Attachment

Trying to resolve the confusion over attachment ("you mean you wouldn't care if I died, because you'd have been unattached?")

1. Loving and being loved by someone. You might be someone in this situation, and if so will benefit from it (it will help make you happy).

2. But suppose the person you love dies. We know that life has lots of suffering (1st noble truth, after all). This is some of it. You will suffer in this case, and probably an awful lot.

Of course, the suffering itself is unavoidable here. You would be happier if you didn't suffer, and you wouldn't pay this price if you didn't love someone. Maybe some people suggest that it's better not to have loved, but I think most people would reject this concept. And, in any case, some loving (loving humanity, loving your country as a place not cruelly invaded by the Chinese government, etc.) is bound to be there, and you will suffer the pain of its loss or damage.

(Anyway, lots of suffering is unavoidable. Sickness, torture, etc. all have the central kind of suffering: pain due to the thing that's occurring at that moment. The realistic goal is not "eliminate suffering", it is "eliminate avoidable suffering".)

3. You would want it to be the case, if fate should have it, that you will love and be loved by this person for a very long time. This is only natural.

4. So you plan actions to effect those wants. That's a wise thing to do, since it produces greater happiness. There is nothing wrong with having your behavior reflect what you think would engender happiness in yourself and in others.

5. The problem is with, instead of enjoying the present and planning for the future, you need to cause the future you want (in this case, the very long time of loving). The word "need" is the crux of the matter. It reflects a grasping want, rather than a planning want. You dwell on the needs themselves. You worry that the needs might not be met. The needs become so important that it dominates the emotion of the love itself, and the pleasure taken in it.

There is nothing whatsoever wise in this. It does not bring about the result, and at is an attitude, different from the attitude of wanting the best. It is, at its heart, clutching, grasping. Even speaking this need is a (small) example of grasping: "I love you" and "I am so happy to be here with you" convey everything. There is nothing about what might happen that it seems to be refuting. "I want to live happily with you always", is a reflection of the grasping need, since its opposite ought need no refutation. (Whereas "I love you" is an expression of how you feel at that moment--and early in a relationship it is the passing of some information, not necessarily known by the other person.)

Much more important than the small "I want to do this forever" vocalization is the clutching, worried attachment to that future. That's the unwise thing that is simply counterproductive, and leads to unhappiness.

Consider, on the one hand, taking parking spot B instead of the slightly more convenient parking spot A, because B will be less likely to produce door dings. Compared it, on the other hand, to finding it impossible to park near another car, for fear of door dings (ruins your happiness for a period). Case 1 is an example of a want, and a plan to effect that want. Case 2 is an example of a grasping need.

6. Some might think that eliminating the desperate, grasping need for things to continue as you love them to be a cold, passionless attitude. I think the opposite. Instead, it's investing your emotions in the reality you have, rather than in the fruitless and desperate attempt to assure the imagined future. More passion, and properly placed, not less.