Well, it would be nice if you would not give me a report, but continue your discussion from the small groups with all of us and with me. But I heard that we might have a meeting after the seminar in the afternoon or something. And if we do it, what I would like is to have some discussion of... How the Winterbranches program or expectation works for you? As I said, I thought it would be a few people, 10 or 15 or something.

[01:05]

So maybe the expectations of one sashin each year, is that it? And one winter branches week? One winter branches week and one what we call a sangha weekend. So maybe that's not enough. Maybe it's too much. I don't know. I think that now... You know, it's just an idea, but now it's initially last year. But now it's not an idea, it's you and others. So I think we can decide together, discuss together, how this program should continue. Okay.

[02:42]

Now, yeah. I just can add, and there's still now a decision made how the topic we go on. There was this idea, or you brought up the idea, maybe go on with sutra or maybe go on in koan study in this year because this is just a catch-up. People are waiting for more information how the first week will start. Maybe we can send some information. Good. So we can discuss what the subject should be Good. Okay, some continuation of yesterday's discussion? Uli? I'd like to summarize a few aspects of our small group that are close to my heart. Okay. One person in our group spoke about that's what I understood as if it was possible to abide in only one skanda.

[03:46]

And the thing that was mentioned was the fourth, the association impulses. I mean, is it possible to abide in it for the rest of your life or just one at a time? One at a time, okay. I only want to be in associations the rest of my life. Okay, so, excuse me, I didn't understand. Yeah. Yesterday I had trouble understanding this, but then I remembered that in experience it's also possible to abide in just form. And I understand form not only as that which appears in front of my eyes, but also emotions.

[05:25]

And I answered this question for myself with a kind of yeah that seems to be possible. And the second aspect that was discussed was on the second scandal, the feeling scandal. And the second aspect that was discussed was on the second scandal, the feeling scandal. And we try to distinguish between pleasant or unpleasant and neither nor. And also the question arose, to what extent is that distinguishable from neutral indifference?

[06:29]

And how important is this neither-nor in terms of practices? Can that also be like a gate to start practicing with the five skandhas? Okay, those are good questions. Das sind gute Fragen. But if I try to answer them now, we'll have to stay until Monday. Aber wenn ich jetzt versuche, sie zu beantworten, dann werden wir bis Montag hierbleiben müssen. But I will try to respond to them a little later. Aber ich werde etwas später versuchen, darauf zu antworten. Okay, someone else. Yes? Ich hätte eine Frage dahingehend, ob genau diese Gefühle also einen Grund haben, also ob If there is a reason why a feeling is of its own kind, then one could change the reason and then change the feeling.

[08:01]

And it has to be something like that, because the tendency through practice is that the neutral feelings multiply. My question is whether these feelings that also she mentioned, whether there's a reason for these feelings, and if that is the case, then whether this reason can be changed so that the feeling that comes from the reason can be changed. And that's all I have to say. And it seems like there should be such a background because the tendency of practice is to increase the neutral part. The neutral. Okay. Okay. Okay, thanks.

[09:14]

Yes, that continues what she said, so. Oh, hi. Behind Big Frank, I can hardly see you there. I also am looking at the second skandha and clarify how to fill that turn. When you talked about this tension you felt from protecting yourself from radiation, I had an association that maybe there is also some kind of a protective tension from enlightenment.

[10:15]

Like, you know, the fact that... Enlightenment! Oh, God! Yes, right. Like, you know, like you described, how everything is a construct, and this reality that's constructed... I feel that it's not so easy for me to let that in. And to me it's a little bit like I imagine this... What's that strange done? The radiation of emptiness. The radiation of emptiness. And... In the second skandha I feel that maybe this protection, this protective tension is the grasping or the tendency to like or to go towards or away from rather than resting in the neutral aspect of things as they are.

[11:34]

This tension, this protection tension, I perceive as a tendency of grasping. Okay, let me ask a question. How have I defined, when I talked about the five skandhas, how have I defined the second skandha? Yes? I heard that like this picture about the cloud, that in the moment when the cloud is crossing the sun, the mood is changing.

[12:47]

For me that is a feeling with no analysis and anything else. Yes, please, in German. I understood it in such a way that this scandal of feeling or feelings only means what is said in this picture, when the cloud pulls over the sun, that at that moment the mood changes. For me, this is the scandal of feelings, without any analysis or thinking or association. Okay, yes, to my heart. Anybody remember what I do? Yes? But I'm interested, does anybody remember? Yes? Non-graspable feeling. Or ungraspable, non-graspable. That's it, that interests me, you know. I've been, in the last 20 years, been teaching the five skandhas more than any other single thing.

[13:49]

And... defining it as non-graspable feeling in contrast to the usual philosophical way within the Abhidharma. I find it interesting. I have learned the five skandhas more in recent years than anything else. And to define this second skanda as an intangible feeling, in contrast to the philosophical texts that have also been written, But then you remember and discuss what you just read recently and not what I've said. Well, sometimes people tell me, it's not what you teach, it's how you teach that we like. So maybe I should just sit up here and smile. Giggle or, you know. Let my hair grow and, you know.

[14:51]

Oh dear. Yeah, I was struck too by the... I've taught the Eightfold Path... So many times. Not as many as the five skandhas. But when I wrote it out, people grasped it much more clearly than from my speaking. In Zen, it's supposed to be the opposite. But maybe we are so used to assimilating through the medium of print that it takes hold of our... We conceptually grasp it clearer than hearing it.

[15:57]

It doesn't mean I think I can hand you a book and die. I know that the oral face-to-face teaching is essential to bring a text alive. But I'm surprised at what I just said. I'll come back. Yeah, just a moment. You know, the first five or six years that Sukhiroshi taught, he wouldn't let any recording be made or anything.

[17:01]

He took the view that if you don't learn it orally, then you're not going to learn it. And I took notes during his lectures, but... You know, it's even a story of no notes were allowed in the old days that one guy had a paper kimono that he wrote secretly on during the lecture. Yeah. I have a hard time imagining how they did that. You have your secret brush and your ink, and no one's noticing it. Maybe somehow he had an early MP3 player hidden somewhere.

[18:05]

Um... But then let's look at the facts when we started recording Suzuki Roshi's lectures. Which we started in, I don't know, 65 or so. And they turned into Zen Mind Beginner's Mind, which has made him a world figure. But his own view was, I'd rather only be known by the people who knew me. I've taken that view all these years. That's the main reason I haven't written a book. Then at one point I decided to, but I hadn't been able to finish it.

[19:23]

Okay, yes. So rather go on teaching and finishing your book, yeah, yeah. Well, that's the choice I make, yeah, every day. Yeah, I mean, that's not a strange, surprising phenomenon when we talk about to repeat what you actually have been talking and teaching to us. For example, yesterday you made it very clear what the topic of the small groups could be, and then we asked six people, how did you understand the topics? It took quite a while to figure out And six people bring up somehow six different topics. And it's just ten minutes ago or half an hour ago in that you made it very clear. And that's surprising that happens very often when we go into these small groups that people, I don't know, don't say that we forget.

[20:26]

got already, but it's difficult to put that in own words and to come to one topic with just ten words and then you say, yes, that's the topic, how I understood it. That's really a phenomenon, listening to you and try to repeat that. Sorry, maybe that's good, I don't know. What surprised me was that we all got a very clear topic before the break. I would like you to talk about it. And we then in the small group, we were six or seven, first tried, yes, what was the topic now? And in the end there were six different or at least so slightly different different opinions about what we should talk about now. And that shows up again and again, although really

[21:28]

There has always been a clear theme that if someone just has to express it, that is the theme, that there are always different things coming out and that it is difficult to hear. and to let it sink somehow, but then to articulate it very clearly in clear words and to say here in ten words, this is the topic. So we experience that again and again, for example, when it comes to these small groups. Well, you know, maybe I want to speak to the non-discursive part of you. So maybe you're in a kind of trance.

[22:33]

And you don't know what I'm saying. And little bits of it surface now and then. I forgot the last part even the translator Little bits surface in the... Yeah, sometimes. But I have no doubt that you're understanding what I'm talking about. It's just that you're transferred into articulate conscious conceptions as somewhat lacking occasionally. But we're dancing together.

[23:36]

Yes. I think for myself I say that I just need time to let it go. percolate and mature. And yesterday in our group, I think it was symbolical for this topic, that we discussed about the ungraspable feeling and at some point I realized that we're just trying the opposite to understand the ungraspable feeling by grasping it. So that often when we discuss we really are, have the tendency to go in the skandhas versus the consciousness and stay there to understand the whole discussion from the consciousness. The difficulty to find a way to also discuss it not only on the consciousness as well.

[24:42]

One answer or kind of situation we have these days is just to say, OK, ungraspable feeling is just ungraspable, so when it appears as this, this is it. And then we have to find how can we observe that, or how can we just let it appear in a way. So it was an easy, some kind of, for me, a feeling of letting go to understand what ungraspable feeling really means. I think for everybody in the group it was a kind of a turning point how to approach there. Most of the participants also had some experience with you all already over years, so I think For me personally it is important that I also have time to let it work and mature, what I hear from Roshi. Yesterday we had a group, the term of the untouchable feeling. and then we noticed that we were stuck and actually did the opposite of what we were actually discussing.

[25:51]

We wanted to make this intangible feeling tangible to the point where we actually realized that we were asking these questions always from the point of view of consciousness, we want to look at it that way, to try to grasp it, but it simply cannot work, until we came to the point of saying that the unaggressive feeling is simply a fact that appears, and if it appears to us as this, then it is the unaggressive feeling. So how can we observe this or simply let it happen in order to say from it that I actually know what the unaggressive feeling is? without wanting to try to grasp it, but rather to have the opportunity and the willingness to let in an unreachable feeling. And most of the group were people who had been practicing with Roshi for a long time, which was a hint to me that we could understand each other in this way, because a certain time has already been set in which we have worked with this concept.

[27:03]

Okay, let me just say something. Thank you for that. Let me just say something about English. If we say ungraspable, it means it could be graspable. These mathematical formulas are are ungraspable to me, but they could be graspable. Non-graspable means it's not in the category of graspable or ungraspable. The example I always give is there's a feeling in this room right now that is always changing, but is what's happening in this room.

[28:12]

And you could say it's settled or it's quiet or it's soft or something, but really you can't say what it is. And if you say what it is, it's already different and it's not that. Yeah. Okay. Someone else. Can I just ask for clarification also for translation? Sure. So you make a distinction between ungraspable and non-graspable. Yes. And the second skanda is ungraspable. No, non-graspable. Non-graspable. Okay. Do we have that distinction in Germany?

[29:17]

It's difficult to make that clear distinction. In English, too, it's not clear. I guess in Germany we kind of mix it up and we are not so clear about that. This is really a difference between these two words. Well, it's one of those things that's not that clear in English either, except it's now custom to use non in this way. This is when you have to make a technical term. You take a word out of the language, out of the usual way of using it, and you say, it means this in these special circumstances. Yeah, okay. Yes? Is it not with every feeling, when you are really aware, that it is not to be grasped in this way, or not to be held? It's not every feeling like that, that if you sense into it, it's not graspable.

[30:29]

You can't hold on to it. Essentially, yes. So Dagmar's comment about the cloud going across the sun, there's a different feeling. And it may be negative, it may be unpleasant. But in a deeper sense, it's neither pleasant or unpleasant, it's just different. And for the practitioner, feelings don't much go into the category of pleasant and unpleasant unless you're hit on the head with a hammer. It's more like, oh, it's just different. So sick is like, you're just different. You're next. We've talked a lot yesterday about what it means that consciousness is a construct.

[31:57]

Is it so that if we fully accept it, then there is a surge in enlightenment? If we fully accept it and give ourselves to it, So then the question is whether when we entirely go into that, when we completely accept that as truth, then is that a shift into enlightenment? Why don't you find out? You want to know where... You want to know where you're going first, huh? Es ist so, dass ich diese Erfahrung zum Teil habe, wenn ich mich mit einem dieser Phänomene von den Skandals beschäftige, dass sich alles dann auflöst und leer wird.

[33:20]

So I have this experience in practicing with the skandhas that it... You mean consciousness now, right? Consciousness dissolves and becomes empty, or what do you mean? No, also the form. Oh, the form. Any form or a feeling. And if I have a little bit of experience in it, if I can fully accept it and am not afraid of it, then there is a kind of realization or a... But I have to... I agree with Ulrike that there is also immediately a fear in me. And my experience has been, if I can just go into that without being afraid, that then a kind of insight arises.

[34:31]

But I also agree with Ulrike that then a kind of fear also comes in. If we assume that... if everything is a construct, then it is obvious that Buddhism comes so close to how everything actually exists that we can say that this construct is simply what is most important. If we now assume that everything is a construct, then Buddhism comes very close to how things actually exist. then I get confused with this construct.

[35:38]

Everything is a construct. Because we could also create any consciousness. Humanity could create it. You know, I just move. Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. Yes, ein guter Punkt. Okay, so that's what the Abhidharma tried to do. consciousness is a construct. But it requires certain ingredients to make that construct. You can't make it of egg yolks. You need your six senses. Du brauchst ein Objekt. Du brauchst ein Gefühl und so weiter. Und dann werden diese Zutaten zu den sogenannten Datus, also Elementen.

[36:44]

Now, the emphasis in early Buddhism was those datus, those elements, were pretty much stable and fixed. So the eye element, the eye seeing, actually existed from the early... Abhidhamma is a turning point between Mahayana and Hinayana. And some of the main figures, like Vasubandhu, who wrote the main Abhidharma text, later shifted and became a Mahayana Buddhist. And the emphasis in Mahayana is these so-called elements are also empty. They also don't really exist in any substantial way.

[38:16]

But we still have ingredients. If you want to make a soup, you can't use rocks. But there's a great story all over the world of rock soup, but that's another story. There is a great story about the world that is made of a stone soup. But that was something else. So let's just say that the Dattus for Mahayana Buddhists are ingredients. A carrot or an onion in a soup makes a difference. But a carrot is not a... is also a construct. So in a way it's like reducing things to molecules.

[39:38]

But not to atoms. But you know what the word atom means. It means can't be broken. But it can be broken. We've discovered it can be broken. But it takes extraordinary means to break it. It takes extraordinary chemical means to break an element up. Along this line, let me say what I've been speaking about quite often the last year or so. Whenever you see an object, it's good to remind yourself that it's a construct. It's an activity. It's interdependent. And it's perceived. So you just get in the habit of that.

[40:53]

In some it's easier. I mean, this is harder to see that it's an activity. But I'm obviously moving it around, so it's an activity. And I hit it. So every time you notice that you have a tendency to feel something's permanent, You use that to... You counteract that or you index that to remind yourself that things are impermanent, non-inherent, interdependent and mind-only. The third one. Non-inherent. That I had. Interdependent.

[41:54]

Mind only. I mean, these are all actually just saying everything's changing, but there are ways to notice the object. So conscious is not only a construct, it's also an activity. Yeah, okay. Okay, okay. Yeah, I think we're getting it, Evelyn. I think we understand that. I wanted to ask, is it not graspable? Is it not graspable in Germany? Not graspable, but not touchable. That's a little different.

[42:55]

Not graspable, that's not true. Not graspable in the sense of you can't touch it. And that's not graspable? No. No. Yes, but I can't reach it. I can only reach it if I understand it. I can't reach it otherwise. Nicole, you said it like this before. I don't know if you noticed it, but you always said, I can't reach it, I can't reach it. Yes, always from the feeling side. I wonder if it's the same. His has more of a physical... Maybe you should make it clear by saying when you can reach a feeling. I don't know the German, but I understand the discussion. If we take our sense organs, there is something that is not outside of our sense organs, because we are simply not able to do it, we cannot simply recognize it or understand it.

[44:20]

And the other thing is that the human being has the potential to recognize it, he is only able to recognize it, because somehow there are still abilities missing, which he has to express or not to differentiate. Can I give you an example? If you dream, you have a picture in front of your eyes. and wants to look at the picture. Ah, I want to take a closer look. And then, bam, it's gone. And in my opinion, this is because looking at something is a way of grasping something. So, through one's own intention, to do something somehow, it slips away. In the word concept, the word sept part means to grasp.

[45:24]

So concept is something you grasp and put together. You take hold of something. Now, when I say a non-graspable feeling, it is a feeling and you experientially, in a sense, grasp it. But it's not conceptually graspable. Aber es ist konzeptuell nicht greifbar. It's outside the category of concepts. Weil es sich außerhalb der Kategorien der Konzepte befindet.

[46:27]

An emotion is graspable. A feeling is not graspable. Eine Emotion ist greifbar, während ein Gefühl ist nicht greifbar. So in the context of the five skandhas, an emotion is a perception, it's not a feeling. In English, emotion and feeling have been conflated. So we say, I feel angry. So then we say, angry is a feeling. But angry is an emotion, it's not a feeling. You feel angry, or you may feel all kinds of things. But that's not emotions.

[47:41]

But we've, because, I think we've actually simplified ourselves as human beings because the words in their roots are more complex than we use them. And what happens when we practice is we, in a sense, make ourselves more complex. You were going to say something before? Yes, I want to add to some of the discussion, just to see if I got that clear. When you say consciousness is a construction, and when you brought up this example, the clouds cover the sun, that's part of the construction. The cloud is part of the construction? No, this happening that the cloud covers the sun, that's part of the construction.

[48:45]

Yes. But it depends on what I made out of this. I can say that's pleasant or unpleasant or that's neutral. Because the other thing is there are now lights around and they have exactly the sunlight and you see when you are very depressed in long winter days, you sit in front of some sort of... You go to one of those tanks, yeah. to these tanks, and then they say, well, that takes your depression away. So that's also part of the construction. Yeah. But in my feeling, when we talk about construction, construction is always something that I can only realize when I'm in the mental scandal. The construction... in my understanding is not the reality. It is a reality of my mental making formations. This...

[49:52]

In my perception or my understanding, when we talk about constructions, constructions always have something to do with the mental formations, with the thought-scandal. And as soon as we are in the thought-scandal, we are not in reality, but in thinking. That's how I see it. This is... I'm just trying to understand. This leaf is a construction. Yes, when I say this is a leaf, it is my construction. No, but it's a leaf. It's constructed by... Air and earth. Yes. It's a construction. Yes, but it's a construction of the nature. Yeah, that's right. Sort of, whatever nature is, yeah. Who is... Who sees that, that it's a construction? Yeah, but it doesn't... It's a construction whether I see it or not.

[51:02]

Whether I call it a construction, it's still a construction. It has no... It's not permanent. When you say it's a construction, you're saying it's not permanent. Something like that. We're dealing with a fabric of words here that we have to... We're not trying to look for... There's no ultimate truth down there hidden somewhere under the words. The words are just a fabric, and we're weaving the fabric and making use of it. Can I translate? Yes, please. She felt she was unemployed. I'd get all of you at once then. Also dieses Blatt ist ein Konstrukt und es ist ein Konstrukt, ob ich das jetzt so nenne oder nicht.

[52:05]

In dem Fall ist es konstruiert vom Wind und von der Sonne und so weiter. Es geht dabei darum, dass wenn wir sagen, es ist ein Konstrukt, dann sagen wir, dass es unbeständig ist. The last part I didn't get. It's all right. Yeah. I'll do it in German. When I think of the five skandhas, and the fifth is consciousness, because I didn't take part in the seminar on the development of the skandhas, I've been doing it for so long, I just want to know if all these vijnanas, I wonder about the fifth skandha being consciousness.

[53:05]

And since I haven't been here for such a long time, I have not heard all of your teachings. No one has. Certainly not. Not even me. But I wonder whether all the Vijnanas and the Manu Vijnana and the Alaya Vijnana and the Krista Vijnana, whether they are all part of the fifth skandha. Is your unconscious part of your consciousness? No. But I was wondering last night when I went to bed, It's a bad time to wonder. Erinnerung, to remember, is to remember, it's part maybe of the first kamma or it might be part of the alaya vijnana when it appears, or is it maybe like noticing

[54:48]

It's not like noticing, but maybe it's also a gate to the consciousness, to the construction. Because when I identify my remembering with the eye or with the consciousness, then I'm drawn into. Okay, Deutsch bitte. By the way, I'm letting us go a little longer because we're going to stop at lunch, but we should stop soon. Go ahead. I just thought about this consciousness tonight. What is the construction and how do I get there? How do I get there? How do I get from everyday life to the construct consciousness?

[56:00]

And then I came up with the idea that memory is on the one hand part of the fourth skandha, but it also plays a role in alaya vijnana, in this memory consciousness, because it then arises. and whether this memory is also a kind of tool to get the consciousness as a construct on track, because I always believe, so when I experience myself, when I remember, then I immediately develop a fairly strong consciousness and then I am trapped in it, and that would also be a kind of method with the memory to escape this construction, so in that moment. if I'm noticing so. Perhaps one of the main things I'm doing in this brief lifetime is trying to sort these out as they can be spoken of in English through my practice and through my practice in this lineage

[57:05]

and sort them out in relationship to the various ways these terms are used in various schools at various times. But just for very simple consciousness, I think it's best defined as that which you wake up into in the morning. But to make it very simple again, I would say that consciousness is best defined when one says, this is where you wake up when you wake up in the morning. All forms of knowing and memory are not consciousness. Okay. Mahakali? When this construct, this leaf, it has a function, right? Now this construct, the leaf, it has a function.

[58:25]

Now if our consciousness is a construct as well, then it would have also its function and we can put various contents into this construct. And we, depending on who we are, we construct contents that feel good and contents that don't feel so well. And one goal for me at least is to have a state of mind or a mind which is at least neutral but certainly not negative. Good luck! So why do we establish situations all the time in our minds that feel negative?

[59:44]

Yeah, why do we? We've had a few thousand years trying to answer that question. And we just keep doing it. And that's why we say, Buddhism says that most of human activity is delusion. And rooted in the tendency to see things as permanent. I would not say that all constructs have a function. But consciousness certainly has a function. And that function is to create a relative predictable world. Und die Funktion besteht darin, eine relativ vorhersehbare Welt zu erschaffen.

[61:02]

Which is necessary. Und das ist notwendig. But it's essentially a delusion. Aber es ist im Wesentlichen eine Verblendung. Okay, well that's... Simon, then you, and then we have a break, yeah? Mir ist nur zu dem Wort Konstruktion vorher was eingefallen. Und zwar... I was just thinking about the word construction and what I think it means is first of all very neutrally that things are being put together. And so, The little chaos got in the construction there, it sounds like.

[62:19]

The construct has many, many parts, and those many parts are being put together. But then you also know that all these many little parts are much more than this little thing that they have come to construct together. And then when you look at the construct, you can also see that it is constituted of all these very many little parts that are much more than the construct. Yeah. Okay. I'm responding a little bit to something that was implied perhaps in what you said, Mahakavi.

[63:27]

We tend to create patterns that are good but also beneficial to us and we also tend to create patterns for some reason that are not beneficial to us. Yeah, and one way to enter into that process more effectively is to also know a mind in which patterns are not created or free of patterns. And one possibility to enter this process is to enter a spirit in which patterns are not created. Everything that enters our consciousness, perception of meaning, thoughts, feelings, arises somewhere else. Since all percepts like feelings or forms etc.

[64:34]

enter consciousness There has to be some kind of instance that has control over what enters and what doesn't enter, because I don't have conscious control of it. You mean there has to be some control of input That I don't perceive. No control over this control. Yes, you do. You can get quite a lot of control. But there's an editing, selecting process going on. And that's the Manas part of the eight Vishnianas.

[65:34]

Anyway, that's enough, I think, for now. You know, sometimes when you look at the Abhidharma, you think that there's no emotion here, there's no love, there's no... Where's the... You know, it looks mechanical. Well, there's lots that could be said about that. But let me just say that when you hold yourself together, because we all need to hold ourselves together, Keep ourselves together. We usually do it through the kind of glue of the self. And this tends to separate us from things. We hold ourselves together by separating ourselves.

[67:13]

And much of the Abhidharma is essentially about how to stop separating yourself. And it's written out of much love and compassion. People who developed the Abhidharma weren't getting a good salary. They did it simply out of love of being a human being. And what happens when you loosen the self-glue is you're being held together not by self anymore and by a self-induced sense of continuity but you're held together in another way which is very situationally, contextually defined So you're much more connected all the time.

[68:25]

You feel more connected all the time. And so you feel much more emotional. There's much more feeling. Emotions all the time. And you can't, you know, in our culture, you can't go around crying all the time. But you have to learn. I mean, sometimes you just, it's something like that, but you learn not to do it. And in fact in Buddhism, and it used to be in the old days, in the Middle Ages, crying was a sign of understanding. And I think we allow ourselves to feel that in movies. You're sitting in a dark theater and you can cry.

[69:28]

Because you understood something or accepted something. But we're all in a movie actually and this is a construct so let's all just cry. Excuse me, I'm going to... Okay, we'll have a break.

[69:59]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_77.45