On the plane from Amsterdam to New York I was reading an article in the International NY Times by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the America Enterprise Institute. I’m not sure if I agree with most of the practical philosophy of this institute, but this article was worth reading:

‘But then Gnanmunidas had his awakening. At 26, he asked himself, “Is this all there is?” His grappling with that question led him to India, where he renounced everything and entered a Hindu seminary. Six years later, he emerged a monk. From that moment on, the sum total of his worldly possessions has been two robes, prayer beads and a wooden bowl. He is prohibited from even touching money — a discipline that would obviously be impossible for those of us enmeshed in ordinary economic life.
As an economist, I was more than a little afraid to hear what this capitalist-turned-renunciant had to teach me. But I posed a query nonetheless: “Swami, is economic prosperity a good or bad thing?” I held my breath and waited for his answer.
“It’s good,” he replied. “It has saved millions of people in my country from starvation.” This was not what I expected. “But you own almost nothing,” I pressed. “I was sure you’d say that money is corrupting.” He laughed at my naïveté. “There is nothing wrong with money, dude. The problem in life is attachment to money.” The formula for a good life, he explained, is simple: abundance without attachment.’

Read the article here.

Abundance without attachment strikes me as a good philosophy, not only when it comes to money, this commandment works also for sex, wine, curiosity, gambling, martial arts, yes even love.
The exception is offspring. If you contemplate procreation keep in mind that the commandment differs for procreation: abundance no, attachment yes. Literature may also be an exception.
But most other sorts of love can do without attachment, as long as there is abundance (of love and money).