Right, so there’s some cool ways to get around the mods’ rules… Although not so much getting around, as it’s sticking to the rules, that is: Asking in general terms, analyzing the sutta, rather than bringing up (or mentioning) personal practice at all. 
So you could just ask:
What sort of a practice does DN 21’s Section 2.2 envision?
So anyway, the relevant section is in DN 21:
Lord of gods, there are two kinds of happiness, I say: that which you should cultivate, and that which you should not cultivate. There are two kinds of sadness, I say: that which you should cultivate, and that which you should not cultivate. There are two kinds of equanimity, I say: that which you should cultivate, and that which you should not cultivate.
The sutta goes on to explain how it distinguishes these things:
Why did I say that there are two kinds of happiness? Well, should you know of a happiness: ‘When I cultivate this kind of happiness, unskillful qualities grow, and skillful qualities decline.’ You should not cultivate that kind of happiness. Whereas, should you know of a happiness: ‘When I cultivate this kind of happiness, unskillful qualities decline, and skillful qualities grow.’ You should cultivate that kind of happiness.
What are some obvious examples? Perhaps, we could say:
- Drinking alcohol can be a source of happiness, but it results in bad things happening.
- In contrast, helping others also feels good, so it’s a skillful happiness.
Same could be found for negative feelings - feeling crippled completely with sadness for the wars in the world might not be too skillful. On the other hand, feeling sad for an error you’ve caused, could spur you to change yourself.
Or, neutral feelings, they can be a source of calm collectedness in the face of problems (something skillful), or it can be a cold, heartless indifference to people’s suffering (something unskillful).
So all three sorts of feelings can be skillful or unskillful, and we should be mindful to understand their effects.
Finally, they all share this same bit:
And that which is free of placing the mind and keeping it connected is better than that which still involves placing the mind and keeping it connected.
So, this is a comparison between first jhana (which still involves placing the mind and keeping it connected) and second jhana, which doesn’t have these. It makes sense to make this distinction for the positive and neutral feelings, but Bhante Sujato notes:
It is hard to know what the text is getting at here, as there is no “sadness” in any jhāna.
So, it feels a bit cryptic, and the commentaries doesn’t really offer anything to explain it to us. I guess, it just feels like a standard praise of jhanas in general. So, without complicating things more, sutta seems to suggest that practising jhana is ever the skillful choice.
I hope this helps a bit. Feel free to ask and perhaps others could chime in to add something else as well.
