text:
Is an analogy between karma and modern day physics possible?
The Buddha spoke about kalapa's. A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and cease in a everlasting flow of sequence. Karma as the law of action/reaction. Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth and the truth of Newton's third law of motion? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a sub atomic level action reaction became not absolute anymore in predictability.
Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

Where did the Buddha speak of kalapa?

My assumption that the Buddha spoke about kalapas was based on a dhamma talk during vipassana retreat by my teacher, who , I think now, had reason not to go into detail about the origins of the concept of kalapas (Abhidhammattha Saigaha) and used therefore the simplification that these were the Buddha's words. Since I am not a buddhist scholar I was unaware of the falsehood of the statement made in my question. Thank you very much for clarification.

A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and
  cease in a everlasting flow of sequence.

The body does not arise & cease in some dualistic sequence. A body is born from two cells (sperm & ovum) grows over 20 years & then slowing declines in its health but not form until it ends.

Karma as the law of action/reaction.

The word 'karma' means 'intentional action' and, based on the quality of intention, there will be results. For example, there is the intention to make money via an investment. If the investment is successful, there will be happiness over the result; if the investment fails, there will be disappointment. This happiness & disappointment is the result of the intention or wishfulness.

Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that
  action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action
  causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth
  and the truth of Newton's third law of motion?

There does not appear to be a correlation with Newton's third law of motion because much (but not all) of what is described as wholesome acts is related to non-doing, such as non-killing; non-stealing; no-lying, etc. Thus, these kinds of wholesome acts maintain the natural balance of the mind rather than create a dualistic reaction.
Also, the kammic law you have described is not an absolute "truth" but a mere generalization. For example, if you are a perfect parent, it can be generally (but not always) expected that you will have good children. However, if your children die, the love of your perfecting parenting will generate suffering. This shows the wholesome act of perfectly loving your children can bring a negative result.
However, if it is (erroneously) assumed good kamma always brings a good result, this would seem to contradict Newton's Law because there would be no opposite reaction.
Where as with the reality of kamma, yes, something similar (but not exacting) to Newton's law would occur in relation to kammic acts of doing (as opposed to non-doing) because the elasticity of the brain results in excitement or hope over good results, which will eventually lead to an opposite reaction when those hopes fade (such as with the absence or loss of children who are loved).

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As I posted, this does not necessarily occur with the mind because results of kamma are extremely varied thus cannot be quantified using the precise mathematical laws of physics.

Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a
  sub atomic level, action reaction became not absolute anymore in
  predictability.

There is no absolute predictability of kamma. Kammic law is merely a generalisation. It does not form part of absolute truth (Paramattha Sacca) in Buddhism.

Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome
  acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome
  acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

Unwholesome actions always lead to an immediate unwholesome result. For example, if the mind has an angry intention, immediately, there will be stressful vibrations within the neurology of the mind-body. However, the mind may quickly learn a lesson from this anger or this anger may actually bring a good result (for example, getting angry at another person that leads to the other person changing their behaviour in a positive way).
In summary, over the long term, wholesome kamma does not always lead to wholesome results & unwholesome kamma does not always lead to unwholesome results. This can be read about in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.

I need to do some more reading about quantum physics, I really do.  It seems very interesting.
What I can say, is there is a clear analogy (to me at least) between Buddhism (or how I understand it) and modern mathematics.
It is my opinion that the single most important theorem in mathematics is Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem.  Basically, this theorem shows that no system of constructing proofs of arithmetic is expressive enough to prove all true theorems and disprove all false ones.  No system of logic can tell all tales and solve all problems.
This hydra has many heads.  Another well-known one is the Halting Problem in computer science.  This one states that there is no single algorithm that can determine whether any algorithm halts.  This is an extremely deep result assuming the Church-Turing thesis, which states that any computable function at all is computable by a Turing machine.
It's very similar to the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.  While this is not a Buddhist text, nonetheless it opens with "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is not the eternal name."  We are extremely fortunate that it can be proven logically that all logic is faulty in some way.  We are privy to the knowledge that all knowledge is false, and that that is the only true knowledge.
It is my belief that there is no truth.  When somebody says "This statement is false", a good and proper response is, "Yes, every statement is false."  Newton's third law is not true, nor is any other physical theory true.  Edge cases will continue to be discovered ad infinitum.  If any physical theory were true, and the universe operated deterministically according to its laws, there would be no experience.
The only things that are real are the things that transcend this world, such as our Karma.  Of course, to us there is no difference between the things that transcend this world, since we cannot access or imagine them.
Do not rely on Karma to bring good results in this life, since the distinction between good Karma and bad Karma itself is just a dualistic notion.  Just know that you are here for a reason, and have faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIFgZD4errQ

No I don't think it's possible. At best it's a weak or stretched analogy; at worst it's a misleading one (implying too much equivalence between the system-of-kamma and the system-of-physics); or it's an unfalsifiable theory with cherry-picked results (e.g. "we observe phenomenon X in one system ... what phenomenon in the other system is analogous?"). The problem there is that the analogy exists because you created it, not because they're genuinely (or useful, predictively) analogous.
It is (or was, has been) especially common to confuse things using Quantum Physics (see Quantum woo and Quantum mysticism).
A cleverer teacher than me (e.g. the Buddha) might use what you know already to give analogies which explain his Dhamma; so if you knew Physics you might appreciate any apt Physical analogies; but I can't think of any. The only analogy I've ever made is that kamma is like the weather: things happen when the conditions are right but the details are complicated to predict.
More on the subject of Quantum Mechanics, see also Observer effect (physics):

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result; the 1998 Weizmann experiment is a particularly famous example.[1] These findings have led to a popular misconception that observation by a conscious mind can directly affect reality,[2] though this has been rejected by mainstream science. This misconception is rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[3][4][5]

If you read the references [3] through [5] it's clear (if you understand e.g. what the famous "double slit experiment" is) that the "observation" it's talking about is the act of installing the physical test equipment (which I'd also know as "probing the system"), or the action (effect) of the equipment itself ... and it's not to do with whether any "conscious mind" observes the results of the experiment.
I kind of like jcarpenter2's answer, because I thought this was an unanswerable question but that answer (perhaps successfully) talks about the limitations of logic and not just about physics.
I could try to add another analogy along those lines -- inspired by Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the start of the Tao Te Ching -- that making a verbal observation (i.e. a comment or description) about something will affect (disturb, interfere with) the thing described (or the perception of the idea described) ... but I don't think that's a useful analogy. The Buddhist analogies are purposeful, have a goal (liberation or cessation). Inventing further useless analogies is just proliferating views, leading to a "thicket of views" of the sort that we're warned doesn't lead to liberation. Even Occam's razor (also Einstein) suggests preferring simpler theories.
I think it's better to try to understand Buddhism, to approach Buddhism, on its own terms: understand what it's saying, understand what the Buddha would have been saying to the people he said it to ... without preconceptions such as that it's talking about Rutherford's theory of atoms. Perhaps the only really useful preconceptions are ones you might have learned in pre-school, i.e. morality, of the sort that allows the Buddha to tell the Kalamas they should judge for themselves.


text:
Common denominator between forms of happiness included in dukkha
What is the common denominator between the happiness derived from family life and the happiness derived from being a recluse?

The common denominator is the feeling of pleasure. Apart from that, the conditions giving rise to the two types of pleasure are different. The conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the household life is craving & affection where as the conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the recluse life is the abandoning of craving & affection.

Monks, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Household pleasantness and the pleasantness of one gone forth. Of these two, the pleasantness of one gone forth is better.
AN 2.7

Psychologically, the answer is that both probably experience both happiness and dukkha. You do not specify whether or not they are practicing mindfulness meditation or learning Dharma. It is also possible for either one or both to already be Enlightened or to be Enlightened soon. Either one may be experiencing dukkha more than the other.

Buddha taught gradual training.
There are many stages of happiness you can experience before you become a recluse.
This is explained in Sutta such as many kinds of happiness.

Though some might say, 'That is the highest pleasure that beings experience,' I would not grant them that. Why is that? Because there is another pleasure, more extreme & refined than that.>

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to make an oath to control one's actions?
Can a person decide to do X action and be able to do it forever... from a mental point of view  -  if physically he can do that action?
What I'm trying to say is many times I decided to not do anything for fun or to meditate Y time every day but even when it was 5 minutes every day I didn't do it.
Every time either I didn't want to  sit to meditate or even be mindful of actions  -  or I wanted to watch a YouTube video and pass the time with YouTube videos etc.
Is it possible to decided to do something and not break it at all?
I mean for example I keep the 5 precepts by default and will probably keep them at the future hard for me to see a situation I won't  - but for example if I decide to keep the 8 precepts and never break them  (again mentally)  even if I never have to face something like a physical injury  or even friend begging me to go to a movie etc  but just in dealing with my own defilement - can I decide  not do break it in advance and guarantee myself I won't break it in the future (again if physically it's possible to avoid it).

It looks like your problem is that you want to practice but you don't want to practice.
This whole fiasco can be pondered. The whole thing is the three characteristics manifesting. Are you in control? Do your plans and focus keep ending? Are you suffering? What are you learning? Ask yourself what you are taking for granted.
You could learn a lot by just pondering what is driving your every action, your karma.
We are either distracted or mindful.
Check out the 5 hinderances that are in your way.
Don't make vows or oaths but instead undertake training to not do or to do X and if you fail ponder it but don't react like breaking the training rule must be punished or reacted to is some way. Don't get angry, get compassionate.
Check out how to overcome procrastination. LOTS of people have procrastination problems. There are a lot of free pdf's or ppt's online about procrastination.
Do not smoke marijuana everyday because it often zaps ones ambition.

i keep 5 precepts so i dont smoke marijuana (wouldnt even without the precepts though)
suffering i am   -  whats driving my action is greed and aversion  and ignorance i know that even by experience and not just cause i read it ... and yet i still do it
Are you in control?  well it seems im not in control  -  so why try  ?

There is a reason patience is a virtue. Meditate whenever you can even for 5 seconds. It adds up. Ponder, intellectually right at the moment you are doing something to distract yourself. We are either distracted or asleep. You have experienced  it  but you don't always remember. You are seeing how deep you are rooted into your habits. ..The "why even try" question is governed by views that things like zoning out on YouTube is the thing to do. There is a good fight going on  between Buddha and Mara. Don't let Mara win.

Seeing that you are not in control IS the vipassana practice.

i dont seem to be able to form a good habit no matter what i do not even of 5 seconds   - it seems i need to do something "drastic"  like an oath ect to stop the habits (though i tried oaths in the past and that didnt work as well)  - i did retreats as well (10 days , 20 days ect  - even one of 10 days at home)

Maybe a commitment to yourself, not to a specific action or lack there of. Not an oath or vow either. Rather, taking care of you first before attending to what may need to be goals further down the road.

I know what you mean about oaths. It is easy to make an oath but usually less so to keep it. Often an oath is an aspiration. I suspect that nobody can be sure to stick to an oath except those who don't need to make one. The idea of the practice is to transcend the need for oaths and to live spontaneously but to reach this point one usually has to make some aspirational oaths.
You might like to read up on Indian religion and the three Gunas. It seems you might be in the grip of one of them and this is a well understood condition. Pondering on the three gunas might give you a way of beating your inertia. I don't know a short introduction but Krishna Prem's wonderful commentary on the Bhagavad Gita covers the ground.
I imagine most practitioners make and break oaths and promises quite regularly but their oath is to keep climbing back on the wagon come what may, so that in the end the oath may still be effective.
For your condition Sadhguru recommends sitting in your room doing nothing for a few days. This charges the batteries and rekindles motivation. Usually we are too mentally busy and well-entertained to stay focused on our true goals.
It seems a mistake to stop doing anything for fun although it might depend what you mean. Why else would the universe be here but for fun? Even God gets bored sitting in his room. If you associate fun with creativity then it is transformed. Not having fun is not what Buddhism is about.
At least your problem is extremely common so is much discussed in the literature. I don't believe it is possible to control ones actions fully until one has seen the non-existence of self and it is a reality. Until then we all have to do the best we can and falling off the wagon means no more than than having to climb back on again, and again and again, until our oath is fulfilled and the wagon becomes our stable abode.

It is possible to make an oath (some people do), and for some people it (making an oath) even actually works, but other people find they break the promises which they make to themselves.
A possible variation is to make the oath to someone else (a teacher, your family, a friend, the Buddha) -- that (social standing, commitment) may provide a powerful extra incentive.
I think the suttas say that the right way is to clearly understand the disadvantage of something -- it's that that would cause you (or that would give you cause to) refrain from it.
You mentioned "I decided to not do anything for fun"; it's also said that people need a reason for doing something, that you can't force yourself to do it unless you want to. Maybe you're supposed to find or experience some benefit in meditation. Maybe too you have to be discerning about what is and isn't fun --
 some people (perhaps mistakenly) find drinking alcohol to be fun, for example.

well i clearly understand the disadvantages of seeking to have fun    not enough though so i wont do it just like that  -   i see advantages of meditation but not enough that i do it i guess  (by reading and logic i see very clearly advantages from a long time ago)  but really im lazy and nothing i do changes it  -  i tried to go very easy even 1 minute meditation or only being mindful and i tried going gung ho with a few hours a day but i always stop after a day or two

i did manage to do 20 say retreat at monastery  - even 1o days at home  but that was exceptions (also failed at home)    -  i really wish there is some way to make this oath thing work - but im not sure if its possible ... im really a mess doing stuff for fun all day and very lazy and cant brake the cycle  -  though i think if i have a chance its by doing some very big change and not small ones -  cause i need the motivation and small change doesnt give me that

Maybe try one more day?

sorry this went over my head i guess  -  is the moral of the story :   "practice like your head is on fire"  ?

Generally, it is important to view the precepts as training rules, rather than something set in stone. Right speech, for example takes active practise, and of course constant reflection on it. You will fail short of your ideals because past mental formations are still lingering and are too strong.
Moreover, it's always best to have a flexible, non-dogmatic, non-extreme outlook with regards to falling short of one's aspirations. With flexible I mean that even though you have (strong) wishes and goals, they must not necessarily be in place right now & that you can - although being a struggle - tolerate such adversities, and that it's often worth to tolerate the uncomfort because you have a goal in mind (especially if you are indecisive whether to breach a precept or not).
Another "flexible attitude" is that of human fallibility,complexity & uniqueness. All human beings are making mistakes, and that we're all by default complex and unique. By complex I mean here that we're doing good, bad and neutral acts. There is no way in disputing these things. They are undisputable and therefore realistic, or flexible.
Above said, the Buddhist path is often called the "Gradual Path",  which requires energy (viriya), enthusiasm (chanda) and cultivation (bhavana).

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

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


text:
Everything I do is motivated by greed/aversion. How to react?
I just came to a very upsetting realisation :
Almost all my motivation for the things I do in my daily life (mostly playing the piano and studying math in college) comes from bad things, such as ego, greed or aversion.
Here a some examples :

I study very hard, because I wish to be better than everybody else, and prove myself that I am the most clever. In addition, I can't bear the fact of not understanding anything related to the classes.
I play the piano in order to impress people listening to me and because I am craving to get better and better.
I work hard in everything I do because I want to be admired by my friends and family.

I also realized that it all leads to tension, pain and suffering. The problem is that I feel that just dropping these activities will certainly make things even worse.
The question is  how should I replace these bad motivations by more skillful ones ? In other words, how to stay motivated to do the things you love without causing you pain ? Is it even possible ?

Thank you for asking this question; I needed to see it and the answers!

It is actually a nice realization, to see oneself like you did. I remember when I got mine, I was about 20 - and I was shocked to realize all my re-actions were motivated by desire to make myself look better in others' eyes. This means you are getting mature.
This is normal, especially when we are young(er). It is well known that small children are often extreme egoists - they don't even realize other people also have wants, interests, and problems. As we grow up, our circle of awareness grows and we begin to appreciate other people's perspectives and care about the world at large.
You are right that the kind of drive you describe leads to tension and battles and suffering. And you are right that dropping it will not solve the problem. Suppressing it would only suppress the source of energy you have within yourself. It would also create problems in your personal life. What I suggest instead, is that, like Buddha did, you put this drive for perfection to the service of Enlightenment.
Meaning, you continue to strive to be perfect, but you expand your definition of perfection to include freedom from ego. All your actions can still be optimized to be as objectively flawless as possible, as long as you never act in order to feed your ego in your own or others' eyes. See what I mean?
Watch yourself for egoistic thoughts, motives, judgments - and eliminate them as soon as you notice any. Then continue to act as impeccably as possible for the greater good. This attitude - when you do your best to be as perfect as possible with the goal of eventually helping others, as opposed to doing it as food for your ego - is called "bodhi-citta", the mind of Enlightenment. You can get much more detailed instructions on this particular approach to Enlightenment in a book called "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" by Chögyam Trungpa. Good luck.

just out of the bat  -  study hard can equal getting a good job  than you can donate a lot of money to people  ....  you can do better work in whatever occupation you choice and help people more
do you meditate etc ? do you have  a teacher ?  i think the more you advance in the path your motives will be purer and less about the unwholesome and more about the wholesome
without the trouble of explaining myself i would like to join you with the idea  that drooping this things will make things worse
edit : for example if you practice more and you see the 3 characteristics more clearer than your greed will lower automatically and the reason you do stuff for greed will lower but the good reasons will stay  -  for example you  learn to help students and also to show off your smart - with practice you will lose interest in the show off but will still have the will to help others  which can even further increase with the added practice of metta

I started meditation 6 months ago, I usually find time to do about 30 min a day. Well, in fact I dont really need to study hard to get the job I want (math teatcher), but it could make be better at helping my future students.

yes  a teacher is an example of something you can make good kamma in - what type of meditation do you do ?  - in genral if you do it correct your motives to do stuff in genral will get purer with time

When I meditate, I start with thoughts of love/kindness, starting with me and then gradually expanding it to other people, then I watch my breath, thoughts, and sensations, trying to stay in the present moment. I found vipassana very helpful, but I struggle to find applications for the metta mediation in my everyday life, apart for helping me focus and feel good during meditation..

One may find as meditation practices continue, outlook, views, and motivations can change as well. This is encouraging. What was once seen as a feed for the ego becomes food for compassion. Metta meditation practice is a great tool if one encounters ego.
The teachings of Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Aversion, Greed, Ego, and many other topics are accessible and highly valuable. YouTube has many of his short talks on vast dhammic topics and they are available elsewhere. Please invest a short amount of your time on them.
All the best my friend. We are in this together.

Thanissaro Bhikku's videos are a great source of information that I was unaware of. Thank you for your answer.

Here is a slightly narrower answer.
The three examples you gave (i.e. "be top of your class", "impress people with your piano playing", and "work hard to be admired") are, I think, more specifically, examples of "conceit" or "pride".
See this topic for further details: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? --
the answers to that topic suggest that any form of comparing yourself to others is a form of conceit.
There is, though, a sutta (the Bhikkhuni Sutta) which suggests that conceit can be useful or helpful:

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

So, for example, thinking that, "My teacher plays the piano better than I do -- if I practice like they did, I too can learn to play as well as they do" is a constructive, insightful form of conceit.
In summary, motives like "I want to be good" and "I want to be good (or comparable to) like they are" can be an effective motive.
What you find that motive satisfactory is a different topic; as is what you're motivated to practice; and what you consider good; and who you want to learn from, to emulate and/or to impress.
The question is how should I replace these bad motivations by more skillful ones?
So one answer is that the motivation itself isn't unskillful -- it may be effective. What may be more questionable isn't the motivation itself, but what you're motivated to do, who you're motivated to impress.
Apart from that, some of the canonical Buddhist social motivations are called the Brahmaviharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

One of these, mudita, is I think especially or at least partly intended to alleviate jealousy and competition -- if someone else is good or skillful then be happy for them.

It can be useful to think about your actions. Everything you do is an action. Even inaction is a type of action. In other words, you can not escape constantly acting
Actions can be an object that can be meditated upon. You can observe beginning, middle and end of actions.
Attachment or aversion arise if you consider it “your” action. In other words, if there is “You” in that experience - this is mine - This action is mine. But is it your action?
Before we act, we may think and choose. Buddhism considers thoughts as mental objects that not “yours” but what about choice
Choice is just a thought that occurs more predominantly than other thoughts, since none of the thoughts are yours, so choice is also not yours. Since choice is not yours and you are not the chooser of actions, you are also not the doer

Aporia to the rescue!

"The question is how should I replace these bad motivations by more skillful ones ?"
Excellent question.  You can replace harmful neurotic emotions such as greed, anger, and jealousy, through recognizing the true nature of your mind and emotions.  Enlightened beings and realized masters have given us a path, with advice and practices on exactly how to do this.  This is the main goal of Buddhist meditation practices.
There are many different approaches within Buddhism, depending on one's needs and proclivities.  For example, in some practices you would tend to run away from harmful emotions, to seek a kind of quiet peace.  In others, you may directly confront them, staring at them directly until you see their true nature, which is actually primordial wisdom.  Developing compassion is also the main point of all Buddhist practice.
For example, when understood very clearly, desire becomes bliss and emptiness..and a wisdom of discrimination..


text:
Questions of Faith
Which sects or schools of Buddhism make the least reference to reincarnation and memories of past lives ?, also the least likely to talk about deities ? Which texts are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught ? Thanks

Theravada is a common name for the conservative tradition that preserved fairly accurate records of what the Buddha taught. The thing is, other lives are mentioned a lot in the original texts.
The conservative tradition insists on literal interpretation of the texts, while various liberal schools (known under umbrella name of Mahayana) allow reading between the lines and various non-literal interpretations, including didactic and metaphorical interpretations of "other lives". They even allow (gasp!) development of ideas from the seeds present in the original texts, as well as from practice. Mahayana schools claim to have better preserved the spirit of what the Buddha taught.
Of all Mahayana schools Zen/Chan(Chinese)/Seon(Korean) are probably least likely to talk about past lives etc. Modern "Secular Buddhism" explicitly rejects any supernatural teachings.
Finally, if you want to get into Buddhism, you have to realize that within all schools without exception there are teachers & students who uphold literal interpretation of other lives and deities, and there are those who have a more comprehensive view of these things.
For example, within Tibetan Buddhist schools such as Nyingma and Kagyu - there is a lot of talk about past lives for beginners, but at advanced levels there is barely any mention of them. The deities do play important role but they are not taken literally.
Even Theravada teachers with all their traditional literalism, do not spend too much time talking about past lives and instead place a lot of emphasis on everyday practice. And when you practice enough in any tradition you arrive in more or less the same place of wisdom where all schools agree with each other.

I think you are looking for the same thing I’ve been looking for in the past years.
What I do is read lots of different texts from many different Buddhist traditions, and extract what I consider “pure wisdom” not influenced by religious beliefs. Currently I’m listening to an audio book: the Diamond Sutra interpretation by Osho, and it’s pretty great and free from religious distortions.
You can also adopt a skeptical point of view when reading Buddhism. For example, when past lives are mentioned, you can interpret it as your past defilements. Rebirth is enlightment. Etc.
An additional way I’ve found to acquire true wisdom is to study texts from many religions, and just abstract yourself from the fancy religious artifacts. You can get snippets of wisdom from Christians, Muslims, etc.

The Buddha did not teach about "past lives" but exactly what you said, namely, "past dwellings/abodes" or "past adherences". Refer to this sutta, which explains recollecting past abodes is recollecting when in the past the mind wrongly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as 'self': https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.79

In reality there are no schools, only the Dhamma. The Dhamma is about the true nature of things, the nature of reality.
In this day and age where there are many schools, traditions, contradictory views and opinions, it can get complicated for people who have not yet experienced much of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha-Dhamma.
I would not rely on any schools if I were you. Also, there are suspicious suttas and even contradictory ones. Nonetheless, the original Nikayas are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught.
But since the Buddha is not here to teach us anymore, the second best option is to listen to advice from wise teachers who have true experiential wisdom. Who they are? that will be for you to decide.
Personally, I would recommend that you read from such venerable ones.
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, Ajahn Chah, Pa Auk Sayadaw , Mahasi Sayadaw.
- http://www.dhammatalks.net/
And these books

Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree: The Buddha's Teaching on Voidness, by Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Food for the heart, Collected teachings of Ajahn Chah
Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw

Which texts are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught ?
You may be looking for the "sutras" a.k.a. "suttas", which exist (were written and preserved) in Pali (see Sutta Pitaka), and in Chinese (see Agama).
The Vinaya is said to be original, too, but it is (if I can say so with all due respect) less interesting than the suttas unless you're a monk.
Some people would include the Abhidhamma too (see Buddhavacana); and there are later Turnings of the Wheel as well; but I think I recommend the suttas: to start with, and as an answer to this question.
For more about the Pali suttas (as written and translated texts), see also the answers these topics:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Even only the (collections of) suttas are long (see also Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?), though IMO it's beneficial to  study even one sutta. So, an alternative is to read a modern introduction, perhaps one which is structured as an anthology or summary of selected suttas, for example:

In the Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi is often recommended on this site
I found The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity remarkable in its focus on suttas for laity.

The most accurate records of what the Buddha taught are the Pali suttas however it is these very suttas that are subject to different interpretations.
For example, the idea of "past lives" is a combination of mere interpretations of what the Buddha reportedly taught in the Pali suttas plus later literal teachings introduced into Buddhism, such as the Jataka Tales, written hundreds of years after the Buddha. For example, the Pali sutta SN 22.79 is the only sutta that explains what is meant by recollecting past "nivasa" (often translated as "lives") yet this sutta obviously does not refer to past lives but to past states of egoism/attachment.
Similarly, the idea of "other-worldly-disembodied-deities" is a mere interpretation of the Buddha's teachings about "deities", which can be simply regarded as the rich, powerful (eg kings & queens) or meditation mystics & psychics of other religions.
If you wish to learn about how to interpret or understand the language of the Pali suttas, without falling in materialistic religious superstition, I recommend books by the old Thai monk Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, such as:

Two Kinds of Language

BUDDHA-DHAMMA FOR STUDENTS

ANATTĀ & REBIRTH

Nibbana for Everyone

Handbook for Mankind

Paticcasamuppada

Heartwood From the Bo Tree

Four Noble Truths (audio), particularly lectures 2, 3, 4 & 5

The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I,"
"myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed.
The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical
birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching. Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching.
Another Kind of Birth

Could you change the first two paragraphs slightly to answer the question more literally, i.e. "Which sects or schools of Buddhism etc.?" Currently these paragraphs state a doctrine or an interpretation of a doctrine, but do not quite identify the "school or sect" of Buddhism associated with this doctrine (which is what the OP asked for).

You do cite Bhikkhu Buddhadasa later, maybe that reference at least helps to answer the OP.

I think my entire answer is helpful & answers the question thoroughly, including for your good self. With metta

It's just that the OP is asking "which school?" ... not "how can the text be interpreted without reincarnation?" (which is what you answered), but "which school or sect has a doctrine without reincarnation?". I guess they're looking for a school: not necessarily for an interpretation of the text, but for schools or sects which interpret it that way. Not saying yours is the worst answer, just it would be more obviously on-topic if its doctrine were associated with some identifiable school or sect.

It is fundamental to Buddhism, to believe in certain factors.

“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other worl>

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn60

Please see Answers vs Advice and Sectarian shout downs should be dealt with. This doesn't seem to answer the question ... I think it's saying (instead of answering) that the OP is asking a wrong question or asking a question which has no answer.


text:
Why does Buddhism seem to have more than one goal?
Why do some Buddhists regard nirvana as an important goal while other want better rebirth?
Do all Buddhists have the same goal and if not why?

Traditional Mahayana answer is: because of different "capacities". People of "lower capacity" only care about fulfilling basic desires, perhaps just the animal instincts, - then going up the ladder we get those that want material happiness in this world (e.g. comfortable family life), then those who aspire to greater immaterial (but still this-worldly) achievements and realizations, and then those who aspire to rebirth in a better world.
Then we get to the next level, that of spiritual practitioners, who aspire to find the truth, become saints, attain supernatural abilities etc. like e.g. immortality, then those who strive for Enlightenment/Nirvana (this is considered the middling capacity) - and then, according to Mahayana, the higher capacity, which entails desire to attain Enlightenment in order to help all the rest of sentient beings. Finally, in Vajrayana, we get to people of "highest capacity" who directly see Great Perfection of Everything As Is and do not have any goals or desires.
This is the traditional answer (retold in casual simplification). Now if you ask my personal opinion, I would beg you to notice that all these goals are not really in logical opposition with each other. If you think about it, all goals represent various visions of Happiness, or "The Way Things Should Be" - as it appears to each respective type of person. It's not that the lower levels are wrong about their idea of happiness, it's just that they don't quite realize how much hidden suffering is inherent to success on each of the levels.
So really what Buddhism is after, is realization of one's highest aspirations. And on every level of this pyramid Buddha-Dharma provides very rational, methodical, consistent framework for achieving success. What makes Buddhism cool though, is that the practices for achieving success on every level are not just in no conflict with other levels but actually help the levels above and below it.
For example, if one practices emotional intelligence, one will not only have greater control over events of one's life, but also become able to help others still overwhelmed by stress, and also get a step closer to Enlightenment through understanding the nature of mind-made phenomena.
So, to summarize, it seems like Buddhism has multiple goals - but that's just the way it looks from the perspective of different individuals. In reality there is One Goal ("peace"/"happiness"), and Buddhism is the rational method for achieving it.

This is a good answer.

they don't quite realize how much hidden suffering is inherent to success on each of the levels It isn't clear to me, would you identify, what hidden suffering is inherent to success at each level? (Perhaps I assumed instead that any suffering should be attributed to a lack of success, incomplete, imperfect).

For example, in satisfying animal instincts there is conflict & violence, in family happiness there is quarrels & loss of loved ones, in professional pursuit there is conflict of interests with big money, in personal Nirvana there is suffering of others, in Bodhisattva's way there is frustration. You'd think there has to be some idealized versions of these that can be achieved in isolation from the negative entourage but that's abstractions we create in our head, in reality things are never as ... ummm how to say this... geometrically pure?

We all fall victims to this reificationist thinking, then get attached to an abstraction we have adopted, then suffer when reality shows its true nature.

"this dhamma is good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end." -- Buddha

I think there are traditionally two. In one of the suttas (MN 117), the Buddha said,

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

If I can summarise I think that the first type of right view is that there are good and bad actions which result in further becoming and acquisitions; contrasted with the second type of right view.
Each of these words (effluent, merit, and so on) can be (has been) a topic of its own.
The simplest (shortest) summary of what the Buddha taught is maybe "Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." The next step up from that in complexity (or rather, the same doctrine but in more detail -- also the first sutta that he spoke) is the doctrine[s] of the Middle Way and Four Noble Truths.

However various schools may have different views: about what nirvana is, about continuing existence in samsara, about the role of the Buddha (as saviour) versus one's own responsibility.
Incidentally I think that another Buddhist doctrine is that people are confused about what they want, what they ought to want, whether what they want is satisfying and/or right, and so on. I think this (confusion) is part of what's meant by "ignorance" as one of the fundamental drivers of the wheel of life. I mention that because your question ("What do Buddhists want?") might include an assumption ("Buddhists are wise and want the right thing. I too should want what Buddhists want.").

Nirvana is the ending of rebirth therefore the two goals are completely antagonist. Rebirth is for what Buddhism calls 'ordinary people' ('puthujjana'). All beings are born into the world with reproductive instincts & only a few freaks are able to attain Nirvana. Nirvana is for people who are genuinely disenchanted with the world & sex. For the puthajjana, Buddhism teaches kamma & rebirth so the puthajjana don't engage in self-harm due to their ignorance.

Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss. Dhp 174

Buddhism wouldn't ascribe such categorical meanings to things. With anatta you can't rationally split 'life' and 'non-life' in some completely defined way. The meaning of the universe is to not contradict, dependent origination and emptiness do not contradict.

This answer base on the most ancient theravāda view from the most ancient tipitaka-pāli, that nibbāna is only the best goal, and every rebirth is bad, also every teaching for rebirth is not the best, too.
According to ChrisW answer in this topic:
Life is  clinging-aggregates' rebirth. Aggregates' rebirth are paṭiccasamuppāda.

"Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html
"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite
  condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā
effluents, be merit, giving resultant.

[saṅkhāra, kamma-bhava] right view that
  kilesa-vaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda depending on [kāma-āsava
  (kāma-upādāna), diṭṭhi-āsava (diṭṭhi-upādāna, sīlabata-upādāna),
  bhava-āsava (attavāda-upādāna), avijjā-āsava],
right view that is kammavaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda,
right view that give vipākavaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23970/10100

So, clinging-aggregates' rebirth are paṭiccasamuppāda. And paṭiccasamuppāda are effluents, be merit, giving resultant.
Why better clinging-life is a bad goal?
The reasons is answered in S.N. Nidānavagga, which teaching just paṭiccasamuppāda-sutta in various ways. For the example:

Staying at Savatthi. Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of
  dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you
  think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked
  up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?"
"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the
  Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to
  nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a
  fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with
  the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings reborn among human beings. Far more are those reborn elsewhere. Thus you should train
  yourselves: 'We will live heedfully.' That's how you should train
  yourselves."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.002.than.html

The Buddha's teachings, when properly practiced, all take the practitioner in the direction of Nirvana. The Buddha gave each person the best possible  teaching to aim them towards Nirvana based on their previous karma so it wasn't always possible for every individual to make it to total liberation without going through further rebirths.
I don't know if the Buddha ever taught a bodhisattva  but that wouldn't make the bodhisattva goal invalid because obviously that was the Buddha's goal.


text:
Samatha meditation feels a space at the top of the head?
When  doing walking felt a space  at the  top  of the  head. After done  some meditation  the space  began to expand .What is this?And there is a kind  of a heart beat like  inside the space.

It's just a sign that your mind is starting to enter access concentration.  It's really quite common.  People also report sensations like their head swelling, body twisting, face disappearing, hands inflating, etc., etc., etc.  How these feelings manifest is as unique as the person experiencing them.  They're kind of like your own personal brand of samadhi entry.  The sensations themselves are also not particularly important; you don't need to pay them any mind.  Eventually, as your concentration deepens and you move closer to jhana, your meditation will start to take on a character more reminiscent of those described in the sutras.


text:
Formal training in Buddhism
I wish to learn Buddhism from monks and learn things I don't understand. Is a formal training from an institute like ( http://www.rootinstitute.ngo/ ) fruitful? Are there people who have taken training like this? I will have to invest a life-time of my savings to take this education. I want to make a good decision. Can someone please show me the way? :)
--Noob here.

Whenever an Indian friend in Dhamma ask a similar question as yours, always my advice to them was to not try to go in search of one elsewhere in India but to go to the Buddhagyan Ashram, Bodhgaya. The Buddhagyan monastery is like an oasis for the Dhamma loving people in India. To find the highest level of Dhamma, you may have to visit Sri Lanka.

Root Institute belongs to the FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, founded by Lama Yeshe and Lama Zopa Rinpoche). It is a Gelug-pa organization.
At Root Institute, they teach the (normally 5 years) Basic Program, but I am not sure they do it as long as 5 years. There are FPMT centers where it lasts 2 or 3 years only. The curriculum is always the same, though.
I studied the 5 years BP at Nalanda Monastery, in France (the program was in Tibetan, English, French, and Spanish). It is a lot of study, discussion groups, exams and learning by heart, "karma yoga" (i.e. community service). There are usually more lay people than monks. It is designed specifically for those who do not speak Tibetan and cannot attend the study program at Sera monastic "university". In addition, contrary to Sera, it is not exclusively monastic. The Program includes a bit of meditation (45 minutes day is not much indeed), and sometimes formal debates. Normally, the 45 minutes session has to be Lam Rim meditation.
On the importance of studying, there is a Zen nun (ven Myokyo) who said:

Real acquaintance with the Dharma is necessary because, being what we
  are, we are prone to stray. If we do not have the framework of the
  teachings, and continuously test ourselves against it, we will very
  soon be off and away down a blind alley. Training and the teachings
  need to match, need to go hand in hand.

On a more personal level, I feel studying helped me read (in a general sense) on my own. I believe I got rid of the grossest misconceptions I had. Studying also helped me dig channels for my mind to flow, like a river (of course, it stills wanders off... finds its way to unwholesome places and dwells on what has to be abandoned). It supports meditation. The more I studied, the more I understood it can lead somewhere but it is a question of how we relate to study and how we use it.
Attending the 5 years BP is one of the best things I have done in my life.
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that the FPMT Basic Program covers just a few texts belonging to one tradition in particular. I would suggest that, once grounded in one tradition, entertaining diversity is an antidote to sectarian stances and over-simplifications.

Thank-you for your explanation. I am not a westerner. I'm from India. Have you benefited from the 5 year study?

Welcome. It's okay if you are not a westerner, I will correct my initial answer. I had in mind that most Tibetan-speaking monks in the Gelug tradition study at Sera, not in a FPMT center. I will add in what I benefited from the 5 years study.

@Tenzin Dorje. Thank you for this great answer.

The Buddha taught the Dhamma is a free gift. Assuming you live in India, if the Root Institute is too expensive for you, you could possibly consider travelling to Sri Lanka, where you can probably stay & learn in a Buddhist monastery for no financial cost.
Also, FPMT teaches Tibetan Buddhism, often focusing on more modern teachers they consider to be important, such as Atisa, Manjushri, Shantideva  & Pabongkhapa ; and also focusing on deity yoga, such as Tara. While my personal experience with FPMT is they are very nice people, the teachings are very Tibetan and often very different to classical Theravada Buddhism.

This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. AN 9.5

Yes, I am from India. I know education comes at a price; I've no issues paying for it too. I don't mind travelling anywhere to learn. :) Can you guide me if you have a monastery in mind?

Sorry. I cannot guide you to Sri Lanka. I studied Buddhism in Thailand. However, there are numerous Sri Lankan members here, who could help you. You can ask a new question about where to study Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Kind regards.

I don't mind travelling anywhere. Sri Lanka or Thailand or Pluto (Elon Musk must help in this case!). Or somewhere in India too. :) Thank-you for your insights. :)

where in india do you live ?  do you have buddhist teachers next to you ?

@breath I live in Bombay. I tried finding out local teachers, but couldn't find any. I even went to local Buddhist temples, but no luck :(

I practice meditation theravada style ven mahasi sayadaw technique  -  spesificly  ven ajahn tong sirmangalo   - who teaches in chom tong town that is in Thailand    ..........   but as far as i know usually lay people go there to do a 21 say course than for 10 days each time and not for long
and than report to their tecaher at their country  ---- so if you had some teacher of this type at mumbai i would have recommended it to you

@breath I couldn't find a teacher here. And I'm in for a longer time period.. like a year or so. :) Thankyou :)

A member here recommends to contact Diliup Gabadamudalige to ask about study in Sri Lanka. He is a Sri Lankan pianist: https://www.facebook.com/Diliup  and connected to a monk named Meewanapalane Dhammalankara Thero living at in Mirigama Parama Nibbana Dharmayathanaya. (Tel: 071-365-29-48; 077-450-37-00.). Best wishes

I contacted him. Thankyou so so much for that.

Kalpesh Mange

Genuine spiritual teachings
  cannot be separated
  from the manner in which they are given.
True Dhamma is like friendship: if you are being charged for it,
  you already know you are not getting the real thing.
Buying Dhamma, taking ungiven, stealing, and so on is like seeking for a heart of gold and then try impatiently not willing of real sacrifies satisfy one self just in redlight districts, prostitution, or abuse. Even it might satisfy shortly, it will hardly ever become ever a real, intimate and fruitful relation.
Is that what you seek for, all you can, could effort?

[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth."
[The Buddha:] "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy... The Way to Stream Entry

Better to Give than to Consume
Related aspects in similar questions:
[Q&A] Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student
Where can one find guidance from a teacher next year in 2018?
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

If I understand their web site properly, it's a not-for-profit organisation; and donations are to defray running expenses, i.e. for accommodation and food when staying there. Is that usual or unusual? I think the OP is saying that he has to travel (and stay) somewhere, because he hasn't found local teachers even in local temples. Shouldn't he expect that (accommodation and food when away from home) to cost something?

Thankyou for your answer. But how does a lay person like me even find a teacher that is willing to impart Dhamma to me?

@KalpeshMange : "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities..." Canki Sutta. Nyom Chris. Buddhas real non profit "organisation" is called Sangha. Why deal and trade with "thieves" and disregard Buddhas way? It's not possible to gain Dhamma in this way, as hard one may try and ignore the Juwels. What "you" do here, at large, many, is just cut yourself off step by step...

Respect, Confidence & Patience

@SamanaJohann looks like I'll have to just searching, and reading until then online. :)

Try to turn around this usuall attitude and look where you can give, time, skill... "invest" into what is directed to Nibbana,not the world, what goes a walk of letting go and leave behind. From the first till the last step, it's all about giving, shaing (without expecting anything in return) at first. If focusing on the causes, effects will come. If focusing on fruits and effects, then (since not knowing what) it will be always wrong (and unskillful intended), @KalpeshMange . Don't think in ways how to get this or that, but what are you able to simply give and this not like a costumer,

Not like a beggar or a poor after something, but one who walks already the path of Dana, Sila, Bhavana.

@SamanaJohann. Yes! Rightly said :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
How does Buddhism see Required Military Service?
I live in the United States, where although unlikely, a draft could happen. There are also many other countries that require military service in some capacity.
I know Buddhism generally opposes killing and murder, so how does Buddhism see required or involuntary military service?

Possible duplicate-question: What do buddhists do in a situation of war where all able-bodied men must become soldiers?

Thank you. I tried searching before posting, but didn't find this specific question.

What do you mean by "how does Buddhism see"? Are you asking if killing  is not bad Karma if government told you to do so? :) Please ask a specific question.

This question may be a duplicate of (already answered by) a previous topic on this site, such as:

Can Buddhism give any justification for military violence?
What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?

I note that, in practice, all "Buddhist countries" too have a military -- and sometimes use them as well, sometimes infamously.
Wikipedia's article Buddhists in the United States military says there's some provision for Buddhists in the US military (I was wondering whether they had any Buddhist chaplains). That article suggests that the (few) Buddhists in the army tend/tended to be of Japanese descent and/or a Japanese school of Buddhism -- IMO Buddhism in Japan is historically a little different from in other countries: with "samurais" being Buddhist, and (more recently) priests who marry, and so on.
Note that as some alternative, even in WW2, the USA allowed "conscientious objectors" (often Christian pacifists) to serve as non-combatants -- so you might serve on the battle-field as a stretcher-bearer, for example, rescuing the wounded.

I'm not sure that Buddhist countries allow "conscientious objectors" to refuse conscription into the military service.
Looking through the list of countries with conscription, which you posted in the question:

In Singapore (which isn't officially Buddhist but where Buddhist is, at 33%, the most popular religion) I don't see that "conscientious objection" is an accepted reason.

In Thailand I see that "conscientious objection" per se isn't allowed, but that Buddhist monks are exempt (although this article implies that monks aren't exempt, so I don't know).

The situation in Myanmar seems confused, or at least confusing to me:

Currently, there is no military draft. Thus, all service personnel are theoretically volunteers, but the People's Militia Law allows for conscription if the President considers it necessary for Myanmar's defence that the provisions of the law be activated. In practice, it has been claimed that the Tatmadaw conscripts adults and children and uses civilians as forced labour and even human mine-sweepers. The Tatmadaw has been engaged in a bitter battle with ethnic insurgents and the narco-armies since the country gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1948. However, in a 2014 survey conducted by the International Republican Institute across all Myanmar demographics shows military is the most favourable institution with 84% of respondents saying either "very favorable" or "favorable" ahead of other institutions such as media, government and Burmese opposition.

South Korea too seems keen on universal conscription -- I didn't find (using Google) an exception for monks.

There's a relevant newspaper article here -- It's not so strange for a Buddhist to endorse killing -- it's partly factual and partly opinion-based, so you may or may not agree with it.
There was also this factoid which was questioned on Skeptics.SE -- Did most of the American riflemen in combat during World War II avoid firing at the enemy? -- perhaps that suggests another "way out" for any individuals who refuse violence, even if they don't escape conscription.

Thank you for your insight. Recently I've been thinking about Myanmar as well as the conscription issue.

I am a thai. In thailand, they except a monk who has a degree of natinal buddhist educational background (นักธรรม-nakdhamma).
Generally, most of thai people know the way to do with the very religious people, because we have various religious in our country. So, if the buddhist person tells to a military's buddhist teacher "I can't not kill, because I am a religious person. If you send me to kill, I am surly that I can't help anyone by killing. You can send me to work in the other job instead. I can do everything, except precept-offending". He will test that buddhist person, then send him to work in the other position, such as the military medical assistant, instead.

Neither disrespect torward ones leader, parents, contemplatives and Brahmans, duties for certain relations one nurishes on and anarchy but also approve, leading and doing unskillful, taking life, taking what is not given, abuse and telling untrue finds place in the doctrine of the Awakened, Noble and wise. So is encouragement torward improper actions and politics for certain aims in the world not really in the sphere of a Dhammica.
Most of this leads like the actions by deeds into hell:

"Then the hell-wardens, seizing (such a being) by the arms, present him to King Yama: 'This is a man, your majesty, with no respect for mother, no respect for father [1], no reverence for contemplatives, no reverence for brahmans, no honor for the leaders of his clan. Let your majesty decree his punishment.'
"Then King Yama interrogates & interpellates & castigates the man regarding the first deva messenger: 'My good man, didn't you see the first deva messenger that has appeared among human beings?'

"There is what is given, sacrified, there are results of good and bad deeds..."
Don't, one should not, missuse those having abound their duties by abounding their desires for certain food to justify rejecting duties by not having given rightouse causes for it and just then when your fruits seems to rippe. Work on you liberation in times when there is plenty of way and peace for past merits and circumstances are not for sure.

Then again there comes a time when there is danger and an invasion of savage tribes. Taking power, they surround the countryside. When this happens, there are times when it so happens that a mother can get to her child, and the child can get to its mother. This is the third thing that is a mother-&-child-uniting danger, yet run-of-the-mill people describe it as a mother-&-child-separating danger.
Furthermore, the monk reminds himself of this: At present people are in harmony, on friendly terms, without quarreling, like milk mixed with water, viewing one another with eyes of affection. The time will come, though, when there is danger and an invasion of savage tribes. Taking power, they will surround the countryside. When there is danger, people will congregate where it is safe. There they will live packed and crowded together. When one is living packed and crowded together, it is not easy to pay attention to the Buddha's teachings. It is not easy to reside in isolated forest or wilderness dwellings. Before this unwelcome, disagreeable, displeasing thing happens, let me first make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized, so that — endowed with that Dhamma — I will live in peace even when there is danger. (That the True Dhamma Might Last a Long Time)

Dhamma is very individual issue, or better conditions are personally made. It leads to nothing to try to make conditions for all or many the same. Kamma of each being is different and each particular situation is also different.
If not having certain conditions, it's of use to work on them. If demanding there are debts. Letting go rightously and step by step of trade in this sphere, by letting go ones desires and objectiveshow it should be one gains freedom, freedom of duyties after liberating desire.
As for leaving home and walk the way of the Buddhas noble disciples, it's required to have no debts and being free of service duties for others (Government, King...). If such is not given, can not be obtained, it's very difficult, most not possible to ordain. It would be not allowed for a Bhikkhu to give ordination for one "who is in the kings service."
Rājabhaṭavatthu - The Case of One Who is in the King’s Service
Duty of servis is not only in regard of millitary service but also in regard of all other duties as not free housholder and citizen (one with duties). It would be a more peaceful world if people know and respect their duties in certain circumstances they are then if knowing rights and after demanding and increasing imbalance and wrong views all over the world. Only one having left behind the "benefits of bondage", home, citizenship, if being "stateless", not holding any rights in exchange with the world and it's sociaties, has no other dutiy then to strive for the end of all duties.

Renunciation
In rare cases(!), individuals may become stateless upon renouncing their citizenship (e.g., "world citizen" Garry Davis and, from 1896 to 1901, Albert Einstein, who, in January 1896, at the age of 16, was released from his Württemberg citizenship after, with his father's help, filing a petition to that effect; in February 1901 his application for Swiss citizenship was accepted[19]). People who subscribe to Voluntaryist, Agorist, or some other philosophical, political, or religious beliefs may desire or seek statelessness. Many states do not allow citizens to renounce their nationality unless they acquire another. However, consular officials are unlikely to be familiar with the citizenship laws of all countries, so there may still be situations where renunciation leads to effective statelessness.

This story (in the link above) might make Upasaka Bonn's answer maybe more understandable while, of course, making such depentend on a "paper" is again a low compromise.
If a government or a king allows it's/his citizens the going for, is again the merit or demerit of individuals, in the same way of cause and effect it meets also ones condition.
The way of Dhamma for liberation and upwards is clear and works also for ones conditions: generosity, virtue, wise reflection. What ever one gives he/she gains. The release from duties and not forcing to make unskillful deeds for ones sake will cause similar as effect.
After all it's a good question to think about certain things for oneself of how much freedom outwardly a "modern citizen" actally really has and how much he/she actually really gives, since such is of course related.
And it's good to focus on oneself so that conditions might become or stay conductive for ones future. So it's good to reflect many times on the highest blessings and to strive best possibly after them:
Maha-mangala Sutta: Blessings
Anumodana!
And its good to seek for real refuge before becoming another time of the many refugees wandering around in Samsara, platant or unaware... leaving houselife is done good at proper time, best now if free of duties which bind ready to be given away in a possible auspicious but not lasting situation. Don't waste time and consume past merits away!
For those caught at the moment, which is also not for sure: Why it is important to value our Conditions?
Merits are what establish beings and their possibilities, also to reach the beyond.
[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:
Stage of my personal practice
This  time when  the controller  of the  breath  disappears  thoughts  too disappear cittarupa  stop by presenting  a line across  and the top of it there is a picture  of a person. After a minute breath  appeared. And there was no observer  too at that time. What is the meaning of the cittarupa  which appeared and what is the stage?

I don't know stages, but the mind presents images when it does not have words for what it experiences, or when discursive thought is not operating. The image might be meaningful, or random.

It's kinda like an orgasm.  If you have to ask, you probably didn't have one.  Keep at it!

What observed this? Did you lose consciousness?

My first teacher always said, don't worry about stages. Thinking about stages is bad for your progress.

In a session last week, Ronald McDonald hung himself. Naturally, I hesitate at deducing meaning from this. In fact, this has been my approach for images in meditation for two years. I once saw a beautiful 3 dimensional image of the Buddha sat on a white elephant. My friend said this was auspicious - I wasn't interested. Just carry on.

You can find some advice from Ajaan Fuang on this page:

§ When Ajaan Fuang taught meditation, he didn't like to map things out
  in advance. As soon as he had explained the beginning steps, he'd have
  the student start sitting right in his presence, and then take the
  steps back home to work on there. If anything came up in the course of
  the practice, he'd explain how to deal with it and then go on to the
  next step.
Once a layman who had known more than his share of meditation teachers
  came to discuss the Dhamma with Ajaan Fuang, asking him many questions
  of an advanced nature as a way of testing his level of attainment.
  Ajaan Fuang asked him in return, "Have you had these experiences in
  your own meditation yet?"
"No, not yet."
"Then in that case I'd rather not discuss them, because if we discuss
  them when they're not yet a reality for you, they'll just be theories,
  and not the real Dhamma."
§ One meditator noticed that his practice under Ajaan Fuang was making
  quick progress, and so he asked what the next step would be. "I'm not
  going to tell you," Ajaan Fuang said. "Otherwise you'll become the
  sort of amazing marvel who knows everything before he meets with it,
  and masters everything before he's tried his hand. Just keep
  practicing and you'll find out on your own."
§ "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."
§ "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."

When you meditate you can see weird visions of many kinds, unless you make them intentionally for meditative purposes like attaining some jhana ala Visudhimagga style or as in MN 128 Upakkilesa Sutta - Imperfections, you should not attach to them much significance in general. This i say based on teachings on imperfections of insight.
You should remember what is happening to the body imagination, postures, behavior, feelings & sensations. If you are going to discern some other things you should focus on these or others from Satipatthana Sutta that i did not mention here:

... [1] "There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental
  qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances.
  And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of
  themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case
  where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that
  'There is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no
  sensual desire present within, he discerns that 'There is no sensual
  desire present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of
  unarisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning
  of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no
  future arising of sensual desire that has been abandoned. (The same
  formula is repeated for the remaining hindrances: ill will, sloth &
  drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty.)
...
...
  ...
[4] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of
  themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening. And how
  does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with
  reference to the seven factors for Awakening? There is the case where,
  there being mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he
  discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is present within
  me.' Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present
  within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is not
  present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen
  mindfulness as a factor for Awakening. And he discerns how there is
  the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor for
  Awakening once it has arisen. (The same formula is repeated for the
  remaining factors for Awakening: analysis of qualities, persistence,
  rapture, serenity, concentration, & equanimity.) ...


text:
Question about Narakas
I want to ask the following: Is there a mention in the suttas or anywhere else that tells that there is a corresponding hell (Naraka) according to specific evil deeds? I wonder if it is a random thing or there is some corresponding hell to our evil deeds.

Hells must corresponding to their evil deeds. But there are uncountable various kamma leting their uncountable corresponding resultants arise in the same seconds, too. Kamma just waiting the proper chance to let their resultants arise.
Most of hell appear in suttanta, but it will be easier to explain the hell by abhidhamma's rule.
In abhidhamma, there are trillion mind moments in a piece of second. Each mind moment must managing, kamma, their mind and mind factors, but only javana-duty mind moments have own resultants, vipaka.  So, we done kamma over many thousands millions times each second.
And each kamma will multiply it's resultants, vipaka, such as just 1 killing mind moment of last life can let uncountable resultant mind moments arise through next life, if that killing mind moment can win to process rebirth-duty, 1st mind moment of each rebirth, of next life.
Another, many kamma can work together by switch their resultants' arising between each other, such as killing mind  moment let its resultants through niraya-man's life, then the other kamma let it's resultants arise
 by make niraya man very hurt his tongue.
Their are uncountable co-working in each second for one's life, such as a second of buddha's life on parinibbana's bed:

Wholesome kamma let budhha's bhavanga mind moment arise.
Each different wholesome kamma let buddha's each organ of 32 organs
look the best beautiful.
Unwholesome kamma let buddha's body sick.
The other wholesome kamma let buddha watch many ariya around the
parinibbana's bed.

These all happened only in a second, by a very various kamma. And this is just the example. In the full situation of this second, there are many various kamma giving their resultants.

MN130
"Then the hell-wardens, seizing (such a being) by the arms, present him to King Yama: 'This is a man, your majesty, with no respect for mother, no respect for father, no reverence for samanas, no reverence for brahmans, no honor for the leaders of his clan. Let your majesty decree his punishment.'...

"The Commentary notes that not everyone who falls into hell is tortured with all of these punishments: some of the tortures are skipped; in some cases the hell-being's kamma is exhausted before the full round of tortures is completed, so that he dies and is reborn elsewhere; and not everyone goes for repeated rounds. Also, we should note that punishment in hell is not for an eternity. As the discourse implies, when the hell-being's bad kamma is exhausted, he dies and is reborn elsewhere, in accordance with his remaining kamma."

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

'Hell' is 'suffering', 'pain', 'unhappiness', 'torment' &/or 'torture'. 'Hell' is described as undesirable unpleasant feelings, as follows:

Bhikkhus, it is a gain for you, it is well gained by you, that you have obtained the opportunity for living the holy life. I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.
SN 35.135

The Pali suttas do not ascribe specific hells for specific unskilfull, heedless &/or evil deeds. For example, the Cula Kammavibhanga Sutta lists many types of unskilful actions & each action has the same potential general result of the 'unhappiness' of 'hell'.
However, if we use our common sense, we can discern in life that, in general (but not always), certain actions bring greater hellish results than another actions. For example, murder brings a longer prison sentence in hell than rape or corporate dishonesty; or the post-traumatic-hell of soldiers who fight in war is a greater hell than the hell of stealing or sexual misconduct. Or the hell of drug addiction is a strong hell.


text:
Renunciation and Negative Mysticism (Escaping from ones Dharma)
May All Beings be Truly Happy!
Is it possible that one can see that everything they have tried has failed, in a worldly sense, and has brought about suffering for themselves and others: has been completely selfish in motivation, at most times; and the times when help was extended to others, had little effect on alleviation of any suffering.
Much contemplation has been gone into very deeply on this subject.  I have found that without Right Loving Understanding, one is lost and is subject to confusion and suffering.
So my question is that it seems logical to stop and address ones own suffering, and become free from suffering, so that one can be a beacon of peace and sanity in an insane world: so I am drawn to the monastic life ... but, have been told that this is a path of negative mysticism: that one should be a part of the world, and find time for personal peace while maintaining a householder's responsibilities?
I have failed time and again attempting to achieve this goal.  It seems that society and the way in which it functions is deeply corrupted.  How does one remain uncorrupted unless one is free from it?
The most important goal at this point is to be free from suffering so one can be liberated and be of service to humanity.  Can this be achieved in a corrupted world?
In a future that had a respect for all living things and lived at a humane level of consciousness I could see this being possible.

In my earthly young days many many many years ago, I experienced "death". It began with recessing, recessing into the tiny light-dot then it shot with an incomparable speed of exiting. This tiny light-dot was the I, fully with the "meeeeeeee...", or maybe "muuuuuu..." (無, nothingness), or "ommmmmmm..." (空, emptiness). It's just pure "I", no attribute, no gender, no age, no race -- no name. Until a sudden thought of "mother!" occurred, I fell back and re-emerged. It was a bedroom with window shut and door closed, I usually loathed with confined space, maybe that subconsciously gave me the idea that there no air to breath, hence dying. Of course the real process of death is very painful for ordinary people, according to Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論)
Ever since this experience I've known that there no real death, what died is the body. This "I" will just be there, permanently, can't be annihilated nor grown, through thick and thin.
No matter how those secular, scholatic or scientific Buddhists arraying theories, theses, proofs, analysis to convince everyone there's no rebirth, life ended after death, it just can never accord. It's like trying to convince a penguin living in the South Pole that his very habitat is Sahara, quoting lengthy Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia describing the landscape of desert and it's climate... just doesn't accord, let alone the penguin doesn't understand English :).
But I hadn't studied Buddhism, at that time.
As I read again Bodhidharma's Bloodline Theory (血脈論, some translated as Bloodstream - incorrect), simply, he said, the Buddha is the Self-nature (自性).
Could the light-dot this "I" be the Self-nature?
He said, without realizing the Self-nature, all those sentient to the "me" are like wooden-dolls1. What if but realized? All the sentient their doings are my doings? But I this Self-nature indeed doing nothing...

春到花香處處秀
山河大地是如來
Comes spring blooming fragrances everywhere --
the flowers
Mountains, rivers, the whole earth is --
the Tathagata
-- Xuyun (1840-1959CE), transl. Mishu

This is the verse written by Xuyun (虛雲) the Great Monk when he enlightened.
Therefore there no corruption of the world, nor the escape from "me" is possible. How could one escape from his own shadow? The world is my shadow, neither corrupted, nor upright. Ultimately there is none a better version of the world, with beings "lived at a humane level of consciousness"; though there are different versions of the world beginning with Gold Kalpa (antiquity) to Iron Kalpa (now) in scripture.
In fact it is the existing of this very world, that the I could be comprehended; by its very corruption, that we know what is good.
Those Devas living in the world of bliss can never comprehend what is suffering; there's no chance for them to help others either, since everyone is in bliss.
Therefore the Dharma is to swirl and roll with the Red Dust, yet unscathed. By dancing with the shadow, the most beautiful artworks are created, whether in poetry, or technology; as everyday life story, or in war.
It is as good as only just words, I can't even give advice to myself :).

From sumeru
to paramāṇu
all are my names --
When the Self
is cultured
none the same
-- Mishu (2016-?CE)

Footnote:
1. 於此光明中運手動足者，如恆河沙，及乎問著，總道不得，猶如木人 (wooden dolls) 相似，總是自己受用，因何不識？-- 《血脈論》

Had an experience like that when I was 16. Other experiences over time. Few people have these.

good to know... i'm not alone :'). what did you do after, @nocomprende?

At first I felt sadness and despair because I could not "go back there" and I saw nothing like it in earth or other people. Eventually studied meditation, ran a retreat center for 10 years, then had to leave there a few years ago. Had non-self experiences, saw that all we think of is just concepts, produced by mind, like body produces poop, without a plan or director. It is what it is and nothing more. You also see this, I guess. No clear ideas what to do next, keep trying to be of help, I guess

Thank you Mishu for your kind words.   I feel a deep loneliness at times while in the midst of other beings no different from me.  I am merely trying to uncover what the best most sane use of this breathe is.  Do you know of any places that allow earnest individuals to go into these questions and take some space from the busy dream that is Life.  Is it possible to in a sense let go of the ME entirely and be completely free of thought while still existing in the world with bodily responsibility?  (taking care of one's self...food, clothing, shelter)?

"... feel a deep loneliness at times..." i'm able to relate earnestly to this. that's the time when i could write/paint the best of something - the antidote to me maybe. "... best most sane use of this breathe is..." i was trying to be very business once that left me feeling guilty in some way. my advice would be, do the most that's in accord with your nature, or what you want to achieve even against your nature, for that's why you come here this way. but i don't know of any places... i used to go into the "mountain" at night, under the moon, when i lived on an island...

... but that's too dangerous it interrupted my peace. (one of many reasons i wished to be born a man). "... let go of the ME entirely..." if i comprehend, it's very very difficult, the major achievement the recluse strives for. before arriving there, one should transmute his unique purity and acute sensitivity to Great Love, or compassion, else it would be very dangerous... Great Love in my understanding is to raise a bit higher, seeing the suffering of others, and feel sympathetic... how to improve the world... then you may "meet" the Buddha, so you are not alone...

@nocomprende maybe slightly different... it was always a thought: "i want to exit [from this world]", after, i knew that's not the solution; just a blink of eyes if i let it develop, what left in this world was the lifeless body of mine people found next day. i had thing to do... didn't know what. in some way, the "undying me" gives solid foundation psychologically. no-Self is still an illusive concept to me, but i tried and constantly remind myself to see/do things from a wider perspective than from my own self-interest these days... that's called practicing the Dharma?

Your idea about "One's Dharma" is Hindu & not Buddhist. Equally, your concerns about helping the world are too far ahead in respect to priorities. A monastic life (which does not necessarily mean official ordination) is the formal opportunity to final personal inner peace & contentment. In Buddhism, developing inner peace is the primary responsibility. Monasticism is the ideal mysticism. If personal liberation is a person's path, this person will find themselves in a monastery. When I was 23 years old, I found & lived my 1st year (as a non-monk) in a monastery, where I meditated around 8 hours per day. This was the most beneficial year of my life. As for the world, it is certainly increasingly corrupted & little can be done to help the world at the current time.

How do you deal with claims like: Monks are just sitting around and are not actively doing something and that they are being selfish? Would you respond and refer to personal responsibility (that everyone is responsible for their own happiness) and that they do something for others (caring for themselves which helps indirectly others as well as teaching the dhamma)?

Yes. Monks are taking personal responsibility for their happiness thus not harming anyone in the pursuit of happiness (unlike many people who harm & exploit to get their pleasures). Plus they help people. If their reputation is high, they can even advise govt officials (although this is unlikely in the current world). Regards

First, some words from Rilke:

You are not surprised at the force of the storm—
  you have seen it growing.
  The trees flee. Their flight
  sets the boulevards streaming. And you know:
  he whom they flee is the one
  you move toward. All your senses
  sing him, as you stand at the window.

There are two kinds of monastics - those who flee the world and those whole run toward the monastery because it offers something the householder's life does not.  Ask yourself - where does the force of the storm lie?  Which choice embodies awe?  Which option presents a terror most people would flee?  Which way makes you most uncomfortable?  Which direction, if taken, threatens to rend you limb from limb?  In Zen, the path to enlightenment is likened to climbing a mountain of swords where the skulls of those who have gone before litter the cliff face.  That road is going to be different for everyone, but it is up to us to find our own way there so that we can add our own skull to the pile.

Let's try and break this apart:

Is it possible that one can see that everything they have tried has failed in a worldly sense and has brought about suffering for themselves and others. Has been completely selfish in motivation at most times and the times when help was extended to others had little effect on alleviation of any suffering.

Aren't we all like this, or were at some point?

So my question is that it seems logical to stop and address ones own suffering and become free from suffering so that one can be a beacon of peace and sanity in an insane world.

Agreed. There are two ways we can stop though. One is to flee the world type of stop (including ordainment), the other is what I call "spiritual death stop" or "surrender stop". This second type of stop is when you stay where you are and basically give up all hopes of ever finding a solution to this very problem, and go on living as if you just died. It has an interesting psychological effect, to put it mildly. You should try it if you can.

I am drawn to the monastic life but have been told that this is a path of negative mysticism. That one should be apart of the world and find time for personal peace while maintaining a householders responsibilities? I have failed time and again attempting to achieve this goal.

Well the path "I" have chosen is the householder's path, as I think it is the more difficult and honest of the two. After all, how can I help people, most of whom are lay "householders", if I don't live their life?

It seems that society and the way in which it functions is deeply corrupted. How does one remain uncorrupted unless one is free from it? The most important goal at this point is to be free from suffering so one can be liberated and be of service to humanity. Can this be achieved in a corrupted world? In a future that had a respect for all living things and lived at a humane level of consciousness I could see this being possible.

Well you can certainly remain uncorrupted in the sense of not actively contributing to it, but there is still the question of passive contribution - which IMO cannot be avoided. Hopefully my positive contributions from actively spreading what I learned about Dharma outweighs the passive negative contribution of playing my role in corrupted society.
A more interesting question is, whether one can avoid frustration while living in an "imperfect" world. This is what Buddhism is actually about. The short answer is, if you learn to see things in depth, you will see that nothing, NOTHING, can be characterized single-sidedly. The world is not "good" or "bad", neither are we, things are insanely complicated, literally awesome, and can't be generalized at all. Once you learn to avoid generalizations, the basis for frustration can no longer be found, because the basis existed in generalizations. Then you achieve a state that is not really stable ground, more like endless free-fall, but there is no suffering in it, as long as you can avoid grasping and continue falling.
Once you get used to this "spiritual death" thing and the "free falling" experience, you can find peace in it. It's a weird type of peace for sure, at least from the perspective of what we're used to expect from life in our fantasies, but it is certainly a lot more real than fantasies - and holds up under all circumstances.
In short, my answer is no, don't seek another cop out. Face the world as is, however hard that may be.

"There is the case, Daniel, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
"A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'...DN2

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]