School #195

Vedanta

The Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaṇa, Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva

Vedānta — 'the end of the Vedas' — is the broad family of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions that take as their canonical sources the Upaniṣads (the speculative texts that conclude the Vedic corpus, composed between roughly 800 and 200 BCE), the 'Bhagavad Gītā' (interpolated into the Mahābhārata by c. 200 BCE-200 CE), and the 'Brahma Sūtras' (Vedānta Sūtras) of Bādarāyaṇa (c. 200 BCE-200 CE), and that centre their inquiry on the nature of Brahman (the ultimate reality), the ātman (the self), and the relation between them. These three sources — the prasthāna-trayī or 'triple foundation' — admit a wide range of interpretation, and the major Vedāntic schools differ precisely in their reading of the relation between ātman and Brahman. Śaṅkara (c. 700-750 CE) founded Advaita (non-dual) Vedānta, holding ātman to be identical with Brahman and the apparent world to be māyā. Rāmānuja (1017-1137) developed Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism) in his 'Śrī Bhāṣya', holding that the world and individual selves are real and constitute the body of which Brahman (identified with the personal deity Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa) is the inner self. Madhva (1238-1317) advanced Dvaita (dualism) in his 'Anuvyākhyāna', insisting on the irreducible ontological distinction between Brahman, individual souls, and the material world. Further Vedāntic schools include Nimbārka's Dvaitādvaita, Vallabha's Śuddhādvaita, and Caitanya's Acintya-Bhedābheda. In the modern period Vivekānanda, Aurobindo, and Radhakrishnan made Vedānta (chiefly in Advaitin form) the canonical philosophical face of Hinduism in global discourse. Vedānta is the parent tradition; Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, and Dvaita are its principal differentiations within a shared scriptural and interpretive framework.

Worldview

The Vedāntin inhabits a world structured by the relation between Brahman — the ultimate, infinite, conscious reality — and the multiplicity of selves and forms that arise from, depend on, or are identical with it. The śruti is the indispensable map of this relation, the guru the indispensable guide. The fundamental orientation varies across the schools — the Advaitin tends toward contemplative withdrawal and discriminative inquiry, the Viśiṣṭādvaitin toward loving devotion (bhakti) to Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa, the Dvaitin toward worshipful service of the supreme Lord — but all share the conviction that the present condition of saṃsāric bondage is to be transcended through the proper knowledge and practice authorised by scripture. The framework classifies this as Cosmic-ordering: Brahman is the impersonal ground of all being in Advaita and the cosmic-ordering principle whose body or governed creation constitutes the world in Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita; even the personal deities Viṣṇu, Śiva, and the goddess are understood as expressions of or subordinate to this ordering reality, and Personal agency in the saving sense is more a Bhakti emphasis carried by particular sub-schools than a defining commitment of Vedānta as such. The framework reads this as Scripture: across all Vedāntic schools the śruti — the Upaniṣads, the Brahma Sūtras, and the Bhagavad Gītā together with the authorised commentaries on them — is the foundational authority for doctrine and practice, with reason and experience operating as faithful subordinates rather than independent sources.

Moral Implications

Vedāntic ethics is grounded in dharma — the cosmic-social order articulated in the śāstric literature and adapted to the practitioner's stage of life (āśrama) and station (varṇa). The cultivation of the four legitimate aims of life (puruṣārtha: dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa) provides the canonical ethical framework. Action is to be performed without attachment to its fruits (niṣkāma-karma), as taught in the Bhagavad Gītā, with liberation rather than worldly success as the ultimate end. The bhakti traditions add loving devotion to the personal deity as a transformative ethical and spiritual practice; the jñāna traditions emphasise discriminative knowledge that distinguishes the real from the apparent. Compassion toward all beings, non-violence (ahiṃsā), truthfulness, and self-discipline are universally affirmed.

Practical Implications

Vedānta constitutes the philosophical and theological backbone of Hinduism as a global tradition: its categories shape temple worship, monastic orders (the daśanāmī tradition descending from Śaṅkara, the Śrīvaiṣṇava community descending from Rāmānuja, the Mādhva tradition), pilgrimage, ritual, and the long history of guru-disciple transmission. In the modern period the Advaitin reading made canonical by Vivekānanda's 1893 World's Parliament of Religions address has shaped Hindu self-presentation globally; the Ramakrishna Mission, Aurobindo Ashram, Chinmaya Mission, and many other institutions carry Vedāntic teaching to wide audiences. Vedāntic categories have influenced comparative religion, transpersonal psychology, the Western reception of meditation, and Hindu nationalist political discourse, the last of which has provoked sustained critique of the misuse of Vedāntic universalism for ethno-political purposes.

I. Time

Time is emergent and infinite, structured by the Hindu cosmological scheme of cyclical cosmic ages: the four yugas (Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara, Kali) form a mahāyuga, a thousand mahāyugas constitute a kalpa (a day of Brahmā), and creation cycles repeat without beginning. Time is one-dimensional, continuous, non-directional in the sense that the cycles repeat endlessly, and non-deterministic — karma conditions but does not necessitate, and divine grace plays a decisive role in the theistic Vedāntic schools. For the liberated soul, time is transcended in the realisation of (or relation to) the timeless Brahman.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Cyclical Dimensionality: One Direction: Non-directional

II. Space

Space is emergent and infinite, extending across innumerable lokas (realms) of existence as catalogued in the Purāṇic literature that Vedāntic commentary frequently draws upon. Space is three-dimensional at the ordinary phenomenal level, of undefined curvature in any precise geometric sense, and non-local because Brahman is omnipresent and the ātman-Brahman relation transcends spatial separation. The pilgrimage geography of India — the seven sacred cities, the rivers, the temples — articulates a sacred spatial order within the conventional realm.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Curvature: Undefined Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter (prakṛti) is emergent and infinite in scope, conserved across cosmic cycles, and non-local on the Vedāntic reading because all material reality is ultimately grounded in or pervaded by Brahman. The schools differ on its ontological status: Advaita treats it as māyā, Viśiṣṭādvaita as the real body of Brahman, Dvaita as a distinct created reality dependent on Brahman. In the cosmic cycle of sṛṣṭi (emanation) and pralaya (dissolution), matter is reabsorbed into and re-emerges from its primordial unmanifest state without absolute creation or annihilation.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

IV. Observer

The Vedāntic observer is the ātman (self), which on every Vedāntic reading is fundamentally related to Brahman, though the schools disagree sharply on the nature of that relation. Across the tradition the ātman is treated as the genuine subject of cognition and experience — embodied for the duration of saṃsāric life but capable in principle of total knowledge in the state of liberation (mokṣa), in which the relation to Brahman is fully realised. Observers are plural in the conventional sense of numerically distinct selves transmigrating through multiple lives and realms, though Advaita ultimately reduces this plurality to māyā. Agency is both active and passive: the Bhagavad Gītā's teaching of niṣkāma-karma (action without attachment to fruits) frames the human predicament as one in which we must act while recognising that the deepest agency belongs to Brahman or Īśvara. Physicality is both: in saṃsāra the ātman is gross-body embodied, while subtler bodies (sūkṣma-śarīra) carry karmic patterns across lives.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Multiple Extent of Knowledge: Total Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Both Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering Moral Authority: Scripture Theological Method: Magisterial

V. Energy

Energy is emergent and infinite, often theologised as the śakti (power) of Brahman or, in the theistic schools, of the personal deity. Conservation is upheld across cosmic cycles: spiritual and material energies are reabsorbed at pralaya and re-emerge at the next creation. Dispersibility is reversible: divine grace, the dedication of merit, and the operation of the guru-disciple relation can transfer and renew spiritual energy in ways that exceed ordinary karmic accounting.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Reversible

VI. Information

Information is emergent at the cosmic scale but conserved at the personal-identity scale: the ātman, on every Vedāntic reading, preserves its identity across the death-rebirth transition and ultimately attains the changeless knowledge of Brahman in mokṣa. The śruti (the revealed scripture of the Upaniṣads) is treated as eternal, uncreated information of the highest authority, transmitted through impeccable oral lineage and preserved by the brahmin guardians of the textual tradition. The śāstric corpus of commentaries — Śaṅkara's, Rāmānuja's, Madhva's, and the centuries of sub-commentaries — constitutes one of the world's most elaborated interpretive archives.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous
← #194 Madhyamaka All Schools #196 Cynicism →

Works that name Vedanta in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

6%
Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya (Mature)
Madhvācārya · 13th century (Madhva c. 1238-1317)
6%
Mahābhārata-Tātparya-Nirṇaya (Mature)
Madhvācārya · 13th century
6%
Viṣṇu-Tattva-Nirṇaya (Mature)
Madhvācārya · 13th century
6%
Tattvodyota (Mature)
Madhvācārya · 13th century
6%
Parimala (Mid)
Raghavendra Swami · c. 1620-1671
6%
Tatparya Chandrika (Mid)
Raghavendra Swami · c. 1620-1671
6%
Nyaya Mukura (Mid)
Raghavendra Swami · c. 1620-1671
6%
Bhagavata Tatparya commentary (Mid)
Raghavendra Swami · c. 1620-1671
6%
Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya (Career-defining)
Adi Śaṅkara · c. late 8th century
6%
Upadeśasāhasrī (Mature)
Adi Śaṅkara · c. late 8th century

How Vedanta resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 29 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
Distinctive · only 17% of schools agree (35/202)
How much weight do future people deserve?
If a billion people will exist in the 25th century, do their interests count for as much as the interests of a billion people alive now? The answer turns on what kind of reality the future has.
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
On these views, time is not a one-way arrow but a structure of return: cosmic cycles, karmic cycles, the seasons, the succession of generations. To act now is always also to act for the ancestors who shaped your inheritance and for the descendants who will …
Roads not taken Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. (47%) · Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. (32%) · The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create. (2%)
Distinctive · only 17% of schools agree (35/202)
Is regret rational?
If the past is fixed and unchangeable, what kind of mental act is regret? An error, a duty, a lesson, a perspective on a moment that is still in some sense present?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
On cyclical views, the past is not a fixed thing behind you — it is part of the ongoing structure of return: karmic cycles, cosmic cycles, the cycle of seasons and generations. Regret, on these views, is less about an unchangeable past and more about …
Roads not taken The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. (47%) · The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. (32%) · Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real. (2%)
4 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Is the physical world fully real?
Realists, idealists, and relationalists divide on whether matter exists mind-independently, derivatively, or as a pattern of relations. The split runs deeper than any single scientific question.
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
On this view, the physical world is real enough — it has its own laws, its own conservation principles, its own resistance to wish — but it is not the floor of being. It is sustained by something else: mind, divine attention, computational substrate, or …
Roads not taken Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (55%) · Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction. (16%) · Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Do rocks, soil, rivers, and stuff in general deserve moral consideration — or only the living, the conscious, the human? The answer turns on what matter is.
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
On this view, matter doesn't have standing on its own; it has standing through what it makes possible. Soil matters because it grows food; water matters because it sustains life and mind and practice. Asking whether the rock as such has moral standing slightly misreads …
Roads not taken Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (55%) · Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric. (16%) · Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated. (4%)
4 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
What makes someone the same person over time?
When dementia hollows out memory, when a coma resolves with no recall, when you imagine being uploaded — the question of whether the surviving person is still you turns on what kind of thing the 'you' was to begin with.
You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now.
On this view, the observer is not bound to a single present. Identity is something that exists across moments — as a pattern, an ancestral line, a trans-temporal structure. Uploading, in this picture, is not a metaphysical impossibility but an engineering question; ancestors are real …
Roads not taken You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. (36%) · You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. (29%) · There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. (14%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Loss of memory, of recognition, of the cognitive patterns that made the person — does this end the person, or merely the person you knew? The answer turns on what makes someone who they are.
The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person.
On this view, the person is constituted by a pattern extending across moments — memory, narrative, characteristic ways of being. As dementia erodes the pattern, the person is correspondingly diminished. What remains is real but is less than what was; the marriage to the person …
Roads not taken Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. (36%) · The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. (29%) · There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. (14%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The Star Trek transporter problem: a machine scans your body atom by atom, transmits the pattern, builds an exact duplicate at the destination, and dismantles the original. Whether you arrive at the destination or die in the scanner is the question; the answer depends on what you are.
You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive.
On this view, you are the trans-temporal pattern that has shown up in this body up to now. The teleporter preserves the pattern — destroys one instance, builds another — and the pattern is what matters. You step in and you step out. The fact …
Roads not taken Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. (36%) · The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it. (29%) · There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. (14%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Carbon emissions in your country contribute to flooding in another. A factory's effluent across the border kills ecosystems you'll never see. Whether you bear moral weight for what happens far away turns on whether distance dilutes obligation.
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
On this view, the obligations one bears extend across distance because the connections do. Carbon emissions, trade flows, the global supply chains we are part of, the ancestral and ecological webs that hold the planet together — these constitute real connections that distance does not …
Roads not taken Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. (50%) · Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. (29%) · Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (26/202)
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight of a promise made to someone now gone — these all presuppose that the dead are present in some sense beyond memory. Whether they are turns on whether an observer is the kind of thing that exists in a single moment or across many.
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
On this view, an observer is not located at a single moment but extends across moments. The dead, on this signature, are not gone — they are elsewhere on the same trans-temporal structure that you yourself occupy. Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight …
Roads not taken Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. (44%) · The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. (35%) · From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. (8%)
31 mainstream positions
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering. 13% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 13% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode. 13% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary. 14% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Institutional teaching tradition is the authority. 14% What is our place in nature? Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. 15% Should we colonize space? The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. 15% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. 15% Does history have a direction or meaning? History recurs in cosmic cycles. 16% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. 17% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. 17% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle. 17% Could causation work backwards? Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. 17% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions. 17% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't. 17% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 37% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 37% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 37% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — minds are not the kind of thing we engineer. 30% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Moral standing comparable to humans requires what only humans have. 29% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Without ensoulment, an organoid is tissue, not a person. 29% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 28% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 28% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 28% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through received divine self-disclosure. 12%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (202)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202