I heard a talk by Ajahn Amaro that says that wherever I encounter dukha, it is a sign that there is a attachment involved, that I can let go of and this way free myself from the attachment.
https://youtu.be/-h_O_SuKOKE?t=2823
But this way, what prevents me from laying down and dying from hunger or thirst - if I feel hunger, it may be dukha from my attachment to food, or to survival...
What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?
Thanks for answering a noob question.
"What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?"
Wisdom over Justice (http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/wisdomoverjustice_en.html), by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2017; 17p./90kB) [PDF icon]
Bhante Thanissaro gives here a patiently talk, in form of an essay, why skillful means are more important then to pursuit a certain right or a final objectivity and points out generosily, why so many practicing people have a hardship in regard of central worldview, so that it could be possible understood in it's details. Engaged Buddhism is against usual views and means around it not a tabu, following the Buddhas ideas about it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
As he was sitting there, Ven. Sariputta said to him, "I trust, Dhanañjani, that you are heedful?"
"From where would we get any heedfulness, master? — when parents are to be supported, wife & children are to be supported, slaves & workers are to be supported, friend-&-companion duties are to be done for friends & companions, kinsmen-&-relative duties for kinsmen & relatives, guest duties for guests, departed-ancestor duties for departed ancestors, devata duties for devatas, king duties for the king, and this body also has to be refreshed & nourished."
"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing my body. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would others gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"
"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."
"Now, what do you think, Dhanañjani? Which is the better: one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant; or one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is righteous, what is concordant?
"Master Sariputta, the one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant, is not the better one. The one who, for the sake of his mother & father, would do what is righteous, what is concordant would be the better one there. Righteous behavior, concordant behavior, is better than unrighteous behavior, discordant behavior.[2]
"Dhanañjani, there are other activities — reasonable, righteous — by which one can support one's mother & father, and at the same time both not do evil and practice the practice of merit.
"What do you think, Dhanañjani: Which is the better: one who, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king ... refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant; or one who, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is righteous, what is concordant?
"Master Sariputta, the one who, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is unrighteous, what is discordant, is not the better one. The one who, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body, would do what is righteous, what is concordant would be the better one there. Righteous behavior, concordant behavior, is better than unrighteous behavior, discordant behavior.[3]
"Dhanañjani, there are other activities — reasonable, righteous — by which one can refresh & nourish one's body, and at the same time both not do evil and practice the practice of merit."
Then Dhanañjani the brahman, delighting & rejoicing in Ven. Sariputta's words, got up from his seat and left.
Thanks a lot! I was very happy to read this talk - very inspiring and clarifying things! And also directly answers the question I asked!