School #51

Yogacara

Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dignaga

Yogacara (Consciousness-Only, Vijnanavada) holds that all phenomena are transformations of consciousness — there is no external material world independent of mind. Asanga's 'Mahayanasamgraha' ('Compendium of the Great Vehicle', c. 4th century CE) systematized the school's core doctrines, including the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness), a deep, continuous stream of awareness that carries the "seeds" (bija) of all past experiences and matures them into present appearances. His brother Vasubandhu's 'Vimshatika' ('Twenty Verses') and 'Trimsika' ('Thirty Verses', c. 4th-5th century CE) provided the philosophical arguments: the objects we take to be external are, upon analysis, indistinguishable from the representations of consciousness that perceives them — dream experience and waking experience have the same ontological status. Dignaga's 'Pramanasamuccaya' ('Compendium of Valid Cognition', c. 5th-6th century CE) developed a rigorous Buddhist epistemology within the Yogacara framework, reducing all valid knowledge to two sources — direct perception and inference — both of which operate entirely within the domain of consciousness.

Worldview

The Yogacara practitioner experiences reality as the play of consciousness — the apparently solid external world is recognized as a projection of the storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijnana), no more ontologically real than the vivid landscapes of a dream. To hold this ontology is to feel the ground shift beneath one's feet: what seemed like a world "out there" is revealed as an elaborate mental construction sustained by karmic seeds (bija) from beginningless time. Yet this is not solipsism — other streams of consciousness exist, each projecting its own experiential world from its own karmic storehouse. The fundamental orientation is toward the transformation of consciousness itself (ashraya-paravrtti), the radical turning-about in which the projecting mechanism is seen through and the distinction between subject and object collapses into awakened awareness. The framework classifies this as Cosmic-ordering metaphysical agency: the alaya-vijnana and the structure of consciousness function as an impersonal ordering principle of reality, not as a personal creator deity. The framework reads this as Experience-grounded moral authority: the sutras and śāstras instruct the practitioner, but the final test is direct yogic realization (pratyaksha-jñāna) in which the constructed nature of object and subject is seen through — text matures in meditative insight.

Moral Implications

If all phenomena are constructions of consciousness, then the suffering one perceives in the world is not an external imposition but a consequence of the karmic seeds one's own consciousness has accumulated through beginningless cycles of action and reaction. Moral responsibility is therefore deeply internal: harmful actions plant seeds in the storehouse consciousness that will ripen into future suffering, while virtuous actions plant seeds of liberation. The bodhisattva ideal — the commitment to liberate all sentient beings before entering final nirvana — follows from the recognition that all beings share the same fundamental predicament of mistaken externalization. Compassion (karuna) arises naturally when one sees that others' suffering, like one's own, is rooted in the confusion of consciousness with its projections.

Practical Implications

Yogacara has profoundly shaped Buddhist meditation practice, particularly the traditions of calm abiding (shamatha) and insight (vipashyana) that investigate the nature of perception and cognition. The analysis of the eight consciousnesses provides a sophisticated psychological framework that anticipates aspects of modern phenomenology and cognitive science. In daily life, the Yogacara practitioner cultivates mindful awareness of how the mind constructs experience, gradually loosening the grip of habitual patterns. The tradition has influenced East Asian Buddhism's emphasis on sudden awakening and the Zen koan tradition, which uses paradox to short-circuit the conceptualizing mind. Therapeutically, the Yogacara insight that suffering arises from mental constructions resonates with contemporary cognitive-behavioral approaches that treat psychological distress by restructuring habitual thought patterns.

I. Time

Time is emergent and infinite — it is a mental construction (vikalpa) projected by consciousness (vijñāna) rather than an independently existing reality. Time is continuous and cyclical: samsara extends without beginning through endless rounds of rebirth. It is uni-directional in ordinary experience but ultimately empty (śūnya) of inherent existence. In the transformation of consciousness (āśraya-parāvṛtti), the practitioner sees through the constructed nature of time.

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

II. Space

Space is emergent and infinite — it is a representation (vijnapti) produced by the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) rather than an independently existing container. Curvature is undefined because space has no mind-independent geometric character. Space is non-local in the sense that spatial experience is internal to consciousness. The external world as spatially extended is "consciousness-only" (vijñaptimātra).

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

III. Matter

Matter is emergent and finite — it is a projection of consciousness, not an independently existing substance. The Yogacara motto "vijñaptimātra" (consciousness-only) means that what appears as external matter is actually a manifestation of the storehouse consciousness. Matter is non-conserved in the ultimate sense: it is empty (śūnya) of independent existence. It is non-local because material appearances arise within consciousness, not in an external spatial container.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Non-conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

IV. Observer

The observer is consciousness itself — and what we call the "external world" is a projection of that consciousness, constructed from the seeds (bijas) stored in the storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijnana). While the observer may appear bound to a single place, it extends across multiple temporal moments through the karmic traces that link lifetime to lifetime. Through meditative practice, the observer can achieve total knowledge by recognizing that subject and object are not separate — that all experience is mind-only (vijnapti-matra). This liberating insight, once realized, is permanently retained as a transformation of consciousness at its root. The observer is ultimately disembodied — the body is a mental construction — and active, since rigorous contemplative practice is the path to awakening. Multiple streams of consciousness coexist, each projecting its own experiential world.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Total Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Disembodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering Moral Authority: Experience Theological Method: Mystical

V. Energy

Infinite and emergent — energy is a conceptual construction (prajnapti) arising within consciousness; it has no existence outside the transformations of the alaya-vijnana and is reducible to the maturation and exhaustion of karmic seeds. Conservation: Non-conserved — since all phenomena are impermanent (anitya) constructions of consciousness, energy can arise and cease without any conservation law; what appears as conservation is merely the regular patterning of seed-maturation. Dispersibility: Irreversible — the karmic process moves in one direction: seeds mature, produce effects, and are exhausted; only the radical transformation of enlightenment (ashraya-paravrtti) can halt this one-way process, but it does not reverse it.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Non-conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information is mind-only (vijnapti-matra) — the external informational world is a construction of consciousness. There is no information 'out there' independent of the mind that projects it. Information is emergent from consciousness. It is non-conserved because the seeds (bija) in the storehouse consciousness (alaya-vijnana) ripen and exhaust themselves. It is continuous because the stream of consciousness is unbroken. The framework distinguishes scales: at the cosmic scale information is non-conserved because the external world is mind-constructed and impermanent, but at the personal-identity scale information is conserved in the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) — karmic seeds persist across lifetimes until liberation.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Films Reading Through This School (1)

← #50 Neutral Monism All Schools #52 Zoroastrianism →

Works that name Yogacara in their embodiments

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

35%
Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Mid)
Asaṅga · c. 4th-5th century CE
35%
Triṃśikā (Mature)
Vasubandhu · c. 4th-5th century
32%
Viṃśatikā (Mature (post-conversion to Mahāyāna))
Vasubandhu · c. 4th-5th century
25%
Commentary on the Awakening of Mahayana Faith
Wonhyo · c. 660 CE
20%
Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity
Zongmi · c. 830s CE
15%
Abhidharmakośa
Vasubandhu · c. 4th–5th century AD
15%
Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism (Early (Suzuki's first major book; preceding the Essays in Zen Buddhism by twenty years))
Daisetsu Teitarō Suzuki · 1907 (Suzuki's first major book in English, written during his work with Paul Carus at the Open Court Press)
15%
Shōbōgenzō (Late)
Dōgen Zenji · 1231-1253 (95 fascicles)
15%
Pramanavarttika (Commentary on Valid Cognition) (Early)
Dharmakirti · c. 7th century
12%
Essence of Eloquence on the Interpretable and Definitive Meanings (Late-mature)
Tsongkhapa Losang Drakpa · 1407-1408
10%
Yoga Sutras
Patañjali (the historical author or compiler; possibly composite) · c. 2nd century BC – 4th century AD (composite redaction likely)
10%
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
Nāgārjuna · c. 150–250 AD (South India)
10%
The Heart Sutra
Anonymous (Mahāyāna tradition; some scholars argue for a Chinese composition c. 7th century) · c. 600 AD (extant form); verses possibly earlier
10%
The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch
Hui-neng (638–713), as transmitted by Fa-hai · c. 780 AD (Dunhuang manuscript); refined recensions through 13th century
10%
Wild Ivy (Itsumadegusa) (Late)
Hakuin Ekaku · 1765-66
10%
Attaining Enlightenment in This Very Existence (Sokushin Jōbutsu Gi) (Early)
Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi) · c. 817
10%
Lam rim chen mo (The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment) (Mid)
Tsongkhapa Losang Drakpa · 1402
10%
Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism (Mid)
Chögyam Trungpa · 1973 (compiled from 1970-71 lectures)
10%
Great Calming and Contemplation
Zhiyi · 594 CE (lectures recorded by Guanding)
5%
The Upanishads
Anonymous / composite (multiple ṛṣis over four centuries) · c. 800–200 BC
5%
The Dhammapada
Anonymous (attributed to the Buddha, compiled by the early sangha) · c. 3rd century BC (Pali recension; verses likely older)
5%
Brahma Sutra Bhāṣya
Ādi Śaṅkara (Śaṅkarācārya) · c. 700–750 AD
5%
Visuddhimagga
Buddhaghosa · c. 430 AD (composed at the Mahāvihāra monastery, Anurādhapura, Sri Lanka)
5%
Inquiry on the Great Learning (Daxue Wen) (Late)
Wang Yangming · 1527
5%
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind (Late)
Shunryu Suzuki (Suzuki-rōshi) · 1970
5%
Religion and Nothingness (Shūkyō to wa nani ka) (Mid)
Nishitani Keiji · 1961
5%
Being Peace (Late)
Thich Nhat Hanh · 1987
5%
The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Late)
Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama) · 2005
5%
When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times (Late)
Pema Chödrön (Deirdre Blomfield-Brown) · 1997

Personas with Yogacara as a declared influence

40%  Vasubandhu 30%  Daisetsu Teitarō Suzuki 25%  Wonhyo 20%  Zongmi 15%  Tsongkhapa Losang Drakpa 15%  Fazang 15%  Dharmakirti 10%  Zhiyi -10%  Nāgārjuna

How Yogacara resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 31 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 · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 18% of schools agree (38/208)
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. (31%) · The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create. (2%)
Distinctive · only 18% of schools agree (38/208)
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. (31%) · Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real. (2%)
Distinctive · only 18% of schools agree (38/208)
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
A species that no longer exists cannot be helped, cannot be consulted, cannot benefit. Whether anything is owed to it anyway turns on what kind of reality past beings have.
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
On cyclical views, the relationship to past beings — ancestors, lineages, predecessors — is structurally present, because past and future are part of the same ongoing structure of return. Extinct species are not categorically different from extinct human ancestors or non-yet-born descendants: all are part …
Roads not taken Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. (47%) · Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. (31%) · Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take. (2%)
6 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 4% of schools agree (9/208)
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 arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal.
On cyclical views, matter is neither a substance called out of nothing once-for-all nor a permanently conserved bedrock. It emerges from a deeper reality in each cosmic round and dissolves back into it. The creatio-ex-nihilo question presupposes a linear creation event the view denies; the …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (56%) · Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%)
Distinctive · only 4% of schools agree (9/208)
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 for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution.
On cyclical views, the physical world is real now, in this cosmic round. Its reality is not eternal; matter emerges from a deeper source and will return to it. The realism-idealism dispute, framed as a once-for-all metaphysical question, is answered at the cosmic-round scale rather …
Roads not taken Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (56%) · Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense. (23%) · Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction. (16%)
Distinctive · only 4% of schools agree (9/208)
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 in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated.
On cyclical views, the moral standing of a particular material form is real but impermanent. What matters is the ritual and contemplative relation to a world that is arising and dissolving. Asking for the standing of matter as such fixes what the view holds to …
Roads not taken Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (56%) · Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains. (23%) · Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric. (16%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
On this view, gold, fiat currency, cryptocurrency, frequent-flyer miles, prison cigarettes, and the IOUs scribbled on a bar napkin are not all the same kind of thing. They share family resemblances but no common essence. Trying to define money univocally is asking a question that …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (55%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
On this view, what we call nations are large-scale imagined communities — necessarily imagined because their members will never meet most other members, necessarily imagined as bounded and sovereign. The imagination is real and consequential; the underlying kind is not.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (55%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (14%)
2 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

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

Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there.
There is no point at which an unchanging core "comes into being"; there is a stream of conditioned arising that we choose to mark, or not mark, at various places. The political and moral question of how to treat developing humans is real; the metaphysical …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (55%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
“Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
On these views, “marriage” is a name applied to many overlapping but distinct social configurations across cultures and across history. To ask “what is marriage, really?” is to ask a question that doesn’t have a single answer — because there isn’t a single thing whose …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (55%) · Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. (14%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (26/208)
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 12% of schools agree (26/208)
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. (43%) · The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. (37%) · From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (26/208)
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
If God knows what you will do tomorrow, does your tomorrow-self choose freely? The classical problem of foreknowledge turns on whether the divine vantage stands outside time or inside it.
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
On this view, observers can in principle exist in more than one moment simultaneously — and divine omniscience is exactly the case of an observer occupying all moments at once. The future actions God 'foresees' aren't foreseen at all in the temporal sense; God simply …
Roads not taken The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. (46%) · The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. (34%) · Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves. (8%)
31 mainstream positions
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 12% 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. 12% What makes someone the same person over time? There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. 14% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. 14% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. 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% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Direct experiential union is the authority. 16% Does history have a direction or meaning? History recurs in cosmic cycles. 17% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. 18% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. 18% 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. 18% Could causation work backwards? Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. 18% 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. 18% 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. 18% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 66% 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. 38% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 38% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 38% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 38% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience. 17% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text. 17% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense. 17% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through direct contemplative union with reality. 13% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have. 10% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have. 10% Could an AI have a mind that matters? The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place. 7%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (208)
#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 #203 #204 #205 #206 #207 #208