Translations of the Tao Te Ching

A Contribution to Antonio’s Blog by Steven Gregory.

One of the oldest texts in the world, the Tao Te Ching, also happens to be one of the most widely translated books in history. Although its true origins are somewhat unknown, its teachings are said to have began sometime during the Zhou Dynasty, when, as fable has it, a woman finally gave birth to a wrinkly baby with grey hair, after more than 50 years (62 years according to legend) of pregnancy. Laozi, or ‘Old Master’, began teaching himself in the high courts, and soon became disillusioned with the Chinese government and decided to leave. Before leaving however, a guard on China’s border pleaded the wise man to write down his teachings, and thus the Tao Te Ching was born. Composed of 80 chapters, or small poems, Laozi’s teachings deliver a broad spectrum of thought-provoking philosophy that has actually evolved into a religion. Eventually this ancient text was introduced to the West, but unfortunately because there are many cultural and idealistic concepts present in this book for which the West has no knowledge of (or even a word for), the translations are heavily subjective and based on interpretation of the translator. There tend to be three major categories of translations however, the literal translation, the poetic translation, and of course the political translation.

Undoubtedly the most controversial and interpretative chapter is the first. Although across the many translations it expresses the same principal idea, language and diction gives the text different connotations. For example, in the translation by Ursula K. Le Guin, the excerpt, “So the unwanting soul sees what’s hidden, and the ever-wanting soul sees only what it wants” the wording is expressed in a more poetic undertone, suggesting its meaning in not only a physical, but a spiritual sense, unlike the more materialistic translation by S. Mitchell stating, “Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations” which expresses the same general idea, just in a more interpretative and physical sense, rather than with the spiritual aspect. Similarly, Mitchell’s opening chapter states, “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name” which does attempt to interpret any Eastern concepts, is generally more difficult to understand because of this, compared to the much more flowery “A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels.” In this translation by Thomas Cleary, the Tao is interpreted to be ‘A way’, a Western idea that does not actually have the same meaning as ‘The Tao’. In fact, the distinction is even made between this ‘way’ as being not a path to follow, but a ‘guide’, even though The Tao is really neither.

In similar fashion, the 77^th chapter is an excellent example of how the Tao Te Ching can be interpreted in a more political sense, focusing on the physical and moral implications amongst a greater society. The excerpt “Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power, go against the direction of the Tao. They take from those who don’t have enough and give to those who have far too much. ” by S. Mitchell chiefly exemplifies this by establishing the presence of the very specific ‘force’ and ‘power’, both words that are usually associated with the government. This is a very political interpretation of the Tao Te Ching as opposed to Yi-Ping Ong’s “It is the Way of Heaven to remove where there is excess and add where there is lack. The way of people is different: they take away where there is need and add where there is surplus” which uses words like ‘excess’ and ‘lack’ that are much more broad and encompassing, thus expanding the overall meaning of the passage beyond just the implied idea of controlling force like a government.

These minor differences amongst the many translations of the Tao Te Ching may not seem like important elements of Taoism, but for a Westerner reading such a translation it may in fact have a surprising effect on that persons view and understanding of The Tao. This is why it is quite important for readers to try and see these various interpretations. This also points to the immense flexibility of the already ambiguous text and philosophy.

Gay Marriage in Church History.

A friend of mine posted this and i felt obligated to repost it here.

When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
http://www.global.org/Pub/Gay_Marriate_Rites.asp
An article in the Irish Times that discusses same gender unions in the early church.
by Jim Duffy
Published in 1998
Gay Christians
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as “straight” as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union”, having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Church

I went to Church this Sunday.

At first I was bored, because it was incredibly boring (obviously) and because all that everyone seemed to talk about was General Conferences, which i did not watch because i had better things to do last weekend (like sleep) And i really didn’t care about what they were talking about.

But one thing stuck: how blatantly they threw absolute lies about and nobody even flinched (except me) and everyone agreed! I was for a while i was just shocked, then it started to sink it, that is why i am not a believer, and i started thinking, and i realized something huge about people. After the initial shock wore off, I started to get bored again, then they brought up Prop 102, and why they had to vote yes on it. The reasons why made me laugh inwardly, because i thought it would be a tad disrespectful if i did do outwardly.

The man who gave the little lecture (a man i actually respect, somewhat) sadid that never has something like this had happened before (gay marriage) and i started to correct him, but i promised i would behave, so i didn’t tell him that is wasn’t until the last few centuries that gay has been tabboo. Not in the modern sense, but the idea of two men having sex or living together hasn’t been considered wrong until the Roman Emperor in 342 (or 372 i forget) declared gay marriaes illegal, before then it was legal, and it isn’t unheard of high ranking men being married to each other.

But none of this i said there, because i promised i would not.

Then I took part in their close knit community, even though i knew that their close knit community was antagonistic to my life. It was nice, and I realized that i missed out on the concept of community my entire life. Made me kind of sad, that the only times that this kind of togetherness happens is clearly outside of the realm of people like me. I am truly a marginal figure.

So after pretty much being reminded that i belong on the wrong side of the line, I just enjoyed that rare glimpee at what life is like on the other side. Then, the friend who took me to church said soemthign that brought up the amrginal figure thing again: he said that having me in the church would be a great asset, that i was someone who would either take the church forward, or someone who could hinder the church greatly.

I was flattered, because he wasn’t the first person to tell me something very similar.

Yellow Eyes

Castiel threw Dean back into the past.

As it turnd out, once upon a time, John Winchester was a naive civilian and Mary Winchester was a Hunter.

I have no idea who it took more by surprise, me or Dean.

Anyway, as it turns out, Mary made a deal with Azazel, or Yellow Eyes. Yellow Eyes would bring John back from the dead, after he killed him, and in turn, in ten years, Yellow Eyes would pay a visit to the Winchester House and ‘as long as he wasn’t interrupted, no one would get hurt” At this point i had  an aha moment” that’s why MAry said you when Yellow Eyes went to visit Sam.

Anyway, in the end Castiel tells Dean that Sam is down a dangerous road and they have no idea where its leading, and the stil have no idea what Yellow Eye’s Endgame is.

Castiel then says, in a dramatic climax:

“Stop him, or we Will”

Sam is b the way, with Ruby.

Three Things on The State Press

Three things managed to get my attention in the State Press today. I suspected that like every other day, the school newspaper would have a an article of interest, an engaging cross word, the always awesome Non-Sequitor comic and a bunch of bullshit. I was right.

Expect the bullshit was actually interesting.

The first story was that of “Muggle Quiditch” I have two thoughts on the matter: one, how can you not trip? and two, are you serious? I actually want to go watch, just to see them trip, or to se how horrible it is, that is to say how do they compare to real sports?

Second, was the first analysis of prop 102 that was written not by the usual author, but an entirely different girl. And as compared to the other guy, she is a much better writer. I enjoyed reading it and it was actually a “breath of fresh air” when it came not only to the sticky issue of gay marriage (which i strongly support) but the entire week, which has been strangely depressing, and i have no idea why, might be the nightmares, the lack of sleep, the loneliness, the lack of money, yeah that is probably it, the lack of money.

And Third: Joe Arpaio, who want to be reelected. I feel sorry for the writer of the article, i wonder how long it will be until the cops are knowing on her door for libel of some other shit. actually i wonder how long it will be until i get the knock on my door about this post. Cant be that long, the man is completely insane, power hungry and has no regard for the rules, which he, ironically enough, claims to be upholding.

And finally, Heroes: Villains, I Am Become Death airs today. Which reminds me, the Bhagavad Gita: freaken’ awesome, go read it. NOW!

I’m almost done with it myself.

The Problem With the (early) LDS

“The truth is Roy, there are many people who do not like our church. Somehow simply believing differently than others seems to be the only instigation, yet these people will say and do anything possible to discredit and denounce us. Unfortunately, lies and murder ARE in our past but they deal with lies about us and murder of our innocent members. Church members were beaten, imprisoned, murdered, and driven from their homes in the early days of the church and the US government, that we have always been in support of, didn’t support us when we needed them most. I would recommend reading an impartial history of the church in America and not one film maker’s twisted view of supposed history.”

The quote is from the wall of the Facebook group: LDS Life. Where a Mormon reader responds to another member’s question about the “real” history of the Mormon church, as the issue is addressed in the movie September Dawn.

The movie addresses one of the many massacres at the hands of the Mormons in their early history, and even though i haven’t seen the movie myself, it seems to be incredibly accurate. Of course, like the above comment points out, Mormons have always painted themselves the victims, when in reality, and historically, they are far from it.

I can say, without the shadow of any reasonable doubt, that the actions taken by the US Government against the newly emerged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was not an act of genocide, but an act of National Security. The leaders of the early Mormon Church, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young standing out, were, in plain terms, not only separatists, but terrorists, who could each of them be charged with several Crimes Against Humanity, not to mention multiple counts of rape, murder, bribery, and treason.

This is not to say that the members of the Mormon church at the time were all criminals, but many of them were, a simple walk though the historic collections at ASU, proves that. Although most modern Mormons are in fact, peace oriented, and overall incredibly kind people, their history, and their leaders, are covered in the blood of innocents who dared to believe something that they (the Mormons) did not.

Perhaps the best example of the arrogance and the threat that Joseph Smith posed was in the governmental system of Nauvoo. (and the current system of government in Utah) Where one man, allegedly chosen by God rules over a city council, whose members all believe him to be the incapable of err, and in turn these rule over Nauvoo. The entire system, aside from theocratic, is more akin to a monarchy. As Joseph Smith himself pointed out, the Lord would deliver the country to him and make him “King”. These ideas, combined with the doctrine of “Blood Atonement” (the belief that a person could, and should, be saved by spilling their blood in sacrifice to the Lord, a glamorized system of Human Sacrifice) and the forced marriages of women and girls to those “chosen” by the Lord surmount to America’s very first, homegrown terrorist and organized crime syndication.

After his death (which of course, i disagree with) Brigham Young emerged as the victor after a set of fights that gave birth to other Mormon factions (much like the death of Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, and other, less pleasent character’s deaths left several factions vying for power) Of course, this change in government, did not improve the Mormon situation, and eventually led to The Mormon Wars, where armed militias of Mormons led attacks on unarmed non-Mormon civilians in order to take the resources needed to survive their self-imposed exile, and through these actions forced the US Army to openly declare and unofficial war with the Mormons, leaving countless dead on both sides fo the conflict. Thankfully these conflics lasted only months and eventually, after the death of Young, the Mormon Church was able to settle down, into a moslty respectably group of people.

The Creepy Obama Video and the Hilarious Responses

Floating round online is a video of a bunch of kids singing a Obama-themed “Change” song. The video is very creepy, because of the monotonous voices and the rhythm. What really caught my attention though, were the responses: they were at best, ignorant, stupid and downright comical comments.

They ranged from just a “creepy” to extensive comparisons with Chairman Mao, Hitler and one elusive comment about Cuba. But they all had one thing in common: they were appalled at the idea of praising or venerating a human. they all, in some way, shape or form, had the words: God Save Us, God have Mercy on America, I Will Pray for this Country, et cetera. Which made me think: Why praise something that’s imaginary? Why not recognize humanity’s achievements?

I admit Obama is not the best choice for president, but he is good at getting people fired up. That is to be admired, except everyone on the Right seems to think that its because he’s some sort of Antichrist.

I’ve noticed before now, that individual humans are discouraged from taking credit for things, they are encouraged to ignore one man’s achievements. But where I grew up, in Mexico, we are inspired by these men and women, we honor them because they are fine examples of humanity. They are our best members.

There is Francisco Villa, Emiliano Zapata, Benito Juarez, Miguel Hidalgo, Jose Maria Morelos. To us they are national icons, men who dared to stand up. But in America, I don’t see monuments, it is as if were forgotten that a man can do great things. As if everyone is just expected to hold their heads up high because everyone else is doing it. So many people, of course, claim the America is the best there is.  I would argue against that, America is far from the best, in my opinion, it is one of the worst. We cry about human rights violations abroad while flaunting our disregard for them at home. We say we’re the smartest, and yet we still teach our children that “God did it” is as good as a scientific answer. As Fidel Castro put it once : “Cada nino Americano sabe bien quien es Mickey Mouse, pero no saben quienes son sus lideres”

America has the potential to be a great nation, a land where people can truly be free, but at every step, we are undermined by religion, fear and a sense of collective arrogance. From the idea that this nation was “Founded n Christian Principles” to the idea that “God is using America for the greater good” our intelligence is being robbed by fear and superstition, and yet, the same people responsible for this cry about how they feel sad that our country is going down the hill, because of “socialists’ like Nancy Pelosi.

I haven’t been to many other countries (In fact, I’ve never been outsie North America) but I feel like other places, other countries might be better to live in. I’ve been considering London, it trikes me as odd, that I may be the only American just waiting for an opportunity to get out, while so many people are dying to get in.

Heroes, Thomas Friedman, English and the Crazy Street Preacher.

Today was, interesting. After a boring Anthropology test, I skipped BIO100 class (yeah i know, and i don’t care) and a mostly (except for a little brain tease and a chapter of the Baghavad Gita) boring ENG class. I ran into ASU’s crazy preacher and a disappointing trip to the library, i finally got home in time for Heroes.

So, from the beginning.

My Anthropology test was fifty questions long and took about fifteen minutes to finish, it was mostly a boring play with words. I am quite certain that i failed it, because i apparently wasn’t paying attention in class as well as i thought (next time, I’ll have to refrain from reading Yeats during class) After that I walked over to breakfast. I read a bit afterward and then after my iPod battery died I went back home to recharge it and maybe watch TV before English, since I had already decided to skip BIO.

I fell asleep and woke up just in time to get to English, where I read the first and second chapters of the Baghavad Gita, because the teacher went on analyzing Thomas Friedman’s latest Op-Ed. I am a big Friedman (The World is Flat) fan, but unfortunately, my English class dissected and analyzed the article past the point of no return. Which made me mad, because they missed the whole overall (holistic) point of the article.

Then after class I ran into the Preacher who goes by JK (Just Kidding maybe?) He went on for about an hour and a half screaming about Jesus hating everyone and how he was a prophet of the lord because he wasn’t a “perverted homo masturbating weed-head” like us (which made everyone laugh). He only seems to serve as comic relief for us. He promised to be there again, so i have to remind myself to take my Bible to contradict him, if he ever stops shouting that is. Which leads me to believe, sincerely, that he is on something, weed perhaps? or maybe some prescription stuff?

After this, I managed to get home again, eat, sleep for about an hour, then watch some Stargate Atlantis and then finally Heroes!

Heroes: Villains (I love writing that) episode 303: One of Us, One of Them, started out with Flint, The German, Knox and Peter (in Jesse’s Body) starting out a bank heist, while Mama Petrelli purposefully gave Sylar (Gabriel Gray) a new ability, and Noah Bennet meet his new partner, who happens to be (as i predicted) Sylar, who is now beginning to explore a new ‘good’ side.

At the end of the episode, Micah meets Tracy (who, as i also predicted, is a clone) and Future Peter finally pulls Peter out of Jesse and then everything goes to hell as Knox escapes, Sylar harvests Jesse’s power, Flint gets shot, and The German is possibly dead, much to my grief because The German seems like such a calm and twisted individual.

Meanwhile Claire and Meredith have a little masochistic mother-daughter talk, when Meredith forces Claire to explore her feelings via locking her in a metalic train wagon and heating up.

Supernatural Season Four

Its fall, and most of the TV seasons are starting up, one I watch often, aside from Heroes, is Supernatural.

Season Four kicked off with a nice new twist that has my best friend raving in anger, and me smiling like an idiot.

Dean was brought back from hell by an Angel, Castiel to be exact, the angel of Thursday. I have no idea why God would send the angel of Thursday to rescue him, but i like it. The reason behind it has to be something with the nature of the rescue, which as of now i can’t find out if its a classic tale type or a motif: the sinner warrior returned from hell by God. Somewhat of a Constantine-like idea (the movie, not the Emperor)

Jim Butcher has likewise had a turning point in his Harry Dresden Books: Dresden who could draw Hellfire for his magic, due to a run in with a demon, can now, after divine intervention, draw ‘Soulfire’ for the same purpose.

Back to Supernatural.

The series now has an incredibly amazing and almost biblical edge to it, one brother, Sam, aided and trained by demons, and Dean, risen and guided by an angel, now fight side by side. This of course, leaves Bobby on his own in the middle, perhaps representing humanity?

One thing that the Series writers got right is the nature of angels, as Ruby put it “They smite first and ask questions later” and later as Castiel said ‘read the Bible, angels are warriors of the Lord” Which makes me wonder, where the hell (no pun intended) did the idea of angels as being all nice and guardians come from?

i looked, but i couldn’t find and answer, but i did find an interesting fact about Mormons: they believe that Michael the Punisher is actually Adam, and that Gabriel the Messenger is Noah. My thought was of course: What the FUCK?? Seriously? But yeah, seriously. Just one more thing why I will never become Mormon, sabotage of way cool mythological creatures.

And angels are way cool. i can name five reasons:

1-eternal, they literally are immortal,

2-created by the Word of God (as an atheist, i find this a very sweet fantasy).

3-Insanely powerful, strong enough to herald the end of the world.

4-Flaming Swords, seriously, a sword made of eternal fire.

5- Live in Heaven, not only are they immortal, they get to be immortal in paradise.

and finally, they rose Dean from the dead, even if its not in the canon, that is still awesome, because that means that we get to have a season four of Supernatural.

Anyway, turns out that the New Age Movement, in many of its even more numerous branches has picken up angels as part of its evergrowing collection of worshiped gods, goddesses, crystals, Atlantaen alien babies and whatever (i made up the Atlantean alien babies, btw)

Why the Tao Te Ching (daodeking) Can Never Be Briefly Disscussed.

First day of ENG101 (yes, i am picking on the class again!, but I bring this up again for a reason, as previously mentioned, born in my ASB102 class)
We had a small discussion about Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. One student said that one chapter in particular (Chapter 3: Hushing in Ursula K. LeGuin’s translation, my favorite version) where it says:

  So the wise soul
  governing people
  would empty their minds,
  fill their bellies,
  weaken their wishes,
  strengthen their bones.
 
meant that the wise government would have to keep their people in ignorance. But this idea is completely contradictory to the fundamentals of Taoism. Especially if taken in context, not only with the culture, but with the rest of the text. For example, as i told Rob, my favorite chapter, Taoing says:

  The way you can go
  Isn’t the real way
  The name you can say
  Isn’t the real name.

As LeGuin says:

  “to those who will not admit morality without a deity to validate it, or spirituality of which man is not the measure, the firmness Lao Tzu’s morality and the sweetness of his spiritual council must seem incomprehensible , or illegitimate, or very troubling indeed.”

  So, the very idea that a government would act while keeping ignorance among the people could be understood, especially after reading Chapter 17, it again appears that the ideal leader should be manipulative and keep the people without thinking. But the meaning, once place d in context, is just the opposite.

Once such ideas begin to be understood or discussed there is a tenancy to forget the the original purpose of the Tao Te Ching was not to be a manual for leaders, but a guide to the Tao. literally, the having the Way guide the Way. much like the concept (or non-concept) of Zen.

Back to the point I was trying to make. The Tao cannot, and should not be summarized. It is not responsible, and not beneficial either to the students or to the Tao itself.

By the way, I strongly recommend reading the Tao Te Ching, several times of course. I read a chapter or two every day. I am not a spiritual person, or religious, but I read of the Way and I try to live in the Way. I especially recommend LeGuin’s translation. other translations are very forced, and forcibly translated in order to have political meaning. LeGuin’s version is translated with the poet in heart. Translated for the sake of Tao and beauty, not for classroom politics, and Western obsession with dry ideologies.

Actually I recoment all of LeGuin’s Works, especially The Telling, and Gifts. Both are beautifully writen and, if you really must, have deep meanings and parallels in society today/