From: ltran@lsil.com (Tran Thai Linh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese
Subject: Re: \[POEM/JOKE\] Re: Cho+i Chu+\~
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:09:15 GMT
Reply-To: ltran@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Microprocessor Group

In article 15402@drutx.ATT.COM, nguyen@drutx.ATT.COM (Christopher Chu) writes:
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| -------------------- begin forwarded post 9042 [#1] ---------------------  |
>| From: ltran@lsil.com (Tran Thai Linh)                                      |
>| Subject: Re: Cho+i chu+~  (was: Re: Testing only)                          |
>| Date: 13 Apr 92 18:38:24 GMT                                               |
>|                                                                            |
>| In article 9747@cbnewsd.cb.att.com, jnle@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (C.N.M.T.)     |
>| writes:                                                                    |
>|                                                                            |
>| +---------------- kbui@apd.mentorg.com (Karen Bui) vie^'t --------------   |
>| |                                                                          |
>| | Tha<'ng Va.n Qua^n Kho^ng Ba<`ng Tha<'ng Chi'nh Mi`nh                    |
>| |                                                                          |
>| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------   |
>|                                                                            |
>| Chi, Bo^.i Khanh vie^'t mo^.t ca^u ra^'t hay (well, many illuminate        |
>| philosophers said something sounds like that, and one I can cite right     |
>| away is La~o Tu"?).                                                        |
>|                         [... Deleted stuffs ...]                           |
>|                                                                            |
>| Mi`nh co^' la`m chu? mo.i chuye^.n va^.y ho'a ra mi`nh la` no^ le^. cu?a   |
>| ca'i u"o"'c muo^'n ddo'.                                                   |
>|                                                                            |
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>Otherwise, La?o Tu+?'s phylosophy is even more, sorry to use the following
>word, "no^ le^.", cho mo^.t cuo^.c so^'ng mo^ng lung pha?n khoa hoc. va`

	Kho^ng ma^'y pha?n khoa ho.c dda^u . Trong trie^'t ly' cu?a La~o tu"?
ta co' the^? ti`m tha^'y ddu"o".c ca'i attempt to defime atoms, the progress
without dirrupting nature, live in harmony with nature and society. Sounds
familiar at the end of the 20th century? 

	It deals more with confucian thoughts (the two theory is contemporary): 
it refute the order imposed by confucian phylosophy, that it qualify as 
artificial and too restrictive to bring happiness toward the common people. 
Since we cannot say Confucian system lead to scientific progress, as in the 
past the system did opposed to anything that disrupted the heavenly order.

	It also refutes a leter invented but widely use philosophy of Machievali,
especially in politics (well, Machievalism was found in the time of Laotzu 
through To^ Ta^`n and other state dipplomate).

	It found that the state intervened too much in everyday life. Talk about
feeling tax form, unheard of laws, relience on lawyers, slowness of court
systems, capital punishment but cannot stop crimes, climbing highschool dropout
and street gangs,... Are those part of today's life, despite tremendous 
progress in technologies?

	I am not saying that La~o Tu"?'s words are the greatest (saying so would 
betray his own thought). But see the misery of the people faces now, in rich or
poor country, one should at least asking oneself once in a while: is there
something wrong? Laotzu provides some of the clue (as many other philosophers
always did in the past).

	It is mong lung because it is so simple. Remember, this is only a 
philosophy, not a religion.


>kho^ng mu.c ddi'ch, mo^.t cuo^.c so^'ng cho ngu+o+`i kha'c ma` mi`nh kho^ng
>y' thu+'c hoa(.c kho^ng bie^'t dde^'n, isn't this true ???


	Mo^.t cuo^.c so^'ng cho ngu"o"`i kha'c ? Kho^ng y' thu"'c ? I never
saw those in La~o Tu"?'s DDa.o DDu"'c Kinh . Although I have saw that in
cha'u ngoan Ba'c Ho^`'s program. Well, don't be a slave to yourself, let alone
be a slave to anyone.


>
>And, what is wrong with "co^' ga('ng la`m chu? la^'y cuo^.c so^'ng cu?a
>mi`nh" (Obviously, no one can la`m chu? mo.i chuye^.n, so that is out of
>any legitimate questions!!!) ??? ... Yac yac ...

	Nothing wrong. Did I say that there are something wrong? I just said
that we cannot fully in control of our life. The day we think that we are
in control of our life, we have resigned, and lost.

	We could find a mirrored of this theory in other philosophy, Pha^.t Gia'o
and Thie^n Chu'a Gia'o, just name two important one.


>
>Ngu+o+`i muo^'n ddu+o+.c la`m chu? cuo^.c so^'ng
>cu?a chi'nh mi`nh, as much as possible, hi` hi` ...


	So be your own. But remember that vo? qui't da^`y co' mo'ng tay nho.n,
that's all. As long as you try to do your best, that is OK.

	But going to the point: I have to do this, I have to do that, and
in the end, the day you die, you realized that you cannot do all you can,
and regret that your whole life is just a slave to your desires. Knowing
what we could do, and tame our desires so that we can live happier, is 
what he said.

	Anyways, we find in philosophies some key to open doors. Open and
close each doors is the task of each one. You may chose to close all the
doors though.


>
>Chris Chu, nguyen@drutx.ATT.COM (Internet), att!drutx!nguyen (UUCP)



---
____________________________________________________
Linh T. Tran
ltran@dsp.lsil.com
____________________________________________________