[MD] "Could have acted differently" v. "the extent to which we perceive DQ"

[MarshaV]

Hi Dan,  


On Sep 10, 2011, at 1:05 AM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Steven Peterson
> <peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>>> dmb says:
>>> I just don't understand how your mind works. It's simple, Steve. Free will is just another way to say that you could have acted differently. Free will is, as my dictionary puts it, "the ability to act one's own discretion". As I have already said many times, that is all I mean by free will. Every dictionary and encyclopedia backs this claim and I don't see any reason why the MOQ would defy the english language. Unlike yourself.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Yes, I would say that free will and "could have acted differently" are
> both static quality illusions in the MOQ. Once we act, there's no
> going back. Could have beens and would have beens are regrets, nothing
> more. Yesterday is gone. And it ain't coming back...

 
 Marsha:

illusions seems a proper word.  We're all pretty much living in a 
world of illusion. 


"Now, Dharma is one of the most difficult words to translate into English
because it's usually translated as meaning "law", but that's only half of
Dharma.  The other half of Dharma is "duty to oneself", or "duty to a
perfect self".  If you, through enlightenment, become a perfect self, then
all you'll ever do is Dharma, but if you're living in the world of illusion,
then you better follow the law and not just do as you damn please."
 
    (RMP, The MoQ at Oxford)  




 Marsha 
___