I think I finally understand the Buddhist idea of "attachment."

I think it came about when I was thinking last night of how easily I had let Pablo off the phone, because he had to go. Earlier on I would be very reluctant to let him go.

It occurred to me that when you love something or someone, you cannot be attached to them. Because once you are attached you have a vested self-interest. It's like if you are financially dependent on a partner you have a vested interest in keeping them around even if they aren't good for you overall.

It's the whole "If you love something, let it go" thing. But not in a trite break-up kind of way.

When you are unattached, you are relaxed and able to accept what comes. You can better enjoy it if it is good. If it is not good you are able not to obsess over it.

If it is good and it leaves you are not too heartbroken because you "absolutely cannot live without it." The truth is, you most likely can. It occurred to me that while your life is worth protecting, this is why you're also supposed to not be attached to life itself - because you need to love and see life in this same way - as a transient gift that you *will* have to let go of eventually (hopefully when you're much older though).

I guess the best way of thinking about it for me is interchanging "attachment" with "emotional dependence." I think that is an effective Western way of putting it.