text:
Types of Jhana!
What type of Jhana (Vimuttimagga or Visuddhimagga) would you recommend?
Is it possible for a Laity to attain all the four levels of Visuddhimagga Jhana?
Metta.
Charles.

Welcome to the site, Charles. Ven. Yuttadhammo doesn't answer question on this site; but other users may.

what is the difference between Vimuttimagga or Visuddhimagga jhāna?

It's possible for lay people as well. It requires freedom of remorse which means firm virtue by heart AND (especially since still much possessing) liberation of stingyness.
Usually lay people would use this six (ten) kammaṭṭhānas to develop refined concentration:
Recollections, ten (anussati).

Recollection of the Buddha (buddhanussati): SN 11.3, AN 3.70, AN 11.12, AN 11.13, Thag 6.2
Recollection of the Dhamma (dhammanussati): SN 11.3, AN 3.70, AN 11.12, AN 11.13, Thag 6.2
As a governing principle: AN 3.40
Recollection of the Sangha (sanghanussati): SN 11.3, AN 3.70, AN 11.12, AN 11.13, Thag 6.2
Recollection of one's own virtues (silanussati): AN 3.70, AN 11.12, AN 11.13
Recollection of one's own generosity (caganussati): AN 11.12, AN 11.13
Recollection of the devas (devatanussati): AN 3.70, AN 11.12, AN 11.13
[Mindfulness of death (maranassati) (see also Satipatthana).
Mindfulness of the body (kayagatasati) (see also Satipatthana).
Mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati) (see also Satipatthana).]
Recollection of peace (upasamanussati): Iti 90
"A Meditator's Tools: A Study Guide on the Ten Recollections"

As the word "recollection" already indicates, there have to be something to recollect.
Once a lay person can with ease recollect on the six he/she might have already entered the path of Dhamma.
Then it should be possible to also reach higher Jhanas by will, using the certain "mindfulness objects" (on the body parts till 1. Jhana, or Ānāpānassati for all others) since the other recollection are said lead "only" to Upacārasamādhi (proper concentration). If conditions allow serious practicing the Brahmaviharas, they are also open for a good use to reach certain Jhanas.
So everybodies requirements are to listen to the good Dhamma, find firm faith and seek for refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha of his disciples (real devotion and refuge), taking on the precepts by heart (right resolve, real metta) and real generosity. Once those things are firm, there should be less obstacles for the reaching of Jhanas.
All possible attainments are possible for householders as well, of course attainments have at least, if not before effects on ways of livelihood possible for one having reached certain state of clarification. Certain circumstances make possible attainments and practice more difficult but it's like always at least an individual, kammic, matter: if, what and how in detail and ways to meet the Noble Eightfold Path.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
What are the catalysts in eightfold path which speed up our endeavor?
I want to know how one can speed up his spiritual practices (8 fold path). For- Example, How one can improve his samādhi or prajñā quickly? And what are the things or acts which helps one to improve these quickly.

In my opinion, the best catalyst is meeting highly realized people in real life to see how they behave. In a day of that you get more teaching than in a year of reading books.

Difficult to find. What to do meanwhile?

Seclusion

I used to live in a monastery with supposedly highly realised people, which had 1000s of students  & visitors per year. I recall maybe one or two or three but not many more of those visitors attained samadhi. Ajahn Brahm said somewhere in a video he teaches jhana to so many but so few attain it. Only last year, at least 3 of his monks & nuns disrobed.

The way to speed up samadhi is to practise according to the instructions, which are to use 'letting go' ('the giving up of craving', called 'vossagga') as the meditation object.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a
  monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
SN 48.10

And how are the seven factors for awakening developed & pursued so as
  to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination? There is the
  case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening
  dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, maturing in relinquishment (vossagga). He develops analysis of
  qualities as a factor for awakening... persistence as a factor for
  awakening... rapture as a factor for awakening... serenity as a factor
  for awakening... concentration as a factor for awakening... equanimity
  as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on
  dispassion, dependent on cessation, maturing in relinquishment (vossagga).
MN 118

Since right view is the foundation, all deeds, actions and undertakings, increasing right view are of use to establish the.
Focus on the foundations! It does not make sense to try to gain right Samadhi if the virtue section is not good developed. Practice generosity and service for those worthy. Practice sharing merits... Practice Veneration...
If having trouble with performing those meritorious deeds, no way to think that it is possible to gain right concentration.

For a person facing Stress and suffering and meeting the Tripple Gems, there is no act of will, 'May I gain conviction'. It is the nature of things that in a person, facing Stress and suffering and facing the Tripple Gems, conviction is gained.
For a person with conviction, there is no act of will, 'May I be generous, may I have possibility to give, my I let go of stingyness'. It is in the nature of things that, in a person of conviction, generosity and giving is established.
For a person of generosity and freedom of stinginess, there is no act of will, 'May I become virtuous'. It is the nature of things that, in a person of generosity and freedom of stinginess, virtue increases.
further: Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will

If there is still stinginess, not even Jhana can be reached.
Once there is no more fault in regard of virtue, no stingyness present, it will work naturally on the given causes.
And like always: to develop right view, association with people of right view is most importand. More on entering the stream here.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

How do monks, who have nothing, abandon stinginess? Thanks

By answering merely ill-willed and back-stabbing approches, for example, @Dhammadhatu ? Stinginess is not just a matter of material things. Good to investigate this topic well, for example lack of gratitude is also a very sign of Maccariya. E.g. not - vossagga

Sorry. But vossagga is the path to jhana rather than generosity. If generosity was the path to jhana, all of the peasants in Cambodia who give to monks would abide in jhana. I scored your post down because I think it is deceiving; including the quote, which i have not read in any sutta.

That's what was said. Do as you are fit. Blind in a low realm one is not able to understand Dhamma. * rowf * stingy..., an "animals-states" attitude. vossagga = giving, letting go, generosity. And if not even outwardly able... than dream on the other realms dreams.

Enough with you two troublemakers. You are both suspended for 1 week. Please use the time to contemplate how you want to behave on Buddhism SE.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Importance of good moral conduct
What is the importance of this concept compared to other practices, such as meditation in the Buddhist way of life?

It leads to non-regret,
one who has non-regret gets serene
one who gets serene gets concentrated
So it acts as foundation for concentration, meditative methods use and further develope that same concentration faculty which in turn supports developement of discernment and wisdom.
Sutta references:
 AN 10.2 & AN 11.2

Would all Buddhists agree with this?

most buddhists dont agree on much but this is very easy question. google "non regret sutta"

it is not an exhaustive answer by any means. If you have questions in regards to other properties and function of behavior, results of actions and their relative merits the whole doctrine could be explained going from there.

Good moral conduct is extremely important because, although it, in itself, does not bring the goal, the goal cannot be reached without it.

If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I be dear and agreeable to my
  companions in the holy life, respected and esteemed by them,’ let him
  fulfil the precepts, be devoted to internal serenity of mind, not
  neglect meditation, be possessed of insight, and dwell in empty huts.
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I be one to obtain robes, almsfood,
  resting place, and medicinal requisites,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May the services of those whose robes,
  almsfood, resting place, and medicinal requisites I use bring them
  great fruit and benefit,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘When my kinsmen and relatives who have
  passed away and died remember me with confidence in their minds, may
  that bring them great fruit and great benefit, ’ let him fulfil the
  precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I become a conqueror of discontent and
  delight, and may discontent not conquer me; may I abide transcending
  discontent whenever it arises,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I become a conqueror of fear and
  dread, and may fear and dread not conquer me; may I abide transcending
  fear and dread whenever they arise,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I become one to obtain at will,
  without trouble or difficulty, the four jhānas that constitute the
  higher mind and provide a pleasant abiding here and now,’ let him
  fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I contact with the body and abide in
  those liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending
  forms,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I, with the destruction of three
  fetters, become a stream-enterer, no longer subject to perdition,
  bound for deliverance, headed for enlightenment,’ let him fulfil the
  precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I, with the destruction of three
  fetters and with the attenuation of lust, hate, and delusion, become a
  once-returner, returning once to this world to make an end of
  suffering,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I, with the destruction of the five
  lower fetters, become due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes
  and there attain final Nibbāna, without ever returning from that
  world,’ let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I wield the various kinds of
  supernormal power: having been one, may I become many; having been
  many, may I become one; may I appear and vanish; may I go unhindered
  through a wall, through an enclosure, through a mountain as though
  through space; may I dive in and out of the earth as though it were
  water; may I walk on water without sinking as though it were earth;
  seated cross-legged, may I travel in space like a bird; with my hand
  may I touch and stroke the moon and sun so powerful and mighty; may I
  wield bodily mastery, even as far as the Brahma-world,’ let him fulfil
  the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I, with the divine ear element, which
  is purified and surpasses the human, hear both kinds of sounds, the
  divine and the human, those that are far as well as near,’ let him
  fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I understand the minds of other
  beings, of other persons, having encompassed them with my own mind.
  May I understand a mind affected by lust as affected by lust and a
  mind unaffected by lust as unaffected by lust; may I understand a mind
  affected by hate as affected by hate and a mind unaffected by hate as
  unaffected by hate; may I understand a mind affected by delusion as
  affected by delusion and a mind unaffected by delusion as unaffected
  by delusion; may I understand a contracted mind as contracted and a
  distracted mind as distracted; may I understand an exalted mind as
  exalted and an unexalted mind as unexalted; may I understand a
  surpassed mind as surpassed and an unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed;
  may I understand a concentrated mind as concentrated and an
  unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated; may I understand a liberated
  mind as liberated and an unliberated mind as unliberated,’ let him
  fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I recollect my manifold past lives,
  that is, one birth, two births…as Sutta 4, §27…Thus with their aspects
  and their particulars may I recollect my manifold past lives,’ let him
  fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I, with the divine eye, which is
  purified and surpasses the human, see beings passing away and
  reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and
  unfortunate; may I understand how beings pass on according to their
  actions thus:’…as Sutta 4, §29…let him fulfil the precepts…
“If a bhikkhu should wish: ‘May I, by realising for myself with direct
  knowledge, here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of
  mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction
  of the taints,’ let him fulfil the precepts, be devoted to internal
  serenity of mind, not neglect meditation, be possessed of insight, and
  dwell in empty huts.
MN 6

Would all Buddhists agree with this?
Another translation could say "remorse" instead of "regret".
I think there are other important reasons too for moral conduct (e.g. metta and sukha, perhaps especially for laypeople); but that "freedom from remorse" is canonically how it relates to the beginning of meditation (perhaps especially for the ordained); e.g. this from the Vinaya:

Discipline is for the sake of restraint,
  restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse,
  freedom from remorse for the sake of joy,
  (etc.)

There's similar in a sutta, see The rewards of virtue.
Texts I've read suggest that good moral conduct should (perhaps must) be practised first.

Must, since it comes before the concentation section, Nyom Chris.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Does rational thinking avoid dogma and enhance our wisdom?

Rational - decisions and thoughts are based on reason rather than on emotion.
Reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Wisdom - ability to use your experience and knowledge in order to make sensible decisions or judgements.
Experience - practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
Knowledge - the facts, feelings, or experiences known by a person or group of people

As per above definitions, "rational" thinking is nothing more than stick to "cause and effect"; and if someone says "rationalism can't provide answer to all the phenomena in nature", that's true due to the complexity of nature and limitations of our perceptions. So here come "wisdom": it says usage of our observation of facts (experience) lead us to reach realisation and understanding (to get free from ignorance or avijja).
As per above:

Is rational thinking wrong thing to do? (or thinking stick to cause and effect)
Does it help us to enhance our wisdom and free from avijja?

Note: I have expressed with my limited knowledge in English so all are free to edit without distorting main idea. Thanks.

The English took hardly any editing at all. I just edited the format and punctuation.

There are 3 kinds of knowledge.

knowledge based on thinking (cintā-mayā-paññā). Rational thinking comes under this.
knowledge gained by learning from others (suta-mayā-paññā)
knowledge based on mental development or meditation (bhāvanā-mayā-paññā)

Only the third kind of knowledge leads one to freedom from suffering. One can never attain enlightenment by thinking up theories.

Rational usually isn't without emotion (in my opinion) -- rather it's a structure built on an implicit (often unspecified or unknown) emotional basis, and the emotional basis is often (perhaps invariably) irrational.
For example, IMO the following is an example of rational thinking:

That cookie looks good because I've enjoyed the taste of cookies like it in the past, therefore I want to eat it.
The cookie is behind a glass wall with a door in it, therefore I'll try to open the door
There's a man watching to see what I do, he might want my cookie, therefore I don't like that man
I don't like that man, etc.

I think this was an example of cause-and-effect reasoning.
This reasoning is logical but doesn't necessarily allow or encourage you to question the premise on which your logic is based:

Is the cookie good for me? Do I really want to eat it?
Why is there a glass wall?
Is it true that the man might want my cookie? Is it even my cookie? Should I dislike him?

So Buddhism adds some necessary ingredients that are missing from mere rationality, including:

Ethics
Right view (or wisdom)
and Concentration

Buddhism uses rationality or can be explained rationally, for example:

Because attachment is suffering, consider detachment/dispassion/cessation instead
Because that cookie isn't given and isn't good for me, I don't want it and won't strive for it

There's an idiom in English, "good servant but bad master" ("fire is a good servant but a bad master", "technology is...", "science is..."). I expect that "reason" and "logic" may be like that, i.e. sometimes useful tools but you shouldn't do something just because it sounds "rational".
Also I'm taught to be rational, and if someone tells me to do something I often want to know why; and (theoretically) knowing why I do something helps me to understand what I'm trying to do and therefore maybe even how to do it. So it may be difficult for me to work with (practice, benefit from) a doctrine that's irrational -- it can be helpful if a doctrine is rational, if its reasoning is explained.

@cw you have placed a good and honest explanation(with your rational influence). Thanks for it.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with rationalism provided that it is adequately counterbalanced by other factors.  As you imply in your question, experience is one such equalizer.  But I'm not sure it's sufficient.  It owes its existence to something even more fundamental.  As dirty a word as this is in contemporary Buddhist parlance, the single most important factor that ensures that our rationalism doesn't become dogmatic, cold, dead, and inflexible is faith.
When I say faith, I don't necessarily mean belief.  I'm not saying that you should accept by rote Buddhist doctrine as catechesis.  Instead, the faith that we should develop as followers of the dharma is one of openess and trust.  Without trust in the eight fold path, we'll never sit on the cushion.  When we're tired, when our legs hurt, and when the pangs of doubt are gnawing at us, unless we've developed a trusting mind, we'll never push through.  Without faith, there can be no experience.  Likewise, when we've put in our cushion time, when we've had great insights, when we've begun to see the world through the true dharma eye, unless we've developed a trusting mind, our progress stalls.  Without faith, we bind ourselves to an imperfect understanding.  Without openness, we've closed innumerable dharma gates. Without the fundamental mind of trust, our current level of knowledge - not matter how subtle - gets in the way of deeper experience, more refined wisdom, and true understanding.
Lastly, and most importantly, trust, emptiness, and the awakened mind are unified in ways that defy rationalism, experience, reason, or even wisdom:

To live in this faith is the road to nonduality,
  Because the nondual is one with the trusting mind.
  - Seng-ts'an from the Hsin Hsin Ming

I rationally think of faith as being analogous to a scientific "hypothesis" ... which explains what experiment[s] to perform: "Suppose I were to try to accept and to practice according to the dhamma... ".

It certainly can mean that, but I think it goes a bit further.  Faith is a trust fall into practice.  It's the act - and faith is more of an action than a belief or hypothesis - of leaving the known and utterly giving one's self over to uncertainty.  To have that kind of faith is to discard any map or theory, put on a blind fold, walk out the door, and hope the universe catches you.

Faith-strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

While faith in Buddhism does not imply "blind faith", Buddhist practice nevertheless requires a degree of trust, primarily in the spiritual attainment of Gautama Buddha. Faith in Buddhism centers on the understanding that the Buddha is an Awakened being, on his superior role as teacher, in the truth of his Dharma (spiritual teachings), and in his Sangha (community of spiritually developed followers). Faith in Buddhism can be summarised as faith in the Three Jewels: the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. It is intended to lead to the goal of enlightenment, or bodhi, and Nirvana.

It absolutely does encompass that...and much much more.  Buddhism is 100% trust/faith the triple gem, the universe at large, and yourself.  Outside of the word "intimacy" I don't know of another term that would provide a better one word summation of the entire Buddhadharma.  But even intimacy requires trust.


text:
What would be the motivation for an arahant to perform generous deeds?
In the early stages of the gradual training, the instructions point out to perform generous deeds out of compassion. Knowing that a arahant has no more any trace of desire or self-identification and that compassion is a desire to other beings be happy, what would be the motivation underliyng generous deeds performed by a arahant?

I think that while the 5 aggregates are present there is still something human in the arahant. After all he transceded suffering of humanity which he was. Often times the Buddha had to be asked 3 times before expounding Dhamma instructions to a human so compassion is directed towards Dhamma.

There is no more intent to perform kamma, even wholesome (e.g. deeds which "fall" back to one)
So an Arahat act "So" or "Such". He is compassion, dwells in compassion, formost as a unexceled field of merits.
Others might act in what ever intention toward him.
If asking what does or can an Arahat give outwardly: it depends of what is left.
Maccariya (stingyness) is absent in all Noble beings (beginning by streamenter). He is also incapable to act on ill-will, for sensuality, for any personal interest...
Since he has perfect virtue, he has perfect compassion since virtue = compassion.
To become an Arahat is based on compassion, right intention/resolve comming from right view.
That is the reason why they (who waer the flag or the Arahats) are called "prah/preah karuna", "lord of compassion" in Southeast Asia.
So again, there is no such as an intent to be compassioned because he is compassion, embodies compassion. And of what he might give (which seems to define compassion for the asking person) by word and deeds, e.g. physical, depents on what is remeaning. There is no more accumulation for the sake of giving, no more intent of becoming and not-becoming, either to be or not to be.
And there is no way that he could fall back and act on merely defiled compassion.
What ever he gives is totaly free of string (to the world) and directed to liberation.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

"Compassion is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering. Its function resides in not [enduring] others' suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside, and it fails when it produces sorrow." -Visuddhimagga
Compassion is a wholesome quality of the mind. It's not eliminated when one attains enlightenment. So when an Arahath's mind focuses on the suffering of a being, compassion arises naturally.
Craving is what is eleminated when one attains enlightenment. Craving is of 3 kinds.

Desire for sensual pleasure
Desire for becoming
Desire for non-becoming

If i understand correct (would like a confirmation or saying its wrong by someone who knows)
when you dont have a hindrance you have the opposite of it   - so when you dont have ill will - so its not something you need to try to do cause you have it so an arhant automatically would like to do generous deeds it would be his natural state
so the opposite of ill will i believe be empathy - the 5 hindrances which arhants dont have :
Sensory desire (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling. .... opposite will be to be content with what is
Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda): all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject; feelings of hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.
.... opposite will be metta to all
Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. ... opposite will be enregetic
Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind. .... opposite will be calm
Doubt ... opposite will be to have faith in the dhamma


text:
I do not know what is my Dhamma anymore; Can anyone help?
In my previous question I discussed what is your Dhamma which some people interpreted as what is your religion or whether you are a Buddhist. Some people said one discovers Dhamma when one walks on the Noble Eightfold Path. Some people said Dhamma is how the Nature operates.
From religion point of view I am no longer a true believer of Hinduism. I neither a Buddhist because I have not adopted the Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha(although I believe in the Buddha). I am neither a Christian  or Muslim.
From Eightfold Path view : I am not aware whether I am following the Eightfold Path. If I believe in Eightfold Path then my Dhamma becomes to follow the Eightfold Path. But this Dhamma is not something natural. It is learned. Not everyone walks on this Dhamma naturally. According to this theory Dhamma is discovered. And the discovery is Eightfold Path. It is discovered through learning.According to this definition I have not yet discovered my Dhamma.
From natural order of things point of view: If Dhamma is natural order of things then why do we find people who do opposite of what Buddha discovered as natural dhamma? Wny naturally one believes in Self? Clearly if Dhamma means teachings of Buddha then Dhamma is not something innately present all the time.
In short , I have become confused about my Dhamma.
Can anyone help me realize my Dhamma?

Perhaps you would benefit reading a few books describing the buddhist eightfold path? It's a very extensive topic to be covered in an answer, since it covers all the practices and exercises laid out by the Buddha to extinguish suffering.

@Thiago please suggest some books to read on the eightfold path.

The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation by Thich Nhat Hanh and The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

I would recommend reading Ajhan Chah as it is not about written knowledge but about living one.

Following the Dhamma towards the end of suffering, is not doing the natural thing. It's actually doing what's opposite to what's natural. It's going against the current. What is natural is to follow cravings.
From Itivuttaka 109:

"Suppose, bhikkhus, a man was being borne along by the current of a
  river that seemed pleasant and agreeable. But upon seeing him, a
  keen-sighted man standing on the bank would call out to him: 'Hey,
  good man! Although you are being borne along by the current of a river
  that seems pleasant and agreeable, lower down there is a pool with
  turbulent waves and swirling eddies, with monsters and demons. On
  reaching that pool you will die or suffer close to death.' Then,
  bhikkhus, upon hearing the words of that person, that man would
  struggle against the current with hands and feet.
"I have made use of this simile, bhikkhus, to illustrate the meaning.
  And this is the meaning here: 'The current of the river' is a synonym
  for craving. 'Seeming pleasant and agreeable' is a synonym for the six
  internal sense-bases. 'The pool lower down' is a synonym for the five
  lower fetters. 'Turbulent waves' is a synonym for anger and
  frustration. 'Swirling eddies' is a synonym for the five strands of
  sensual pleasure. 'Monsters and demons' is a synonym for
  womenfolk (i.e. sexual attraction).
  'Against the current' is a synonym for renunciation. 'Struggling with
  hands and feet' is a synonym for instigating energy. 'The keen-sighted
  man standing on the bank' is a synonym for the Tathagata, the Arahant,
  the Fully Enlightened One."

The Buddha recognized in the Ayacana Sutta that the masses who delight in attachment, excited by attachment and enjoy attachment, would not easily understand the Dhamma.

"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me."

We should not underestimate how "natural" it is for the masses to indulge in sensual pleasures. From the Magandiya Sutta:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

Ananda Sutta (SN22.83) paraphrased here, tells that the self ("I am") is also very natural, as long as one clings to the five aggregates.

If somebody should want to see his reflection or image, he could do so
  only through a cause, namely a mirror or a clear body of water. In the
  same way do the five aggregates reflect the image of "I am." As
  long as one depends on them and is supported by them, so long will an
  "I" be reflected. Only when one does not rely on them any longer, will
  the image of "I" disappear.

In the Mallikaa Sutta, we find that another most natural thing is that the most dear person to oneself is oneself. So, it's also quite natural to be self-centered.
However, in general, people tend to feel an underlying sense of dissatisfaction, because despite pursuing pleasures, it never lasts, and ageing, disease, decay and death cannot be avoided. This sense of dissatisfaction, which is sensing suffering, is what drives some people to consider the Dhamma, and pursue the path that is not natural, going against the current of the river of samsara, towards the end of suffering.
What is my dhamma? I guess by that, you mean, what is my destiny?
By default, your "natural" destiny is to go along with the current of craving and clinging, on the river of samsara, towards the destination of suffering. It's up to you to decide to go against the current, and change your destiny, towards the end of suffering, which is on the stable river bank of Nirvana, where the Buddha stood.
In other words, instead of asking "what is my destiny?", you would have to ask "how can I change my destiny?", "how can I change my fate?".
Your dhamma is to decide your own destiny, for you are your own refuge, according to Dhammapada 380.

Dhp 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could
  the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery
  that is hard to gain.
Dhp 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By
  oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and
  impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.
Dhp 380. One is one's own protector, one is one's own refuge.
  Therefore, one should control oneself, even as a trader controls a
  noble steed.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that no Dhamma can be adopted forever. No destiny can be lived forever. That is because Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. That is All Dhammas are non-self. No Dhamma can be said to me , my or mine. No destiny can be said to be me , my or mine.

@DheerajVerma You are right. You cannot hold on to the Dhamma forever. According to the raft simile, the Dhamma is like the boat that takes you to the shore of Nirvana. After that, you let go of the boat. The word "Dhamma" in the context of the raft simile, applies to the Buddha's teachings. The word "dhamma" in the context of "sabbe dhamma anatta" means "phenomena" or "thing". "Dhamma" in Buddhism has many meanings. See Ajahn Sujato's answer.

Your Dhamma is to be yourself, obviously. To be yourself means to trust oneself. To trust oneself means, you can consult many books, and hear opinions of people, but the final decision is yours. You make it to the best of your ability, and then you take a stance on it. To trust oneself also means, to know oneself, to know when your own thought is sincere or when it is driven by anger or desire or by ego wanting to look better.
When you trust yourself like that, you can go forward without inner conflict, be spontaneously yourself without doubts, and create your own future. That's fulfilling your Dhamma.

What do you mean by trust yourself ? I trust whatever can be trusted. I distrust whoever needs to distrusted. Sometimes I do not trust my own conclusion. Sometimes I trust others. The stance I take on any subject is driven by my sanskhara. The sense of merit and demerit is Annica. It won't last therefore is not Self.

Alright, so everything is already perfect and you are fulfilling your Dhamma.

Natural does not necessarily mean wholesome or proper. If you interpret natural as something that happens easily in nature, a robber wanting to steal is natural. A hateful person wanting to kill is natural. A lustful person wanting to rape is natural. A dumb person thinking ignorant thoughts is also natural. An animal wanting to kill another animal is natural.
The Buddha never taught doing what naturally comes to the mind leads to end of suffering.
“Ye dhamma hetuppa bhava
tesam hetum tathagato aha
tesanca yo nirodho
evam vadi maha samano.
” -
The Tathagata has declared the cause and also the cessation of all phenomena which arise from a cause. This is the doctrine held by the Great Samana.

According to you there are no naturally occurring Dhamma. What about Kama or Sex ? Can we not say that Sex is a natural instance of Dhamma ?(it may be a wrong dhamma but it is a dhamma)

Define "normally occurring Dhamma"?

Human tendency to have empathy for another human being is an example of natural Dhamma.(also it is a normal dhamma.)

That's compassion. So by natural or normal Dhamma, do you mean wholesome mind states?

Truly I can only guess. If I understand what is my Dhamma then I can conclude that that Dhamma is not worth realizing as Self!! Because Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.

There's no Dhamma that can be considered as a self to begin with regardless of whether one realizes it or not. The word 'Dhamma' has several meanings. In one sense, all realities are Dhammas. In another sense, the teachings of the Buddha are Dhamma.

Exactly , I am asking currently, what is my reality and what is my duty in it? How can I know my native Dhamma ? It is not Buddhism or any religion currently. But I am not without Dhamma. I am Brahm. I am the unpredictable. I need predictability.My Dhamma is suffering I guess.

There's no 'mine' or 'my'. So do not worry about "what is your Dhamma". On a conceptual level you can consider yourself as a Buddhist if you take refuge in the TripleGem.

So let us examine the one of Dhamma; "ashta loka dhamma"(eight worldly conditions) as example out of 84000 thousand Dhamma
Gain and non-gain, disrepute and fame,
blame and praise, happy and sorrow:
these conditions found among people
are impermanent, transient, subject to change.
so this is the behavior of nature.(or how it is operated  or processed or any other better suggestions of the word) and it has wholesome and unwholesome aspects. it is obvious that we have to interact with above nature.Also prove that existence of wholesome and unwholesome. When some one say If you interpret natural as something that happens easily in nature, a robber wanting to steal is natural.Also stealing is not sustainable and harm the society and it can overcome by ethics. So Dhamma can't be explained as single isolated event it's a process and interconnected phenomena.
the initial question has a discrepancy by saying "your Dhamma" and "my Dhamma" pretend individuals and nature are two different things. Dhamma must be seen as a whole thing. E.g. one's experiences,realizations,way of reactions to outer world and all phenomena include in Dhamma.
In other way wholesome and unwholesome exists and unwholesome phenomena lack of sustainability and it can overcome by wholesome acts. This also a Dhamma. Purpose of Dhamma(As teaching of Buddha) is realizing things as it is and how to escape from suffering.
If simplified thief in today has potential to be Arahath in future.Think that hungry person steal food and someone understand the motive behind stealing and offer some food with kind way and convince him not to steal- which is the process of Dhamma.Just stealing and kindness are not. In same way; murderer today has potential to become Arahath in future (E.g motive behind killing as a blind faith on his teacher in Angulimala story) with the exact realization of Dhamma.
If we go further it obvious that existence of violence and non-violence and violence cease by non-violence. so that is the nature and Dhamma. so proper understanding of violence and non-violence (distinguish of two) is vital to get wholesome results.

You have explained the meaning of Dhamma but you have not answered the question what is my Dhamma...? If you think individual Dhamma doesn't exist then I guess it is as wrong as saying there is no Self. Individual dhamma exists but it is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. Therefore Buddha says "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta." If I begin by saying there no self worth identifying as myself then there is no Dhamma worth identifying as my Dhamma. Dhamma is an illusion just as Ego is an illusion.

what is my Dhamma...? the initial question has a discrepancy by saying "your Dhamma" and "my Dhamma" pretend individuals and nature are two different things. Dhamma must be seen as a whole thing. E.g. one's experiences,realizations,way of reactions to outer world and all phenomena include in Dhamma. Have you spotted the discrepancy of your question?

your mind is your creator- Dhamma is an illusion. ok. Now my mind is my creator and I say Dhamma is everything in my perceptive world including me. So what would be your respond?

What Is Natural?
Claiming they want their practice to be "natural," some people complain that this way of life does not fit their nature.
Nature is the tree in the forest. But if you build a house, it is no longer natural, is it? Yet if you learn to use the tree, making wood and building a house, it has more value to you. Or perhaps the dog is natural, running here and there, following its nose. Throw food to dogs and they rush to it, fighting each other. Is that what you want to be like?
The true meaning of natural can be discovered with our discipline and practice. This natural is beyond our habits, our conditioning, our fears. If the human mind is left to so-called natural impulses, untrained, it is full of greed, hatred, and delusion and suffers accordingly. Yet through practice we can allow our wisdom and love to grow naturally until it blossoms in any surroundings.

To take refuge into the Three Gems means to seek refuge into the Buddha (Awakening and an Awakened), into his Dhamma (teaching and his advices to arrive there), and into the Sangha (those who followed him and practiced good, to have orientation on side).
When one sees the dangers in the world and comes to know someone knowing a way out, that is when one goes for refuge.
To take ones own ways of thoughts, ideas as refuge is normal, but as one could figure out, does as good as never leads out.
Only by taking refuge in the tripple gems and follow the advices, train one self, one might, by seeing the Dhamma for oneself, make it his own as well. From this point on, the way out has become naturally to that extend, that he is bound to reach the other shore within most seven existences.
Even then effort is the cause of reaching further paths and fruit and it goes all against the normal habits (the natural ones).
Beings take usually refuge in sign and eye, sound and ear, smell and nose, taste and tongue, touch and body, ideas and intelect. Buy since all of that is not real, not lasting, subject to decay, they are lost in their refuge, grasping after something without heartwood. Once seeing that this phenomenas are not real, one is open to see the unconditioned.
So it is said:

At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

At this point your refuge grows firm and no more to slight far away. Nature, by given the cause for it, is now on your conductive side.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

I do not know what is my Dhamma anymore
Part of the dhamma says that all dhammas are anatta (dhammas are not "me", and not "mine").
So the question, with the word "my" in it, looks wrong to me. Here it is again without "my":

I do not know what is Dhamma anymore; Can anyone help?
Some people said one discovers Dhamma when one walks on the Noble Eightfold Path. Some people said Dhamma is how the Nature operates.
From religion point of view I am no longer a true believer of Hinduism. I neither a Buddhist because I have not adopted the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha (although I believe in the Buddha). I am neither a Christian or Muslim.
From Eightfold Path view : I am not aware whether I am following the Eightfold Path. If I believe in Eightfold Path, then Dhamma becomes to follow the Eightfold Path. But this Dhamma is not something natural. It is learned. Not everyone walks on this Dhamma naturally. According to this theory Dhamma is discovered. And the discovery is Eightfold Path. It is discovered through learning. According to this definition I have not yet discovered Dhamma.
From natural order of things point of view: If Dhamma is natural order of things then why do we find people who do opposite of what Buddha discovered as natural dhamma? Wny naturally one believes in Self? Clearly if Dhamma means teachings of Buddha then Dhamma is not something innately present all the time.
In short, I have become confused about Dhamma. Can anyone help me realize Dhamma?

Like that, without "my", I'd understand it as asking about the Buddha's Dhamma (i.e. "I don't know what the Buddha's teaching is", not "I don't know what my Dharma is"), which might be clearer. People can't easily tell you what your Dhamma is, they might try to explain the (Buddha's) Dhamma[s].
Some people see the Buddha's dharma is being true now which is why it's worth learning.

But this Dhamma is not something natural. It is learned.
I think it's seen as:

A reality, a truth, a property of existence, a description of the world-as-it-is
Discovered or understood by the Buddha
The Buddha understood is so well that he was able to teach it (some people may have been able to understand or practice it but without teaching it as well as the Buddha did)

So it is natural (a property of the world). And it is learned (taught by the Buddha).
Not everyone walks on this Dhamma naturally.
Being able to swim (in water) instead of drowning is maybe natural too, also an acquired skill ... not everyone can swim (though maybe every can learn to swim if they're taught and if they practice).
Wny naturally one believes in Self?
Now you're starting to ask about (specifically) anatta instead of (more generally) dhamma.
I think an answer might be that one maybe usually doesn't believe in Self -- many hours, many instants might occur without that belief -- but when the belief does occur (for example, "That cookie is mine!") then that belief is dukkha so it's better to not hold that view.
Also, remember the Three poisons: ignorance, delusion, confusion are blamed as a root cause.

Why naturally one believes in Self? because individuals are filled with ignorance due to imperfection and lack of wisdom due to complexity. that's the nature and Dhamma.

I might get into trouble but imho fwiw;
"Hinduism" - Bunch of teachers more or less teaching Samatha Meditation, beliefs are traced to those meditative attainments and the interpretation of those.
"Buddhism" - Bunch of teachers more or less teaching based on the teachings of a Perfect being who fully explained the Samatha techniques and attainments and discovered a higher meditative state than what was not previously known to "Hindu teachers".
The practice leading to that exalted state is called the "8 Fold Path".
If you have confidence in that meditation techniques allow one to reach the special states and that one can learn valuable lessons from these experiences that would make one more or less of a Hindu or Buddhist depending on the level learning, poundering with reason, coming to agreement and personal verification. In regards to rebirth and other claims like that depend on conviction a lot so as i see it they dont really make or break a "buddhist" as most Buddhists have skeptical doubt periodically.
Id recommend taking a look at Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
It is quite dense but im sure it will be illuminating.

You know, I don't wish to dampen your enthusiasm in answering all of these very old questions but in answering them, the forum becomes difficult to find the new questions. The Buddha said: "Do not go back to the past, nor the future, but discern the present realities". MN 136

I advice you to stop taking so lightly to using fathers authority to validate your agenda.

@Dhammadhatu You can use https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=newest if you only want to see new questions ... or https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=active if you want to see newest answers too.

@Inb4dead If someone posts a comment on your answer, and you don't think that the comment is helpful (a "helpful comment" is usually a comment which suggests how to improve the answer), instead of replying to that comment you can just "flag" it for a moderator's attention.

that quote, did you paraphrase it? where is it from? cant find in MN 136.

MN 131.............................................

@Inb4dead When I meditate I come across the teaching "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" when I try to understand what is my Dhamma I fail. I am coming to the conclusion that I do not have any permanent Dhamma.

not translation of Pali quote: "all things are not self or lack attributes of self" and you come to agreement? that is good yes. There is an impressive sutta "With Canki" https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html i think you will appreciate.


text:
Does Vinaya allow monks to do priestly rituals for the laity?
In some other religions like Hinduism and Catholicism, the role of monks and the role of priests are clearly separated. However, in Buddhism, this is not clearly separated.
It is clear what the monks should not practise. DN2 clearly lists a lot of "animal" arts that monks should not practice e.g. prediction, forecasting, dream interpretation, palmistry, geomancy, selecting auspicious dates, horoscopes etc.
It is also clear that monks can ordain other monks, nuns, novice monks, novice nuns.
Does the Vinaya allow or mandate monks to perform rituals and ceremonies like the following?
If it does not, then why do they do it?

Refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha ceremony
Five precepts initiation
Worship of the Buddha image and stupa
Veneration of the Bodhi tree
Blessing by chanting
Weddings
Funerals
Blessing of newborns
Blessing of the sick (heard this from a Ajahn Brahm talk)
Blessing using holy water (a Thai tradition)
Protection by tying blessed strings on hand (a Thai tradition)
Blessing of objects like car keys (a Thai tradition)
Protection blessing (Pirit in Sri Lanka)
Housewarming (heard this from a Ajahn Brahm talk)
Offerings to the deceased and blessing the deceased
Worship of the Devas or Brahmas
Worship of Bodhisattvas
Worship of the planets (Bali in Sri Lanka)
Exorcism (Tovil and Atanatiya in Sri Lanka)

Nothing should be given as a matter of exchange, gain, honor... that is clear.

Refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha ceremony

Who else should give refuge? There is nothing wrong with it, but the opposit.

Five precepts initiation

Who else should give one precepts? There is nothing wrong with it, but the opposit.

Worship of the Buddha image and stupa

Veneration is part of practice, encourged by the Buddha

Veneration of the Bodhi tree

Veneration is part of practice, encourged by the Buddha

Blessing by chanting

Giving blessings and Anumodana is not only practicing metta and mudita, but also allowed by the Buddha

Weddings

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Funerals

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Blessing of newborns

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Blessing of the sick (heard this from a Ajahn Brahm talk)

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.

Blessing using holy water (a Thai tradition)

That's of cause a ritual, but follows an occation where the Buddha send out Ven. Ananda to do such.

Protection by tying blessed strings on hand (a Thai tradition)

That is not right, to give people material things aside of Dhamma, since people would think that good come from others and material.

Blessing of objects like car keys (a Thai tradition)

Terrible... again, no problem to receive food on what ever event.

Protection blessing (Pirit in Sri Lanka)

Nothing wrong with that.

Housewarming (heard this from a Ajahn Brahm talk)

There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing.
Offerings to the deceased and blessing the deceased
There is nothing wrong to receive a meal, give talk on Dhamma and a blessing. Also encouragement to do offering toward the death is the Buddhas way.
Worship of the Devas or Brahmas
Nothing wrong with paying respect to the Devas and Gods, the Buddha encouraged as well.

Worship of Bodhisattvas

seldom & unusual

Worship of the planets (Bali in Sri Lanka)

seldom & unusual

Exorcism (Tovil and Atanatiya in Sri Lanka)

depends on the way. In giving a talk, there is no problem. Harming a ghost, or doing healing others then by giving Dhamma might be failing.

It's not good the generalize althought sadly sure 95% of monk make a livelihood from sharing Dhamma or make other services. Look at Sutta Central... even asking directly for exchange is "normal", but people buy Dhamma and you do, or not? Hmm? So why does one crow like to pick out the eye of another. Crow is crow, and usually don't do that.
People, monks who are not trading, who really live on alms are very very rare, and be sure, with general being biased, one would not meet them even standig in front.
How ever, usually kammaṭṭhāna-monks seldom to never, join such folk fests. If really listening to Dhamma would be expected, they would follow an invitation to a meal which might look similar.
May you come out of certain bias and selfdestructing views soon (and yes that's a blessing, sometimes it helps). Better look of what you can give then to demand.
Some advices: (Q&A) Details on what may be given as alms (Tips for alms-giving)
Don't forget that there are also reasons why monks would turn over the bowl. One might not fear such thinking "I can buy or trade for it and what I desire" Sure... but here "we" (you, they) go...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


text:
What does Buddhism say about boredom?
Very often when I meditate, or in everyday life, there are times when I get bored. I don't have to do anything. And often I go on YouTube to get busy.
It is the same in meditation, very quickly I get bored, I feel the time passing and it becomes heavy.
How do you manage all this?

I like boredom, it signals to me that there's a lot of spare energy in the mind so you begin looking for some way to use it and calm down. Activity is one way, but concentration practices are better, and a higher energy state of mind is perfect for concentration :)

Well, technically boredom is a form of tanha, craving. We crave for excitement, for fun, for an external source of energy. And according to principle of "this-that conditionality" craving is also a form of aversion -- meaning, when we are bored we have an inner conflict against "this". For some reason we think that "this", "here", "now" is not good enough.
My teacher explained, that every time we feel bored - that's really a signal from our "heart" that we have alienated. It's a reminder that we lost connection or integration. Because we lost connection, we feel something's missing.
From this perspective, every time we feel bored we should stop all activities, pause and look inside. Basically, meditation.
When we get more advanced on this path, we can learn to maintain this connection at all times, and then we don't feel boredom, we never have the sense of dissatisfaction, we learn to live in suchness more or less at all times.

Boredom is the feeling of your small mind drowning in emptiness.  Like most negative sensations, it is fleeting and only as powerful as your resistance to it.  Embrace your boredom.  Let it wash over you.  The space that is left behind is the beginning of wisdom.

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings is one of three types of feeling including pleasant and painful. Feelings here means sensations experienced by the six senses (including the mind).
The definition of neutral feeling comes in MN 44 and also states its relationship to ignorance:

Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and painful when
there is ignorance.”
“The underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The
underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The
underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.”

In Contemplation of Feeling, Nyanaponika Thera explained this:

Pleasant feeling is habitually linked with enjoyment and desire;
unpleasant feeling with aversion; neutral feeling with boredom and
confusion, but also serving as background for wrong views.

Also in SN 36.5:

“Mendicants, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant,
painful, and neutral feeling. Pleasant feeling should be seen as
suffering. Painful feeling should be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling
should be seen as impermanent. When a mendicant has seen these three
feelings in this way, they’re called a mendicant who has cut off
craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has
made an end of suffering.

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings, normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction.
No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction. From the same article by Nyanaponika Thera, we read the commentary of the suttas and his comment:

Comy.: "From the fourth Jhana onwards, it is the
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (that is present in these
meditative states). But this neutral feeling, too, is called
'pleasure' (sukha), on account of its being peaceful and sublime. What
arises by way of the five cords of sensual desire and by way of the
eight meditative attainments is called 'pleasure as being felt'
(vedayita-sukha). The state of Cessation of Perception and Feeling is
a 'pleasure, not being felt' (avedayita-sukha). Hence, whether it be
pleasure felt or not felt, both are assuredly 'pleasure,' in the sense
of their being painfree states (niddukkhabhava-sankhatena sukhena)."
In AN 9.34, the venerable Sariputta exclaims: "Nibbana is happiness,
friend; Nibbana is happiness, indeed!" The monk Udayi then asked: "How
can there be happiness when there is no feeling?" The venerable
Sariputta replied: "Just this is happiness, friend, that therein there
is no feeling."

To the arahant, neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana are all pleasant.

There are some advices on "RESTLESSNESS AND REMORSE"

When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them.
— SN 46:53

As Iain sad/recommended.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

You can establish mindfulness by discerning the arising and passing of "boredom" and reflect on how that very boredom is conditioned.
Also one needs some patience because eventually boredom comes and goes, have to wait it out and keep looking at its arising and ceasing, eventually perception and discernment will be appropriately conditioned by such reflection and mindfulness.
Take it one moment at a time, meditating on a moment-to-moment basis if you find yourself impatient and bored. Recognizing, discerning, perceiving and learning about those phenomena.
Noticing the states of mind that are of likes and dislikes, wanting and restlessness in particular.

Surely there is only one answer: watch this thing you call 'boredom', without resistance, because is boredom anything at all? Surely the actual problem is not this non-existant 'feeling' we call boredom, but the mind's resistance to what is, because for the mind 'it' is not 'enough'. Or whatever words you use - or whatever 'what is' you find under that label of boredom. The more you scrutinize it the more the question dissappears, becoming meaningless, and again we've eaten away the illusory whisps of mind. Is there any mind at all?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How does one know the difference between aversion and danger?
How does a Buddhist know when to tolerate a situation, and when to exit a situation? For example, a lay Buddhist in an abusive relationship: is it correct to accept the abuse, or avoid it?
Disclaimer: I am not referring to my own relationship. I just chose this scenario as a hypothetical example.

So the question isn't about interpersonal nor abusive relationships?

@ChrisW not exclusively, I just chose that as an example of the greater question

Very interesting question. I'd say, as long as you can keep learning from it, it's OK to stay in an abusive relationship, may even be useful. But only if you know what you're getting out of it, what is it that it helps you practice.
May be patience, may be metta, may be egolessness etc.
But once you have exhausted learning possibilities, I would say it's time to move on. In my mind this pertains to all types of difficult situations: abusive relationships, difficult job conditions etc.
If the pressure is so strong that it flips you into a victim mode all the times, and you completely forget that you are there to practice (as you would in a master mode) - that's probably a good indicator that the issue is more on the danger side than on the aversion side, I think it's a question of strength. There's no reason in subjecting oneself to what one just cannot handle, that stops being practice and becomes self-harm at that point.
So to summarize: 1) can you keep learning from this? 2) Are you not overwhelmed to the point of not being in control of your learning anymore?

Thanks for a good answer. I'm curious also about how compassion plays into this kind of complex scenario. I know that the Buddha said to practice compassion not only towards others, but also towards oneself. So in the case of being abused, I wonder if it would be more compassionate to avoid the pain, or sit with it for the long-term gain. Probably the latter, but I would imagine that's pretty hard to achieve

To me, this is just like with physical exercise. It's completely up to you how much pain you can handle until it becomes self-abuse. As long as you're learning.

What is dangerous that is harmful, stressful, undesired.
What one is averse to that is perceived as stressful, undesired and harmful.
Difference is that Aversion is to be uprooted as Defilement, Danger is to be avoided.
Seem to me that it is a matter of evaluating the object of referrence, in this case the relationship.
Does OP rightfully perceive danger?
It is perceived as abusive by OP, if OP s perception is well developed as in he is a wise & well-discerning person then definitely he should run away once he starts perceiving the danger in such association. It would be like seeing a punch coming and not moving away, you dont have to but all things considered you probably better off moving.
One who has a relationship has worry about relationship. When there is no relationship, there can be no abuse of that sort.

It's the same as how you know not to put your hand in the fire. You are not angry with the fire. You are just avoiding potential danger. It's the same as checking for vehicles when crossing the road.
Regarding relationships, you have to see with wisdom if it's really a case of your partner dragging you down all the time or if it's just you looking for more and more. Give the relationship a fair chance to improve with kind and respectful discussion regarding the issues before making any drastic decisions.

There are two nice story and maybe it's of use:

The Healing of the Bull: A Story, by Suvimalee Karunaratna (2005; 10pp./29KB) [PDF icon]
  In this tale from Karunaratna's series of stories to be read aloud to young children, we meet a bull, crippled with anger and bitterness for the years of mistreatment he suffered at the hands of his masters. Kapuri the she-elephant and the wise tortoise come to his aid, offering an important teaching on mindfulness, awareness, and loving-kindness.
Prisoners of Karma: A Story, by Suvimalee Karunaratna (2005; 9pp./26KB) [PDF icon]
  In this tale from Karunaratna's series of stories to be read aloud to young children, we meet a caged peacock who pines for the carefree days when he lived freely in the wilds. Thanks to the advice of Kapuri the she-elephant and the wise tortoise, he learns to steady his mind and find peace even within the confines of his cramped prison.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

The danger is when we start to procrastinate and complain about our situation.  When a person thinks his volition is not guided by virtue but by an external circumstance that person is in servitude, and for a person who is in servitude there is no liberation.
All virtue lies in detachment and if a person acts virtuously then he is free from attachment. However, if a person acts for fear of losing an external thing, for example, a partner or child his/her's volition is attached to an external thing and if start he admits to his mind that these things are above his/ her freedom this is servitude and that is the only danger for man.
We have to maintain at all time a free volition, free to follow virtue, and if you ever feel subjection and unable to act with goodwill and if you start to complain about your situation then you have to remind yourself that the door is open, if you don’t you will start to live a life of a worm not of man.
Quoting from other schools....

Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the
game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when
things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave,
but if you remain, don’t complain

Aversion is simply altering your right intention directed by virtue due to fear or ignorance while still maintain your freedom of choice in your thinking whereas a danger is admitting a mindset of servitude subjecting your volition to be controlled by someone else, thinking that you are not free when you are truly free.


text:
Difference between Attachment and Goals
I am confused about the differences between attachment (desire) and having a dream/setting goals. Are they the same or different? I am currently working in a job that I do not love but also do not hate. I could do the job if I make myself to but I am not motivated or feel passionate about it. I am contemplating whether I should change my career or try to pursue what I always wanted to do, which is in the arts. The problem is my family wants me to continue working in my field as they think it is more stable and I'm able to earn money to support myself. I am confused and lost in direction and would like to hear a perspective from a Buddhist as I am a devoted follower. Should I try to meditate and lose the desire to change career and try to be more content? Or should I follow what my heart tells me to? There is also a question about fulfilling or want to fulfill other people's (parents) expectations and filial piety. Please clarify me. Thank you.
Thank you everyone for your advice, you can't believe how relieved I felt after getting this off my chest. Sadhu sadhu sadhu

This question seems similar (related) to Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? ... but not a duplicate because this question also asks about desire and duty and career.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is attachment is attachment, and desires (tanha) are things like goals, ambitions, dreams etc? The question would be if craving is similar to having and setting goals and whether we should strive to eliminate craving?

While I'm not really qualified to answer this in a spiritual manner, I'd still recommend the following: Work full time on your job and part time on your career. Do it strategically and when the career earns you more money than your job, you can switch comfortably. Look at Ilya Kuvshinov on Patreon for example. Or Lackadaisycats, or Gunnerkrigg Court. Examples of where art pays well. Find some of the longer videos by Jim Rohn ('best year ever', 'learn this skill'). Check out the free stuff Jay Abraham has to offer. Business philosophy and good, ethical marketing are a strong foundation.

Technically, you could resolve this either way. As long as you can completely convince yourself to take a stance and forget the other alternative, you'd be fine.
However in Buddhism we are advised to try and maximize the positive qualities of mind. So if one of these choices makes you more motivated and energized than the other, you will probably do better long term by going that way.
Now, regarding your parents, in this case you're not violating any ethics, except their expectations of your life, which is the domain that you own 100%.
Regarding goal vs desire concept, in Buddhism it is the blinding desire/craving/lust that is recognized as a danger, for obvious reasons. Yours is not like that. Also, a type of desire that we think about but never fulfill or can't fulfill, leads to suffering. Yours is like that at the moment, so the most Buddhist advice would be to either start fulfilling it or to drop it. Staying in this limbo is definitely a case of generating suffering.

What are the ways to convince yourself? I feel like I want to change and take my own life back in control. Yet, from a Buddhist view I'm not sure whether this desire (craving, striving) should be encouraged. Thanks for your answer.

If I were you I would listen to my heart. This is what my teacher advised as a general rule, all things equal.

In Buddhism what is important is whether or not your job comes under wrong livelihood and if you get enough free time for meditation. Following one's heart is discouraged in Buddhism. In other words, you should not do anything just because you like to do it. Do something only  if it's beneficial. So you have to evaluate both professions in terms of financial gain and free time. If you are financially stable, you get more time to work on other things in life. So your parents are probably right unless your current job consumes all your free time.
Remember, doing what you like does not lead you to end of suffering. So it doesn't really matter if you get to practice arts or not as it can only give you momentary states of happiness. We work to make a living, we don't live to work.

Thank you for your advise. I appreciate your honesty and hard truth. Sometimes we all need a wake up call. For some reason it's really hard for me to decide between these two choices, I always keep thinking of "What if?" That's probably the cause of this suffering, I need some time to reflect on this.

@Jane.S Whatever profession you pick does not really matter. In 100 years you will be nothing more than soil and bones. All that matter are the good and bad deeds you do while you live. You will not remember anything you did in the past life once you die. Maybe you were a great artist or maybe you were a millionaire in your last life. Does it really matter? Do you even remember? So don't worry about it much. Focus more on spiritual development.

Goals are set and attempted to reach, attachments you either attach or detach. Functionally different concepts. One can be attached to a goal, that is attachment to a goal. What is ones goal, that one wants, what one wants one likes, what one likes that one is attached to, in this sense they are conjoined, not apart.
If one says "My goal is to attach to X". Goal thus becomes Attachment and Attachment becomes the goal.
The point here is that words are symbols, abstractions, not entities, they dont ultimately exist and take on a range of meanings in different contexts and do not apply in some.
IE "Apple" is a word, if i point to an apple and say "this is an apple" what you see me pointing at becomes the object of referrence in this context. The word i used is a simple abstraction of the object of referrence, it is not the object of referrence.
A seemingly healthy thing to pounder on is that it is Attachment of something to something, often Self-Identity or Judgement is ascribed to a concept. A goal becomes my goal, liking becomes my liking, attachment to the goal becomes thus my attachment to my goal. Suddenly one has postulated existence of the concept of self, if one then thinks that this Concept is the Object of Referrence rather than a convention of reasoning the problem arises, because that would be assuming that the word apple is on par with actually seeing the apple, naturally one would expect the word to be a real thing, in example of an apple one would come to expect that one could eat the word like one could eat the apple, obviously a critical mistake.
In example of a Court session. One could say "Man vs State". "The State" is clearly an abstraction, in that room there will be men or women, men or women discussing and making decisions according to their knowledge, intent and conviction, there will be no "State" in blue gloves fighting the guy. The State is like that Self postulation.
Maybe sounds obvious but it goes all way to demonstrate the limitations of reasoning for we can talk about some tangible object of referrence like an apple but also about feelings or things unknown, unseen, unheard, unfelt, unexperienced and therefore we will never know exactly what that object of reference is until we know it for ourselves it will be abstract no matter how many words are used to explain and how much we pounder it, it we wont have an accurate description of how is actually the object of referrence because we use words to reason and communicate.

For every goal one needs to have strong desire for it. The question is just: what brings long terme happiness so that it is worthy to grasp after.
But not only the goal it self but also the means to reach it are importand.
If one desires well-being but uses harmful and addicting things to reach it, he/she will get troubled by harm and addiction him/herself as well.
That is why virtue and right livelihood are so importand. Once having a livelihood that does not involve harm, it's easier to walk, remorse-less. If one makes his/her live on using and harming others, or by increasing their greed and desire, than it has backwards in same ways.
So in regard of livelihood, especially, it's good if having a smooth and troubleless kind. So once bigger and more far goals are clear, just focus on the means, on one step by the other and improve you ways of living and livelihood according the remorseless reqirements.
If it is possible to combine with ones pasion in skills, fine. If not, better to take on the harder way but sleep fine. At least, since mentioned art, it can be very addictive and busy the mind day and night with less place to find a rest.
It's of course also good to listen to and respect ones parents, and if their wishes are not harmful and against a remorseless life, what should be the problem in following it? At least, since surely not so occupied, they might think more practical and reasonable. But it the new idea might give ways for a better livelihood, than it can be explained and argued in this way.
At least it's a good chance to give ones parent something back, in talking and teaching on Dhamma, generosity, moral and virtue.
So if taking very sober, it might be not the biggest problem to make your best decision on it.
Best wishes to take and see the right thing to do for long term happiness.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


text:
Duty to parents?
There are maybe 80 questions about 'parents' already but perhaps this one hasn't been asked.
What are a Buddhist's responsibilities or duties towards their parents?

Listen to advice? Do what they advise?
About whether (and whom) they marry?
About whether (and at what) they work?
About where (and how far away from the parents) they live?
How much duty of care? Does that include e.g. helping with parents' plans and ambitions?

If you're generally inclined to be obedient, and considerate of parents' expressed desires, is it possible to go too far and maybe be insufficiently autonomous, too passive, too indecisive?
If there's any minor conflict ("I want to do something and they want me to do something else", or, "They want me to do something and I don't know what to want") then on what firm basis might you decide, what are the important criteria?

In this answer, Andrei wrote,

Now, regarding your parents, in this case you're not violating any ethics, except their expectations of your life, which is the domain that you own 100%.

... so maybe there are some definite ("100%") answers to this question, and/or maybe some guidelines.

All I know is this from the Sigalovada Sutta:

"In five ways should a mother and father as the eastern direction be respected by a child: 'I will support them who supported me; I will do my duty to them; I will maintain the family lineage and tradition; I will be worthy of my inheritance; and I will make donations on behalf of dead ancestors.'
"And, the mother and father so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, training you in a profession, supporting the choice of a suitable spouse, and in due time, handing over the inheritance.

That doesn't explain exactly what "my duty" is, however.
And there's probably something somewhere about repaying parents by teaching them dhamma.

I'm, personally, especially curious to know about deciding how far away to live (e.g. whether to move very far away from the parents, in pursuit of a career).
I guess this may be a culture-specific and personal question, but maybe some good Buddhist advice on the subject is possible.

Good if asking. Currently your realm here does not give space to teach Dhamma. You know where you could, away from gambler ... and so on.

The advice in the Sigalovada Sutta is from a different time & society, where the prescribed obligations & thus expectations were mutual. In other words, at the present time, if your parents do not have these expectations towards you then you do not have any obligations in return. For example, did your parents arrange for you to get married when you were a teenager & did you comply?
For example, when my father reached a certain phase in his life, I stayed with him, for a time, to keep an eye on things. But my parents can be so arrogant, I left when my father asked me to leave, due to a conflict with my mother. My mother was not willing to stay at home for most of the day & lost face when I told a health professional she was not at home all day but I was. As I envisaged, my father was alone at home one day, he had to call an ambulance himself, & died a few days later in hospital. This is an example of parents, like mine, who spent their life giving to their children like martyrs but are unable to receive in return. In other words, sometimes you try to do your duty but cannot.
In Dhamma, Dhamma always has priority. If your Dhamma is higher than your parents (such as you wish to ordain or wish to live a more moral life than your parents wish), your Dhamma takes priority.

This is was said by the Lord… Bhikkhus, these three kinds of sons are found existing in the world. What three? The superior kind, the
  similar kind, and the inferior kind. Iti 74

But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father,
  settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother &
  father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish
  mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this
  extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father. AN 2.32

Thank you for your explanation. I thought of answering the question in your first paragraph: but I suppose you meant it as a rhetorical question, not a personal question.

i think one should convert them as a way to pay back but i dont remember the source for this.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

In everything in life you must find the middle.
Too much or too little of something will always result in suffering. Exact amount of something will result in peace. With peace, the mind is calm. With calm mind, insight is possible. With insight, ignorance is eradicated.
Your parents must be neither too controlling nor too gentle. They must find the middle.
You must be neither too obedient nor too disobedient. You must find the middle.
Whenever there is ignorance, there is deviation from the middle and potential for suffering can arise.
Due to this very same ignorance, attachment to views, concepts and ideas can be present. A person intoxicated with ignorance, rather than abandoning his views, concepts and ideas, causes suffering by actions stemming from these views, concepts and ideas. Due to this very same ignorance he can't stay in the middle. He's intoxicated with it. He can't stop. He can't help himself but go to one or the other extreme: too much of something or too little of something.
Like an alcoholic who is obsessed with drinking or a bulimic obsessed with food, in the same way a person can be obsessed with views, concepts, ideas. Like an alcoholic drinking his drink over and over again or a bulimic eating in a disorderly fashion, in the same way a person may harm himself and others by instilling his views, concepts and ideas onto others.
The more ignorance, the more potential for suffering can arise.
The duty of your parents is to find the middle. Once found, their duty is to guide their children and adult children towards the middle.
Your duty is to find the middle. Once found, your duty is to guide your parents and your children and adult children towards the middle.
Neither too harsh, nor too gentle. Neither too painful, nor too pleasurable.
Your duty is to listen to them and also not to listen to them. You must find the middle.
Their duty is to listen to you and also not to listen to you. They must find the middle.
Whenever you or your parents go out of the middle, there can arise the potential for you or them to become insufficiently autonomous, too passive, too indecisive. Whenever you and your parents stay in the middle, you both become completely independent. Just like an addict who abandons his drug and becomes independent from the drug, in the same way the one who stays in the middle becomes completely independent.
If there is any minor conflict or decision to be taken, you decide what to do by answering this question: "Would my decision/action guide my parents, me and others towards the middle?" If yes, do the action. If no, do not do the action.
And what is the middle?
It is where suffering does not arise or where any left suffering comes to an end.