user12911: 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 

user43: 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. 

user111: 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.

user-1: 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. 

12911: <p>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. </p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your advice, you can't believe how relieved I felt after getting this off my chest. Sadhu sadhu sadhu </p>
 43: <p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

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

<p>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. </p>
 111: <p>In Buddhism what is important is whether or not your job comes under <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wrong livelihood</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>
 -1: <p>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.</p>

<p>If one says "My goal is to attach to X". Goal thus becomes Attachment and Attachment becomes the goal.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>
