This is very interesting and again puts into perspective the idea of what is versus what ought to be. It is an enlightening concept to me that what happens naturally and is our natural inclination to a situation can sometimes be against what we're ought to do. This kind of goes against the things I would hear growing up as people would always say "listen to your gut/instincts/heart". All of those things get at the same idea that we know how to act intrinsically. This also reminds me of Utilitarianism, even though the two philosophies are very different from one another and Utilitarianism has to do with nature and how it governs pleasure and pain (and how we act versus how we ought to act in regards to pleasure and pain).

This passage is a bit confusing. I would understand the idea if he had gone on to explain that we are all merely elements of this world so we shouldn't be sad because our nature is to return to the earth. However, he states "beginning from the smallest" and then says that we should see the ones we love as only human beings. I am not quite sure what he is getting at as I am pretty disturbed when a human being dies regardless of if it is someone close to me. Also, I understand the idea of not having attachments to the material world, however I find it a bit disturbing that he has this idea where you wont be disturbed by even your loved ones death. I feel like caring about other humans is kind of a testament of human emotion and thought and should be celebrated even if only for a bit and then we move on.