazine's list of the worlds 100 most influential people and the Forbes Most Powerful Women list.

Huffington serves on numerous boards, including Onex, and Global Citizen.

She is the author of fifteen books, although two have been dogged by allegations of plagiarism, one of which she paid another author, an out of court settlement. Her last two books, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder and The Sleep Revolution: Transforming Your Life, One Night at a Time, both became international bestsellers.

Huffington, the former wife of Republican congressman Michael Huffington, co-founded The Huffington Post, which is now owned by BuzzFeed. She was a popular conservative commentator in the mid-1990s, after which, in the late 1990s, she offered liberal points of view in public, while remaining involved in business endeavors. In 2003, she ran as an independent candidate for governor in the California recall election and lost. In 2009, Huffington was in Forbes first-ever list of the Most Influential Women In Media. She has also moved up to in The Guardian's Top 100 in Media List. As of 2014, she was listed by Forbes as the 52nd Most Powerful Woman in the World. She had moved to 77nd as of 2018 and dropped off the list as of 2019.

In 2011, AOL acquired The Huffington Post for US$315 million and made Huffington the president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group, which included The Huffington Post and then-existing AOL properties including AOL Music, Engadget, Patch Media, and StyleList.

She stepped down from her role at The Huffington Post in August 2016 to focus on a new startup, Thrive Global, a behavior change technology company with the mission of improving productivity and health outcomes.

Early life
Huffington was born Ariadnē-Anna Stasinopoúlou (Αριάδνη-Άννα Στασινοπούλου) in Athens, Greece, in 1950, the daughter of Konstantinos (a journalist and management consultant) and Elli (née Georgiadi) Stasinopoulou, and is the sister of Agapi (an author, speaker, and performer). She moved to the United Kingdom at the age of 16 and studied economics at Girton College, Cambridge, where she was the first foreign, and third female, president of the Cambridge Union. She studied abroad in India, and told IANS in an email interview "India has long held a special place in my heart, from the time I went to study comparative religion at Visva-Bharati University".

In 1971, Huffington appeared in an edition of Face the Music along with Bernard Levin. A relationship developed, of which she wrote, after his death: "He wasn't just the big love of my life, he was a mentor as a writer and a role model as a thinker." Huffington began writing books in the 1970s, with editorial help from Levin. The two traveled to music festivals around the world for the BBC. They spent summers patronizing three-star restaurants in France. At the age of 30, she remained deeply in love with him but longed to have children; Levin never wanted to marry or have children. Huffington concluded that she had to break away, and moved to New York City in 1980.

From March to April 1980, Huffington joined Bob Langley as the co-host of BBC1's late-night talk and entertainment show Saturday Night at the Mill, appearing in just five editions before being dropped from the program. She was replaced by Jenny Hanley.

Career
In 1973, Arianna (as Stasinopoúlou) wrote a book titled The Female Woman, attacking the Women's Liberation movement in general and Germaine Greer's 1970 The Female Eunuch in particular. In the book she wrote, "Women's Lib claims that the achievement of total liberation would transform the lives of all women for the better; the truth is that it would transform only the lives of women with strong lesbian tendencies."

In the late 1980s, Huffington wrote several articles for National Review. In 1981, she wrote a biography of Maria Callas, Maria Callas – The Woman Behind the Legend, and in 1989, a biography of Pablo Picasso, Picasso: Creator and Destroyer.

Huffington rose to the national U.S. prominence during the unsuccessful Senate bid in 1994 by her then husband, Michael Huffington, a Republican. She became known as a reliable supporter of conservative causes such as Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" and Bob Dole's 1996 candidacy for president. She teamed up with liberal comedian Al Franken as the conservative half of "Strange Bedfellows" during Comedy Central's coverage of the 1996 U.S. presidential election. For her work, she and the writing team of Politically Incorrect were nominated for a 1997 Emmy for Outstanding Writing for a Variety or Music Program.

As late as 1998, Huffington still aligned herself with Republican Party. During that year, she did a weekly radio show in Los Angeles called Left, Right & Center, that "match[ed] her, the so-called 'right-winger', against self-described centrist policy wonk Matt Miller, and veteran 'leftist' journalist Robert Scheer." In an April 1998 profile in The New Yorker, Margaret Talbot wrote, "Most recently, she has cast herself as a kind of Republican Spice Girl – an endearingly ditzy right wing gal-about-town who is a guilty pleasure for people who know better." Huffington described herself by side-stepping the traditional party divide, saying "the right–left divisions are so outdated now. For me, the primary division is between people who are aware of what I call 'the two nations' (rich and poor), and those who are not."

Huffington, of Greek background, opposed the NATO intervention in Serbia during the Yugoslav Wars and in 2000, she co-convened the "Shadow Conventions", which appeared at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia and the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles at Patriotic Hall.

Huffington headed The Detroit Project, a public interest group lobbying automakers to start producing cars running on alternative fuels. The project's 2003 TV ads, which equated driving sport utility vehicles to funding terrorism, proved to be particularly controversial, with some stations refusing to run them.

In a 2004 appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, she announced her endorsement of John Kerry by saying, "When your house is burning down, you don't worry about the remodeling." Huffington was a panel speaker during the 2005 California Democratic Party State Convention, held in Los Angeles. She also spoke at the 2004 College Democrats of America Convention in Boston, which was held in conjunction with the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She was also a regular panelist on the nationally syndicated weekend radio program, Both Sides Now with Huffington & Matalin, hosted by Mark Green.

Huffington serves on the board of directors of the Berggruen Institute, the Center for Public Integrity, Uber, and Onex Corporation.

She is also a One Young World Counsellor, speaking to delegates at summits in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2013 and Dublin, Ireland, in 2014. She spoke about her "third metric" for success and the value of youth leadership.

On May 22, 2016, she gave the commencement address and received an honorary degree from Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Also in 2016, she was named to Oprah Winfrey's SuperSoul100 list of visionaries and influential leaders.

Huffington has authored 15 books in her career. She faced 37 rejections before securing a publishing contract for her second book. Huffington also wrote the foreword for Marina Khidekel's book 'Your Time to Thrive,' published in 2021.

The Huffington Post
In 2005, Huffington founded The Huffington Post (now known as HuffPost) with Andrew Breitbart, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti. It was launched on May 9, 2005, as a commentary outlet, blog, and an alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report. The site historically published work from both paid staff writers and reporters and unpaid bloggers. In February 2011, AOL acquired The Huffington Post for US$315 million, making Huffington editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group. In 2012, The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize. In 2016, Huffington officially departed from The Huffington Post.

Thrive Global
In 2016 Huffington stepped down from her positions at AOL and Huffington Post to launch her new enterprise, Thrive Global, which claims to offer "science-based solutions" to end stress and burnout.
 * Meditative Story Podcast – In August 2019, Thrive Global launched the podcast Meditative Story in partnership with WaitWhat – a media company led by former TED executives June Cohen and Deron Triff. The podcast supposedly combines first-person stories with meditation prompts and original music to create a "mindfulness experience" in audio. Variety has described it as "part first-person narrative podcast and part guided meditation." Forbes has described it as "a completely new kind of listening experience that blends intimate first-person stories with mindfulness prompts, enveloped in beautiful music composition." Huffington described Meditative Story as "a response to a deep cultural need in our hyper sped up world to have a moment to recharge. The podcast is a tool-set for wellness combining intimate storytelling, that we’re all hardwired to respond to, plus moments of reflection." The podcast's first season featured stories from Krista Tippett (host of the radio show On Being), NPR Host Peter Sagal, travel writer Pico Iyer, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, Beautycon Media's Moj Mahdara, actor Josh Radnor, and astronomer Michelle Thaller, among others.
 * Thrive Global Podcast – In 2017, Thrive Global launched a podcast with iHeart Radio featuring Huffington as host.

California recall election participation
Huffington was an independent candidate in the 2003 recall election of California Governor Gray Davis. She described her candidacy against frontrunner Arnold Schwarzenegger as "the hybrid versus the Hummer", making reference to her ownership of a hybrid vehicle, the Toyota Prius, and Schwarzenegger's Hummer. The two would proceed to have a high-profile clash during the election's debate.

She dropped out of the race on September 30, 2003, and endorsed Governor Gray Davis' campaign to vote against the recall. Polls showed that only about 2 percent of California voters planned to vote for her at the time of her withdrawal. In the announcement of her withdrawal, Huffington stated, "'It has become clear to me that the only way to stop a Republican takeover of our state is to vote No on the recall. Because it's also clear that I am not going to win on October 7, I am withdrawing from the race so that I can devote all my time and energy in the remaining week to defeating the recall – and to defeating the Arnold Schwarzenegger-Pete Wilson forces that are trying to use the recall to hijack our state.'" Though she failed to stop the recall, Huffington's name remained on the ballot and she placed 5th, capturing 47,505 votes – less than 1% of the vote.

Presence in media
Huffington was a panelist on the weekly BBC Radio 4 political discussion programme Any Questions?, and the BBC television panel games Call My Bluff and Face the Music. She served as co-host of BBC's late-night chat show Saturday Night at the Mill for four weeks before viewer complaints caused her to be dropped from the show. Huffington at one point was the co-host of the weekly, nationally syndicated public radio program Both Sides Now, along with Mary Matalin, former top aide to the George W. Bush administration. Every week on Both Sides Now, Huffington and Matalin discussed the nation's relevant political issues, offering both sides of every issue to listeners. Both Sides Now was hosted by former Air America Radio president and HuffPost blogger Mark Green.

Prior to The Huffington Post, Huffington hosted a website called AriannaOnline.com. Her first foray onto the internet was a website called Resignation.com, which called for the resignation of President Bill Clinton and was a rallying place for conservatives opposing Clinton. About Clinton resigning, she wrote, "Only some act of sacrifice can begin to restore the image of the President that we are left with from the Starr report – a man of staggering narcissism and self-indulgence, whom nobody dared gainsay, investing his energies first in gratifying his sexual greeds and then in using his staff, his friends, and the Secret Service to cover up the truth."

In November 2008, Huffington joined the cast of Seth MacFarlane's animated series The Cleveland Show, where she lent her voice to the wife of Tim the Bear, also named Arianna.

Huffington was spoofed by actress Tracey Ullman in her Showtime comedy series Tracey Ullman's State of the Union. Huffington spoke glowingly of the impersonation.

Huffington was further impersonated by actresses Michaela Watkins and Nasim Pedrad on Saturday Night Live.

She appeared as herself in the May 10, 2010, episode of the CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother.

Huffington participated in the 24th annual "Distinguished Speaker Series" at the University at Buffalo, New York, on September 16, 2010. She headlined a debate against radio co-host Mary Matalin on current world events, political issues, and the local Buffalo economy. The University at Buffalo "Distinguished Speaker Series" has featured a multitude of world-renowned politicians and celebrities such as Tony Blair, Bill Nye, Jon Stewart, and the Dalai Lama.

Huffington offered to provide as many buses as necessary to transport those who wanted to go to Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30, 2010, from The Huffington Post headquarters in New York City. Ultimately, she paid for 150 buses to ferry almost 10,000 people from Citi Field in Queens to RFK Stadium in DC.

Huffington played herself in the Family Guy episode "Brian Writes a Bestseller" along with Dana Gould and Bill Maher in a live segment of Real Time with Bill Maher.

In 2012, Huffington became a LinkedIn influencer, writing about success and sharing professional insights.

Claims of plagiarism
Huffington was accused of plagiarism for copying material for her book Maria Callas (1981); the claims were settled out of court in 1981, with Callas' biographer Gerald Fitzgerald being paid "in the low five figures."

Lydia Gasman, an art history professor at the University of Virginia, has claimed that Huffington's 1988 biography of Pablo Picasso, Picasso: Creator and Destroyer, included themes similar to those in Gasman's unpublished four-volume Ph.D. thesis. "What she did was steal twenty years of my work," Gasman told Maureen Orth in 1994. Gasman did not file suit. Huffington denied the allegations.

Religious views
Huffington has had a lifelong interest in spirituality; in her youth, together with Bernard Levin, she explored the Rajneesh movement, later dating Erhard Seminars Training founder Werner Erhard and going on to become affiliated with John-Roger Hinkins' Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness. In 1994, she published a self-help book titled The Fourth Instinct, outlining her view that people should rise above the three basic instincts of survival, power, and sex to find their higher and better selves.

Awards and honors
Huffington was named to the 2011 Time 100 as a media mogul. Huffington was selected for the inaugural 2021 Forbes 50 Over 50; made up of entrepreneurs, leaders, scientists and creators who are over the age of 50.

Personal life
Huffington is Greek by birth and became a naturalized American citizen in 1990. She met her husband Michael Huffington in 1985. They were married a year later, on April 12, 1986, and have two daughters, Isabella and Christina.

The couple later moved to Santa Barbara, California, and, in 1992, Michael ran as a Republican for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, winning the election by a significant margin. In 1994, he narrowly lost the race for the U.S. Senate seat in California to incumbent Dianne Feinstein.

The couple divorced in 1997. In 1998, Michael Huffington disclosed that he was bisexual, saying, "I know now that my sexuality is part of who I am, I've been through a long process of finding out the truth about me." He stated, "In December 1985, in my Houston townhouse I sat down with [Arianna] and told her that I had dated women and men so that she would be aware of it... The good news was that it was not an issue for her."

Interviews and statements

 * Video interview/discussion with Huffington and Robert Wright on Bloggingheads.tv
 * "7 Days in America" podcast
 * Arianna Huffington interview on the Tavis Smiley show. Watch her interview online. October 2006
 * Video of Arianna Huffington on The Hour
 * Arianna Huffington on her New Book Third World America – eo interview by Democracy Now!, September 10, 2010
 * Arianna Huffington interviewed by Sophie Elmhirst on New Statesman, December 2010
 * Arianna Huffington Video produced by Makers: Women Who Make America
 * Interview on Meet The Writers, Monocle 24 with Georgina Godwin
 * Interview on Meet The Writers, Monocle 24 with Georgina Godwin

Articles

 * Hurricane Arianna, article by Paul Harris, The Observer, December 10, 2006
 * This is the Future of the News: The Arianna Huffington Interview by David Weinberger for Wired, May 15, 2007

title: Arianna Huffington