Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Nagaraj

Pages: 1 ... 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 [324] 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 ... 342
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Bhaja Govindam
« on: May 25, 2009, 09:55:30 PM »
Dear Udai,

I believe, all attachments, possessions are NOT with respect to
body. They belong to the "I" alone. After all, body is lifeless,
everything that belongs belongs to "I" alone. It would be better
understood that this "I" through ignorance develops attachments, bonds,
accumulated possessions, etc... because of its incompleteness. It also
uses this body just like an equipment inorder to achieve its own

I also feel it is incorrect to believe that all possessions,
attachments, etc belong to body, because they don't belong to the body,
it is falsefully understood like that otherwise why do Vasanas exist
even in next birth? the incomplete "I" is the one who possesses all
these - attachments, etc... The body is purely innocent, lifeless, non

Later by the grace of Guru, on persistent enquiry about this "I", the
"I" finds that it is falsely existing. it falsefully has been believing
that that the body is its, the attachments, possessions, etc... all
were belonging to it... It finds that all these never existed at all.
It has been fooling and kidling itself.

Even if the body deteriorates, burned to ashes, still these -
attachments, possessions, etc.. will continue to linger around the
incomplete "I" and not the body. the body gets Moksha  :D its assured
but not the "I"


Very beautiful....

General topics / Re: Anybody other than King Janaka?
« on: May 25, 2009, 01:22:09 PM »
Dear Subramanian,

Your words are so very True. I just cant wait to go to Ramanashram and sit in front of Bhagawan in the Old Hall. Only he has/can to arrange for it to happen!

As he has said, look with physical eye, you see only the world and look with Jnana-Kann or with divine eye and you will see me everywhere.
Only he has to refine me enough and grant me those Jnana-Kann

With Prayers..

Question: “You have said here that you know no such
period of sadhana; you never performed japa or chanted any
mantra; you were in your natural state. I have not done any
sadhana worth the name. Can I say that I am in my natural
state? But my natural state is so different from yours. Does that
mean that the natural state of ordinary persons and realised
persons are different?”

Answer: “What you think to be your natural state is your
unnatural state. (And this was my second shock that shook me
from the slumber of my pet notions). With your intellect and
imagination you have constructed the castles of your pet notions
and desires. But do you know who has built up these castles,
who is the culprit, the real owner? The ‘I’ who really owns them
and the ‘I’ of your conception are quite different. Is it necessary
that you put forth some effort to come into the ‘I’ who owns
these, the ‘I’ behind all states?”

“Would you have to walk any distance to walk into the ‘I’
that is always you? This is what I mean by saying that no sadhana
is required for Self-realisation. All that is required is to refrain
from doing anything, by remaining still and being simply what
one really is. You have only to dehypnotise yourself of your
unnatural state. Then you have asked whether there is any
difference between the natural state of ordinary persons and
realised persons. What have they realised? They can realise only
what is real in them. What is real in them is real in you also. So
where is the difference?”

“Even then, some may ask”, “where is the conviction that one’s
Self is sakshat all right, that no sadhana is required at all for
Self-realisation? Well, do you need anybody to come and convince
you that you are seated before me and talking to me? You know for certain that you are seated here
and talking to me.”

“When we read a book, for instance, we read the letters
on the page. But can we say that we are reading only the letters?
Without the page of the book where are the letters. Again we
say that we are seeing the picture projected on a canvas. No
doubt we are seeing the picture, but without the canvas where is
the picture?”

“You can doubt and question everything but how can you
doubt the ‘I’ that questions everything. That ‘I’ is your natural
state. Would you have to labour or do sadhana to come into
this natural state?”


General topics / A Raw Prayer
« on: May 25, 2009, 01:04:43 PM »
O, Ramana, why don’t you call me to your place?
Have I not ground myself enough?
I am not able to hang around here!
IF you will you can pull me like a magnet
but you will not do,
you would say, I am there, be there!
But I can’t see you here completely
Can I not circumvent all this grinding,
If you will?
What can I do O Ramana, what can I do?
Everything is in your hands only
then what can I do?
What Karma to work out? What Prarabdha?
Take me back to where I came form, You
Who am I? Who am I? Who am I?
Rather me finding it out myself, O Ramana,
you can show me that in a moment and fix me
for you have told a Guru is a guide, Still
why do you leave me alone?


General topics / Re: Anybody other than King Janaka?
« on: May 25, 2009, 12:48:25 PM »
I am really jealous of all those people who got chance to see Bhagawan, more jealous of all those people who were able to converse with Bhagawan even more jealous with all those people who lived with Bhagawan. How lucky indeed all these people are.

To be born with spiritual mind is very good, and they are really fortunate who are able to pursue their spiritual Sadhana. Even more fortunate are those who spiritual Sadhana is accepted whole heartedly by their near and dear ones - family and allow them to pursue their Sadhana.

Dear Subramanian, though what you say is true -

Many cannot see Him,
Some could see Him,
But only a few are called,
And a fewer are chosen!

I have a mixed feeling within me which cries "why not me?, why not me?" 


General topics / Anybody other than King Janaka?
« on: May 22, 2009, 07:07:50 PM »
I wonder, if there is anybody other than King Janaka who realised without really going away from his home! all others have actually left their home! It actually is difficult to uphold to the Truth in midst of Samsara and family! Even Ramanar had left his home and stayed alone everafter! Who can we look for an example to lead a life of realised person at home in midst of day to day life here in thick of reality of our life! Even though all realised souls have said one need not take up sanyasa to realise truth! But who is there? Sometimes I feel, Sanyasa is essential to live in solitude to realise the truth, though I also know that Sanyasa is not really necessary as it is mind that need to renounce itself! But Mind has so much fuel here in the Samsara to feed upon!

Here in thick of life, I have come to a point where certain usual things of mundane life don't interest me, but at the same time, if you are not doing that, you are forced to do that! one more example is earning money is mandatory! We just can't JUST BE ! sometimes I wonder Sanyasa is essential!


The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Bhaja Govindam
« on: May 22, 2009, 12:18:13 PM »
Thinking again about my posts, I would like to take back my posts and views as I realise that it is only Vasanas that was in play! It no use thinking/analysing what Buddha did or Shankara did. What I have now with me is "ME" alone! what am I to do with "ME" is the real question! "I" am the real problem! Its really becomming a cycle - being caught in the grips of Vasanas for sometime and then really getting hold of MySelf for sometime and getting lost for sometime. Birth Death Sleep, Birth Death Sleep. Like the Verse goes -

punarapi jananam punarapi maranam punarapi jananii jathare shayanam iha samsaare bahudustaare kripayaa apaare paahi muraare

Born again, death again, birth again to stay in the mother's womb! It is indeed hard to cross this boundless ocean of samsara. Oh Murari! (Krishna - destroyer of Mura) Redeem me through Thy mercy.

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhajamuudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane
Serve (worship) Govinda, Serve Govinda, Serve Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

Nothing more or less to this - what more to say ?


The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Bhaja Govindam
« on: May 22, 2009, 09:31:45 AM »
Dear Matthias,

I don not know if my historical knowledge is a fact or not! but in any case anybody's historical knowledge is always questionable because it is always heard from another!

I never contested Buddha as one who got it all wrong! I do venerate the Buddha and have also been inspired by Him! But please see this - A need to propound the theory of Shunya arised because of his lack of in depth study of Vedanta, he is a great master who realised the Truth by his own sole effort, we can also say that he did not even have any Guru of sorts! Compare this with Ramana - Ramana also realised the Truth all by himself and he also did not have any Guru of sorts. After realisation, Ramana, did not propound any theory. He only came across Vedantic Texts, hence he found that his teachings matched with those of Vedanta! It could also be true had he come across texts of Nagarjuna or any other Buddhist scriptures! He would have found that his state exactly matched with those of Buddha! But he never propounded any new Theory!

I always believe based on my reading that Shunya according to me is same as Advaita, as the example I have mentioned about the Glass Tumbler half filled with water, one says its half filled and another says its half empty! An Advaitin would agree with this because for him all is one but a Buddhist would contest with this example because for him it is empty!

I wrote Consciousness as emptiness and according to you, Nagarjuna has said all concepts are empty. If just emptiness is not a subject of being empty then why it is called as Shunya then? for according to Sanskrit dictionary, Shunyata means Empty, Void, Blankness, Vacant! If you contest that emptiness is not a subject of being empty, then it should not be called as Shunyata at all!

The other point, I failed to understand Buddha is his vehement criticism of Rituals. Rituals are a systematic means by which a spiritual student goes step by step towards the Ultimate Goal! The fact is before Shankara, the state of society was in a very pathetic condition because of the vehemence against rituals by Buddhists, people were ridiculed, confused, about the theory of Shunyata and atheism of Jains, it meant nothing existed, the very existence of God was questionable!

The spiritual situation was deplorable. Both Jainism and Buddhism had lost their original glory. The message of ahimsa and compassion preached by the Lord Buddha had fallen onto deaf ears. The original teaching of Buddha stressed the importance of moral life, in the process sidelining theistic worship. Over the centuries that followed, there emerged a number of Buddhist schools, the adherents of which used strict logic and reason to defend the rationalism and atheism inherent in Buddha's teachings, while totally forgetting the importance he gave to the supremacy of an ethical life of love and compassion. Thus, the common people were left neither with an ethical way of life nor with a religion to practice, as they could not come to terms with the rationalism and atheism propagated by the Buddhist schools. This, in turn, led to the worship of Buddha as God, the emergence of elaborate rituals of worship, and the Buddhist monks transforming themselves into priests of these new ceremonies and exponents of popular stories about Buddha. The spiritual life, therefore, among the Buddhists was at a low point, as what were left of Buddhism were mere logical schools and corrupt ritual practices. Thus, Buddhism had completed a full circle, in that the very ritualism which Buddha combatted in founding Buddhism had infected it; in the process, the vitality and purity of Buddhism taught by Lord Buddha had ceased to exist.

- Madhavia Vidyaranya in his Shankara Dig Vijaya

Mandana Misra, one of the disciples of Shankara was the disciple of Kumarila Bhatta. According to legend, Bhatta went to study Buddhism at Nalanda (the largest 4th century university in the world), with the aim of learning the Buddhist doctrine. He was expelled from the university when he protested against his teacher (Dharmakirti) ridiculing the Vedic rituals. Legend has it that even though he was thrown off of the university's tower, he survived with an eye injury. (Modern enthusiastic mimamsa scholars and followers of Vedanta believe that this was because he imposed a condition on the infallibility of the Vedas.)

Kumarila Bhatta left Nalanda after that and settled down in Prayag (modern day Allahabad). Two years later, he challenged his teacher to a debate on grammar and logic. Life was at stake in this debate - the defeated one was to endure a slow death by self-immolation. It is said that overcome with guilt of causing his teacher to die, he too chose to commit suicide in the same manner.

One medieval work on the life of Sankara (considered most accurate) claims that Sankara challenged Bhatta to a debate on his deathbed.[8] The work however does not expressly clarify if the deathbed was this pile of slow burning fire.

Another work on Sankara's life however claims that Sankara implored Bhatta not to commit suicide. Another contradictory legend however says that Bhatta continued to live on with two wives several students, one of whom was Prabhakara. According to this legend, Bhatta died in Varanasi at the age of 80.

This was not intended at initiating a debate, but just for clarification, after all a good discussion only elevates one higher on his path of knowledge and Truth. Afterall debating Buddha or Shankara will not lead one to truth :)

Infact, Shankara's great Guru, Sri Gaudapada found many instances and also referred to many Buddistic texts and only found that they only referred to Advaita and not Shunyata.  In his Karika of Mandukya Upanishad, you will find many Buddistic ideas. The only points I contested was the Vehemence against Rituals and Propounding a Theory, which in my very humble opinion has only created confusion!


General topics / Re: Death/deep sleep/coma/unconsiousness
« on: May 22, 2009, 08:17:17 AM »
Dear Shadak,

I feel what I have said is correct according to my understanding - If the consciousness is not permanent then, I can't help say that even even this moment, I am in some state of unconsciousness state. I am not in a position to acknowledge that I am in that BLISSFUL state. If at all the consciousness is awakened, I would not have any need to be here discussing and learning more from here!

Consciousness is a state which is permanently being in the present moment. what ever we discuss here is only based on our past experiences. the mind lingers around this knowledge vasanas - to be in the present or the Turiya is to be even beyond knowledge!

Pure Consciousness is ever present, there is no denying to that! But can we call it Pure Consciousness if it is mixed up with Body, Thoughts? What Bhagawan did was only to raise others up to consciousness who have so long been in an unconsciousness state!

Please see this - only when you got in touch with Ramana was your consciousness brought into light, but until then? what can we say? Unconsciousness of our own self! thats what I meant! But you see our Vasanas are so strong that even after being shown light by Ramana about of true self - Consciousness, still we linger around this knowledge and needless discussions!


General topics / Re: Death/deep sleep/coma/unconsiousness
« on: May 21, 2009, 01:35:22 PM »
Dear Ramanaduli,

There is death only for the one who has a birth. What dies is what is born. So it is thoughts alone that is taking birth and dies for countless times. Are you born? first find out when you were born!

God is always praised because of this natural law - what is born must die. this is what happens when you sleep. you are dead, i.e. you thoughts are dead. well we are not aware during our sleep because we don't know that we are consciousness. that awareness is present even during sleep. when we know that we are the consciousness, we would not even have the requirement of sleep. for there is no more birth or death (of thoughts) consciousness alone is.

Coma is same as sleeping state - awareness is not present. no consciousness. therefore, it lays as a dead body.

Unconsciousness is the state we are even at present !

The death. what we know about death and birth is only what we see outside - when we saw a child being born we then thought - "oh so this is what is called as birth, and similarly, when we saw an old man die, the we thought - "oh this is what is called death"  the fact is that one cannot  find out his own Birth or Death. Try as much as you can, you can never trace your own birth - only so called others tell you when you are born - say you are born on 01/01/2001 at 02:30 hours etc.... this also we only believe what others say! can you know where from you originated?

The fact is you never originated! you are ever there, you have no death - for you are that awareness, that consciousness! Nothing dies or nothing is born! what dies is only the thoughts alone!


The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Bhaja Govindam
« on: May 21, 2009, 01:22:28 PM »
Bhagawan Ramana in his statement, speaks about the Shunya - Nothingness - Void - Emptyness - Blank in a passing phrase -

"First the Self sees the itself as an Object
Then the Self sees itself as Void
then finally the Self sees itself as Self. Only here in the last stage there is no seeing because seeing is being"

The only thing I failed to understand Buddha is that - how can the consciousness be empty? It is this consciousness alone which has propounded the theory of Shunya as well? How can the propounder be in case of Shunya? The propounder or the Self alone is. How can it be that this very self is not there? It is! It alone is! How can there be Shunya? Shunya is impossible!


The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Bhaja Govindam
« on: May 21, 2009, 12:34:40 PM »
Its a known fact that Buddha himself was a student of Vendata. He practiced a lot of Yogic Sadhana and went into deep meditations, Japas, etc... Infact, at certain point, all his disciples also left him as his teachings initially were not impressive. Then, finally, when he really became the Buddha, the enlightened, he began to propound his theory of Shunya. Till Buddha, No other sages and saints ever defined THAT state -  as it is undefinable. At this point of time, The vedic rituals which were being practiced for practical living suffered. The Buddhists were vehement against rituals.

The core of Buddhism dealt with Desires - Desires are the reasons for all suffereings, etc... Which is not a practical step. People began to reject their body, they were controlling their desires against the will of their body. Thus the normal practical life go affected badly. People began to reject Rituals and family.. etc... Infact during the last years of the Buddha, his own disciples began to misinterpret his teachings and went against the Buddha himself. this is the reason why Buddha left his disciples and went deep into the forest during his last days.

This created Confusion, people were so confused. The Vedanta laid down more practical system of having Varnashramas. not ever one can become a Buddha just like that. the society would have got affected, the family, children would have got affected.

Infact it is because Buddha had not studied the vedanta completely that he defined THAT state as Shunya - offcourse its the same as Brahmin - lets say its like a glass tumbler which is half filled with water - one says its half empty and another says its half full. thats all.

In midst of this confusion, Adi Shankara propounded the theory and Vedanta to again re install faith in the VEdanat and more importantly Vedanta. Curtailing desires is IMPRACTICAL. more practical ways is to pass the stage of Varnashrama and then realise the truth.

In fact one is ever in THAT state all the time. if at all one is expecting a change that he/ she would become a Buddha, a Shankara, a Ramana, its not going to happen. there is nothing to become here. It is this interpretation which Buddha propounded the Shunya - There is nothing there to become. But if a layman is told about Shunya, what would happen to society family etc... ?


"That which makes the enquiry is the ego. The 'I' about which the enquiry is made is also the ego. As the result of the enquiry, the ego ceases to exist and only the Self is found to exist." - Sri Ramana Maharshi

In this way, the one that feels "I am conscious of this" is the ego, and the one that also says "this is also not enough" is also the ego,  every opinions, learning etc... is only the ego's play.  The one that says "aybe i am not making much sense. all these things are too much of the mind. how do u separate consciousness from the mind?? how can u be sure that when u "watch" yourself by being "conscious", this too is not a mind thing???" is also the ego

"One goes through all sorts of austerities to become what one already is" - Sri Ramana Maharshi

Therefore, the one that is making the enquiry itself is the search! how can one look at ones own back? how can one look at ones own eyes? (not through the mirror) so simply illustrated by Kabir -

Kasturi Kundal Base
Mrug Dhoondhe Ban Maahi
Jyo Ghat Ghat Ram Hai
Duniya Dekhe Nahi

A deer has the fragrance in itself and runs throughout the forest for finding it. similarly the one that is making the search is the same self, is actually in search of itself -

In the same Self - The one that is making the Search is called or termed as the ego and
the one that the Self is in search of is also itself!

"......The best course is therefore is to remain silent and be just a witness." - Sri Ramana Maharshi

"He is Jnani who sees he is the Self  and it is on that Self as the screen that the various cinema-pictures of what is called the world pass. he remains unaffected by the shadows which play on the surface of that screen" - Sri Ramana Maharshi


General Discussion / Re: U G Krishnamurti
« on: May 15, 2009, 09:38:34 PM »
Yes, in his entire series of talks.... he speaks about Ramana thus, infact, his quest for realisation/liberation ended only after he met Ramana Maharshi. This is verbatim, as told by UG himself. This is recorded in one of his audio talks which I have heard myself, He criticised everbody and everything, but there are no criticisms related to Ramana Maharshi as per my knowledge. Only the details as given below corresponds to UG on Ramana  - Its pretty big, but its worth a reading!

I arrived at a point when I was twenty-one where I felt very strongly that all teachers -- Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna, everybody -- kidded themselves, deluded themselves and deluded everybody. This, you see, could not be the thing at all -- "Where is the state that these people talk about and describe? That description seems to have no relation to me, to the way I am functioning. Everybody says 'Don't get angry' -- I am angry all the time. I'm full of brutal activities inside, so that is false. What these people are telling me I should be is something false, and because it is false it will falsify me. I don't want to live the life of a false person. I am greedy, and non-greed is what they are talking about. There is something wrong somewhere. This greed is something real, something natural to me; what they are talking about is unnatural. So, something is wrong somewhere. But I am not ready to change myself, to falsify myself, for the sake of being in a state of non-greed; my greed is a reality to me." I lived in the midst of people who talked of these things everlastingly -- everybody was false, I can tell you. So, somehow, what you call 'existentialist nausea' (I didn't use those words at the time, but now I happen to know these terms, revulsion against everything sacred and everything holy, crept into my system and threw everything out: "No more slokas, no more religion, no more practices -- there isn't anything there; but what is here is something natural. I am a brute, I am a monster, I am full of violence -- this is reality. I am full of desire. Desirelessness, non-greed, non-anger -- those things have no meaning to me; they are false, and they are not only false, they are falsifying me." So I said to myself "I'm finished with the whole business," but it is not that simple, you see.

Then somebody came along, and we were discussing all these things. He found me practically an atheist (but not a practicing atheist), skeptical of everything, heretical down to my boots. He said "There is one man here, somewhere in Madras at Tiruvannamalai, called Ramana Maharshi. Come on, let's go and see that man. Here is a living human embodiment of the Hindu tradition."

I didn't want to see any holy man. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. I never shopped around, went around searching for people, sitting at the feet of the masters, learning something; because everybody tells you "Do more and more of the same thing, and you will get it." What I got were more and more experiences, and then those experiences demanded permanence -- and there is no such thing as permanence. So, "The holy men are all phonies -- they are telling me only what is there in the books. That I can read -- 'Do the same again and again' -- that I don't want. Experiences I don't want. They are trying to share an experience with me. I'm not interested in experience. As far as experience goes, for me there is no difference between the religious experience and the sex experience or any other experience; the religious experience is like any other experience. I am not interested in experiencing Brahman; I am not interested in experiencing reality; I am not interested in experiencing truth. They might help others; but they cannot help me. I'm not interested in doing more of the same; what I have done is enough. At school if you want to solve a mathematical problem, you repeat it again and again -- you solve the mathematical problem, and you discover that the answer is in the problem. So, what the hell are you doing, trying to solve the problem? It is easier to find the answer first instead of going through all this."

So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once. Something will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a book, Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the chapter relating to this man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me go and see." That man was sitting there. From his very presence I felt "What! This man -- how can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this man help me? He can't help me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I looked at him, and he looked at me. "In his presence you feel silent, your questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some questions" -- because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed to be a liberated man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me what you have?" -- I asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after some lapse of time I repeated that question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you have, can you give it to me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you take it?" Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can give you," but this man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" Then I said to myself "If there is any individual in this world who can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" -- that was my frame of mind at the time -- you know, (laughs) I was so confident of myself.

I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I asked him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and not free sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are not free at all." There was another question which I don't remember. He answered in a very strange way: "There are no steps leading you to that." But I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- the answers didn't interest me at all.

But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!" -- that was my feeling. "Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What is it that he has?" -- that was my question, a natural question. So, the question formulated itself: "What is that state that all those people -- Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is in that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap is like me, a human being. How is he different from me? What others say or what he is saying is of no importance to me; anybody can do what he is doing. What is there? He can't be very much different from me. He was also born from parents. He has his own particular ideas about the whole business. Some people say something happened to him, but how is he different from me? What is there: What is that state?" -- that was my fundamental question, the basic question -- that went on and on and on. "I must find out what that state is. Nobody can give that state; I am on my own. I have to go on this uncharted sea without a compass, without a boat, with not even a raft to take me. I am going to find out for myself what the state is in which that man is." I wanted that very much, otherwise I wouldn't have given my life.

Those of you who are interested to know about UG's death experience or Calamity - that is what he likes to call his death experience, please check these links:

1.  Calamity or Death Experience -
2.  Aftermath after his calamity -


Pages: 1 ... 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 [324] 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 ... 342