> >Have been buddhists or have learned anything about buddhism? Atari 800
was
> >my first computer, I'm just taking an unofficial poll... your help
> >appreciated.

> I owned from the 400 up through all the UK released models but none of
> them turned me into a Buddhist...

> Also in my experience as tech sales for them I can't say any of our
> 1000's of customers were ever converted. Was any one machine more
> prone to causing this phenomenon?
> --
> Paul

>    *** remove YOURFINGER to email me ****

> "Paul Irvine" <mclane.dellosYOURFIN@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:41:14 -0500, "Son of man"
> > <bcoz@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > >Have been buddhists or have learned anything about buddhism? Atari 800
> was
> > >my first computer, I'm just taking an unofficial poll... your help
> > >appreciated.

> > I owned from the 400 up through all the UK released models but none of
> > them turned me into a Buddhist...

> > Also in my experience as tech sales for them I can't say any of our
> > 1000's of customers were ever converted. Was any one machine more
> > prone to causing this phenomenon?
> > --
> > Paul

> >    *** remove YOURFINGER to email me ****

> >Have been buddhists or have learned anything about buddhism? Atari 800
was
> >my first computer, I'm just taking an unofficial poll... your help
> >appreciated.

> I owned from the 400 up through all the UK released models but none of
> them turned me into a Buddhist...

> Also in my experience as tech sales for them I can't say any of our
> 1000's of customers were ever converted. Was any one machine more
> prone to causing this phenomenon?

>    *** remove YOURFINGER to email me ****

> > "Greg Menke" <gregm-n@toadmail.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Son of man" <bcoz@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > > > Have been buddhists or have learned anything about buddhism? Atari
800
> > was
> > > > my first computer, I'm just taking an unofficial poll... your help
> > > > appreciated.

> > > Yes.  The 400 was my first.

> > If you are buddhist, have you pretty much given up Christianity or do
you
> > still have some ties to it?

> It is my cultural heritage so I observe a few of the Christian
> holidays, but they have no religious meaning for me.  I never found
> Christianity relevant to me, so I've never "given up on it".
> Generally, I found its liturgical features overcomplex at times and
> require excessive suspension of disbelief, so it was never appealing
> to me.  The particular sect I'm involved with also makes a variety of
> claims that it is possible for me to not take a position on yet still
> maintain a viable and I hope, sincere practice.

> I depend on buddhism in all sorts of ways on a daily basis.  The first
> principles and meditations are a welcome solace when I am conflicted
> and upset.  It makes me a better person and a better husband.  Beyond
> that, its a very personal thing, so I'd rather not get deeply into it
> at this time.

> I would like to stress that this is only a personal opinion, and if a
> particular religion works for someone than more power to them.

> Since you are taking data, what have you found so far?

> Gregm

> > Since you are taking data, what have you found so far?

> > Gregm

> I think I misunderstood your question now that I've re-read it :) I only
> just started taking the data.

> "Son of man" <bcoz@bellsouth.net> writes:
> > "Greg Menke" <gregm-n@toadmail.com> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Son of man" <bcoz@bellsouth.net> writes:

> > > Since you are taking data, what have you found so far?

> > > Gregm

> > I think I misunderstood your question now that I've re-read it :) I only
> > just started taking the data.

> You did misunderstand.  Thank you for clarifying that.

> Gregm

> Let me know if it made any sense to you, my email should be in the header.

> Interesting how Buddha says "created by the Dhamma" and the Dhamma is the
> word of the Buddha, and also Jesus is said to be the word made flesh. That's
> an interesting parallel. It also shows how greatly the Father respected or
> honored the Son.

> The Buddha never did claim to be God, but he refered to himself often as the
> Blessed One. It's interesting to note how on several occasions when Jesus
> was asked if he is the Son of God he responds, "You say that I am" but when
> asked if he is the Son of the Blessed, he responds directly "I am."  But
> even more suprising is that there seems to be a definite pattern which may
> have been conspired by the gospel authors to show that Jesus favors being
> called "Son of the Blessed" rather than "Son of God."  It is the same event
> told by Matthew and Mark.

> Now this same event is told in Matthew, and it is quite suprising to note
> how different the response is that Jesus gives even though one may attribute
> the language of the question being asked simply as a preference of the
> author, using "Christ, Son of God"  as  opposed to "Christ, Son of the
> Blessed."  But there definitely is a difference in the answer that each
> author represents Jesus gives.

> What we see in Matt:26:63 is a direct avoidance of the question *only when
> it is asked as Son of God*  Now this is important. Why? Because it seems
> unlikely that in recollecting this event that two people would represent
> Christ as giving two different answers to the supposedly same question.
> However upon further investigation we find a similar occurence in the gospel
> of Luke.

> Luke:22:70: Then said they all, Art thou then the *Son of God*? And he said
> unto them, *Ye say* that I am.

> The pattern can be discerned. "Son of God" gets an indirect answer, however
> "Son of the Blessed" gets a direct "I am" answer from Jesus.  Futhermore
> Jesus most often uses the term "Son of man" and not "Son of God."  Jesus
> came 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha and Sariputta. Jesus
> also explained to the Jews who it was that they called "God"

> Someone asked me why do they appear to say such different things? For one
> thing, Jesus purposefully tried to mask the fact that the Buddha was his
> Father or else no one would have followed him, especially the Jews who had
> their own ideas about God and the Sabbath and circumcision of which the
> Buddha did not place any importance, and the Jews being his primary
> audience. Jesus also said :

> Also, here's just an example of what I found as a parallel :

> > "Greg Menke" <gregm-n@toadmail.com> wrote in message

> > Let me know if it made any sense to you, my email should be in the
header.

> I pasted your text in, formatted as followup to make commenting
> easier.

> > "Bhikkus, rightly speaking, were it said to be said of anyone : 'He has
> > attained mastery and perfection in virtue, attained mastery and
perfection
> > in concentration, attained mastery and perfection in wisdom, attained
> > mastery and perfection in deliverance,' it is of Sariputta indeed that
> > rightly speaking this should be said.
> > "Bhikkus, rightly speaking, were it to be said of anyone: 'He is the son
of
> > the Blessed One, born of his breast, born of his mouth, born of the
Dhamma,
> > created by the Dhamma, an heir in the Dhamma, not an heir in material
> > things,' it is of Sariputta indeed that rightly speaking this should be
> > said. Bhikkus, the matchless Wheel of the Dhamma set rolling by the
> > Tathagata is kept rolling rightly by Sariputta."
> > -- Excerpt from the Anupada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 111

> > Interesting how Buddha says "created by the Dhamma" and the Dhamma is
the
> > word of the Buddha, and also Jesus is said to be the word made flesh.
That's
> > an interesting parallel. It also shows how greatly the Father respected
or
> > honored the Son.

> So what?  If you're a deity seeking incorporation in this world,
> you're pretty much stuck with flesh no matter what your doctrine is.

> > God :

> > The Buddha never did claim to be God, but he refered to himself often as
the
> > Blessed One. It's interesting to note how on several occasions when
Jesus
> > was asked if he is the Son of God he responds, "You say that I am" but
when
> > asked if he is the Son of the Blessed, he responds directly "I am."  But
> > even more suprising is that there seems to be a definite pattern which
may
> > have been conspired by the gospel authors to show that Jesus favors
being
> > called "Son of the Blessed" rather than "Son of God."  It is the same
event
> > told by Matthew and Mark.

> Blessed One is an English translation of the original wording.  I
> suggest that you should compare that to the original
> greek/hebrew/whatever the original Christian documentation was written
> with in order to evaluate the relationship.  I have a couple
> translations of various parts of the Lotus Sutra, and between the two
> of them, Shakyamuni ends up with approximately a gazillion different
> names, and thats before they start naming all the other subordinate
> Buddhas.  Its almost enough to make one start assigning acronyms.

> > Mark:14:61: But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high
> > priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the *Christ, the Son of
the
> > Blessed* ?
> > 62: And Jesus said, *I am* : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on
the
> > right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

> > Now this same event is told in Matthew, and it is quite suprising to
note
> > how different the response is that Jesus gives even though one may
attribute
> > the language of the question being asked simply as a preference of the
> > author, using "Christ, Son of God"  as  opposed to "Christ, Son of the
> > Blessed."  But there definitely is a difference in the answer that each
> > author represents Jesus gives.

> > What we see in Matt:26:63 is a direct avoidance of the question *only
when
> > it is asked as Son of God*  Now this is important. Why? Because it seems
> > unlikely that in recollecting this event that two people would represent
> > Christ as giving two different answers to the supposedly same question.
> > However upon further investigation we find a similar occurence in the
gospel
> > of Luke.

> > Luke:22:70: Then said they all, Art thou then the *Son of God*? And he
said
> > unto them, *Ye say* that I am.

> > The pattern can be discerned. "Son of God" gets an indirect answer,
however
> > "Son of the Blessed" gets a direct "I am" answer from Jesus.  Futhermore
> > Jesus most often uses the term "Son of man" and not "Son of God."  Jesus
> > came 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha and Sariputta. Jesus
> > also explained to the Jews who it was that they called "God"

> I don't see a pattern.  I see different answers to different people in
> different circumstances.  Perhaps the editors of the various documents
> that form the Bible could suggest some better reasons.

> > So do you see how Jesus being "in the hands of the Father" which is like
a
> > boundless sea relates to him saying out of his belly shall flow rivers
of
> > living water? And by that he meant the Holy Ghost of the Father which
was
> > not yet given, because he had not yet been "glorified" in the unbound
> > Father.

> No I do not.  Finding passages that refer to sons and passages that
> refer to fathers in the two documents, then on the basis of which
> mentions the other, to infer that Buddha is Jesus's father- and in
> fact, God, is in my opinion, presumptive.

> > The Spirit of Christ is one with the Father's boundless parinirvana.

> > Someone asked me why do they appear to say such different things? For
one
> > thing, Jesus purposefully tried to mask the fact that the Buddha was his
> > Father or else no one would have followed him, especially the Jews who
had
> > their own ideas about God and the Sabbath and circumcision of which the
> > Buddha did not place any importance, and the Jews being his primary
> > audience. Jesus also said :

> I would think its because they are two very different religions,
> formed in vastly different cultures at very different times.

> > 2000 years ago it was important that the Father, the Buddha, remain
> > anonymous or no one would have paid Jesus any attention if they only
knew he
> > was just a disciple of a mere mortal man.

> How do you know this?

> > But they did teach many things in common. There's a book available
"Jesus
> > and Buddha : The parallel sayings" which covers many of them.

> > Also, here's just an example of what I found as a parallel :

> These kinds of books are interesting.  I happened upon one that put
> Buddhist doctrine in Christian language and vice versa, I should have
> bought it...

> > I also discovered some interesting coincidences, and you know what they
say,
> > there's a fine line between fate and coincidence.

> Coincidences are everywhere, but they don't always mean something.

> > I believe the name of the Father is Siddhartha Gotama.

> Whatever floats your boat.  Just keep your garden plowed.

> > The fact that only so few know the name of the Father of Jesus lends
> > credibility to it being Siddhartha Gotama, because most Buddhists don't
> > believe the Buddha is the Father Jesus refers to, and most Christians
don't
> > believe the Buddha is the Spirit Father of Jesus also. I won't bother

> Just because something isn't widely known (for some value of known),
> doesn't make it any more or less true than some other more widely
> circulated assertion.

> I don't think superficially relating figurative senses of "father"
> will achieve much.  For one thing, your base documents are the modern,
> accepted versions of documents that have been retranslated, edited,
> revised and tweaked for thousands of years.  For you to understand
> what Jesus meant by Father with enough precision to relate it to what
> the Buddha meant will require far more exhaustive research.  You
> yourself suggested that the editors and translators of Christian
> doctrine might be imposing their opinions (sometimes unavoidably,
> other times not), and I imagine similar things could well be the case
> in Buddhist text.

> I see a lot of parallels between your reasoning and that illustrated
> in its extremity in Foucalt's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.  Its a great
> book IMHO.

> Gregm

> Ken

> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:50:01, "David Pochron" <d@ticon.net> wrote:

> > Anyone know of a company that still repairs old Indus drives?  I turned
mine
> > on last night for the first time in a few years and now all that happens
are
> > the track LED lights flicker randomly.  I tried taking the whole drive
apart
> > and then put it back together again looking for loose chips or ribbon
> > connectors but no such luck.   Since the same thing happens whether the
> > mechanism is connected or disconnected from the drive mainboard I guess
> > there's a blown chip or trace on the mainboard (i.e, with the Z-80,
> > controller, and EPROM) somewhere.  Alternatively, is there a supply of
> > replacement parts that anyone knows of?

> > Alternatively, I suppose I don't really need the drive; I wrote a spiffy
> > program to emulate an Atari drive on my Amiga (the Amiga provides +
and - 12
> > on the serial port so I didn't have to find some obscure 5-to-12 volt
> > conversion chip like other drive interfaces use and could use standard
> > TTL-to-RS232 driver chips from Radio Shack.)  So I could just use my DOS
box
> > to get the data off my disks and put everything on the Amiga drive
emulator.
> > BUT... I have yet to find a program that reads single-density disks on
the
> > PC.  (Double density's mostly work fine.)  Has the
> > "can't-read-signle-density-disks-with-the-PC-floppy-controller" problem
been
> > solved yet?  I tried AtariDrive and AnaDisk to no avail.