3 distinctions

These are quite fine distinctions I realise...

Firstly there is attraction. But in the case of Love it is "profounded". Where normally we claim that this "type" of thing is attractive like for example ice cream, in the case of Love we say that the existence of this particular thing is attractive - not just its essence but its individuality. Were "my muse" to have a twin she would still not be the same. This type of existential attraction is the worst and is parallel to things already said about the nature of the existential self.

Secondly as already said before Buddhism holds no doctrine. There is no truth to be discovered rather that the boat in a tight turn is suffering from some ailment which is different from every situation. maybe the rudder is stuck, maybe the anchor is down, maybe there is a tidal eddy, maybe the sails are caught. The goal however is to free the boat from its orbit to sail freely of any fixed centre point. Often a new centre point, a buoy, a doctrine, will be set to guide the boat away but if this becomes a new focus then its job then fails.

Thirdly to reiterate that in the new view attraction is natural and unavoidable. It is not a case of the mind becoming so dull and depressed that nothing is attractive anymore. Rather than when we perceive things as attractive then we accept that and move on, not resolving that what seems good and pleasurable actually is Good. We first learn this in moral behaviour where we decide to act not based upon our instincts and desires but rather an the basis of what is Good. Ultimately I'm guessing we will see that every action based upon instincts and desires is to be avoided because instincts and desires become anchors which require us to give up freedom and thereby truth in Life (understanding of which is the goal slow step by step of this blog).