text:
Alms and questions
Q:

1) What is the proper thing to do if you, as a monk, were to accept
  alms but have stomach issues so can't eat all the food?
2) What would a monk do if they are allergic to the alms given?
  (lactose and tolerant, alergy)
3) What is the procedure for alms?

Good man,
generally a monk could reject certain food and leave it open (of course "risky") to the giver to seek and ask for reason or to try to give else. Bhikkhus are not allowed to ask for certain food for themselves and only if sick there would be certain openings.
to answer the questions direct:
1) What is the proper thing to do if you, as a monk, were to accept alms but have stomach issues so can't eat all the food?
One does not need, is not bond, to eat all what has been given and one can leave it for others, what ever kind of being.
Food which is left should be at least abound on places where are no plants or in water without animals.
2) What would a monk do if they are allergic to the alms given? (lactose and tolerant, alergy)
Generally, since certain well-being out of food is importand for one in training, the Sublime allowed change of location out of reason food for monks, even in the rainy season. If certain food isn't found in an area, not given, or just food that's not enough for ones farewell, one might move on. How much one is bound to certain food is certain a matter of gained liberation, of course. Nevertheless, food, weather, people, dwelling... this are all matters of Upanissaya, strong causes of past, strong developed tendencies, not easy to overcome by common folk.
3) What is the procedure for alms?
Usually, if not a receiver of food in ones dwelling, if an almsgoer, a monk would leave his remote dwelling toward a settlement and walk from house to house with bended head, looking just some meters in front. He may stop word-less at entrances and wait a little (the bowl is covered with the robe in front of him), and if there are signs that someone desires to give, he would then wait. Not really beggging, but giving wise the possibility to make merits actually, is the livelihood of a disciple of the Buddha. When someone approaches to give, he would de-cover the bolw and open the cover a little, looking at the bowl. After that he would walk on, or give an encouragement (some think it's a blessing)/ approve, by a recitation or short teaching. Once he feels that's enough, latest if the bowl is full, he would leave the settlement into remote areas and either return or take his meal somewhere remote. After this he would wash his bowls, after having abound the rest he did not eat, and go on with his usual tasks.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for escape and release from this wheel]

What a strange question!!
I heard a story about a MONK who found a way to lie without lying and so when he was collecting food on his alms and someone gave him his fill and gave him extra (but set aside specifically for a new rival monk in town) he threw it away rather than give it to someone who did not need it and to whom he did not personally want to stay. Even a monk could find a way to lie skillfully.
As lobg as u do no harm with the food what does it matter what is done with it and to whom does it matter if anyone??


text:
Without formal refuge?
An unknown contributer wrote

Imo a yogi (homeless) without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money.

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?
Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?
Maybe worthy to give reflective answer.
[note that this isn't giving for trade, exchange or stocks but toward release from a wheel]

Your question is posed mainly from a modern Western/Capitalist perspective where seclusion from economical "responsibilities" for spiritual practice is - to say the least - not encouraged. Also, the West doesn't have a tradition of handing out food to begging monks, in fact, in many countries this practice is illegal. It was very different in Asia before the industrialization.
During the Golden Age of Buddhism in China, the Ch'an (Zen) school actually consisted to a large extent of 行者 (wandering monks), who would travel throughout China, searching for the "right" master, entering into a discussion with the master of every temple they came across. This is still a common and widely accepted practice in many Mahayana traditions.
The mythological monk Bodhidharma, claimed as their founder by several Chinese Buddhist schools, would definitely qualify as a wandering monk, as does the mythological Budai.
Also in the Ch'an tradition, there are a series of drawings called the Ten Oxherding Pictures, the tenth picture is entitled "Return to society":

Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.

As for laypeople, Huineng was a layman, but is considered to be one of the most important Ch'an masters.

Don’t forget about Han Shan either.  He was your archetypal wandering monk!  And he actually existed!

How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing?

Seems the yogi's idea of contemporary masters are making  assumptions.

Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma?

If one gains Dhamma then how can it be improper? Nothing   inappropriate with recycling by itself but if it's being done out of some fear or anger towards the contemporary masters then that is wrong view.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Important Commentaries?
Q:

1) Can someone name the most important commentaries, sub-commentaries,
  etc. I should read while reading the Tipitaka?

In my opinion commentaries and sub commentaries are important. Even the Tipitaka is a tabulation by certain Arahants.
In any case, I ask a similar question in the Dhamma Wheel.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=35754

in short
What are the Important Commentaries?
Buddha, his teams, and his teaching memorizers.
Everyone can read and teach without standard, but  the Tipitaka Memorizers keep that standard. He can comment Tipitaka in standard like the Judge memorized the law and keeping adjudicate in law.
7 questions for this topic

What is the commentary?
Who are those teachers?
What are the Important Commentaries?
Who are their teams?
What is the qualification of the teams?
How to choose one?
What should the practitioner do to his teacher?

What is the commentary?
The commentary is the description from teachers.
Who are those teachers?
Buddha and his teams, the great disciple (Asītimahāsāvaka, Etadagga, Sakya Family, etc.)
What are the Important Commentaries?
Those teachers and their teams.
Everyone can read and teach without standard, but  the Tipitaka Memorizers keep that standard. He can comment Tipitaka in standard like the Judge memorized the law and keeping adjudicate in law.
Who are their teams?
The noble one and the Tipitaka Memorizers.
What is the qualification of the teams?
From my answer here : How to find the right Dhamma teacher
in my opinion, the significant quality of a teacher is paṭisambhidā: because all ariya must have paṭisambhidā, at least in his kammaṭṭhāna. So he should have these qualities:

His teacher descent, he must derived from a tipitaka memorizer (buddha-sāvaka, suta-buddha; V.N. Mahāvagga Nissayamuccnakathā).
His enlightenment, he must achieved at least upacāra-samādhi and balava-vipassanā (4 paṭisambhidā; V.N. Mahāvagga Nissayamuccnakathā).
His tipitaka memory, he must graduated through at least
nissayamuccaka-course (V.N. Pācittiyakaṇḍa Ovādakasikkhāpada's commentary).
His tipitaka understanding, he must not cut tipitaka off or make
tipitaka conflict each other. Because tipitaka was memorized by
single commentary teacher group at 1st saṅgāyanā, so it  must be a
single package that compatibility with each other (pro in tipitaka relation, dhamma-paṭisambhida&attha-paṭisambhidā).
His pali skill, he must understand pali in advance (nirutti-paṭisambhidā).
He must be a genius one (paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā).

Furthermore, in tipitaka and commentary tradition, since mahākhandhaka of vinaya mahāvagga is completed authored by upāli in 1st saṇgāyanā, all layman's teachers must have all of these qualities, that concluded by upāli in bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada's commentary (which I translate below as follows):

Qualities of nissayamuccaka-bhikkhu (teaching lay people)

Proficient to recite pāṭimokkha-pāli and to understand it's commentary.
Proficient to recite and to understand 4 bhāṇavāra (~1,000 syllable) of sutta and their commentary, to teach laymen on uposatha
  day.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for bhikkhu's life such as andhakavindasutta, mahālahulovādasutta, ambaṭṭhasutta, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for teaching in 3 chances: banquet for saṅgha by layman (nidhikaṇdasutta), funeral
  ceremony (tirokuṭṭasutta), and auspicious ceremony (maṅgalasutta).
Enough understand to judge/to decide about saṇgha's ceremony such as uposatha, pavāraṇā, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand his kammaṭṭhānā throughout the nibbāna-course.
5 years experience in monk hood as a monk.

Qualities of bhikkuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-bhikkhu (teaching bikkhus)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhus (ūpajjhā-ācāriya, nissaya-ācāriya), they must increase their skill level to all of the following qualities.
These are for abhivinaya teaching:

Proficient to recite mahāvibhagha and bhikkhunivibhaṅga (first 3 books of thai 45 books pali-tipitaka) of vinaya-pitaka-pali. At least, he
  can relay with the other 3 bhikkhu. Proficient to understand it's
  commentary, too.
Proficient to recite all saṇgha's ceremony in vinaya-pitaka mahāvagga and julavagga.
Proficient to recite 14 vatta in vattakhandhaka.

These are for abhidhamma (kammaṭṭhāna) teaching:

Proficient to recite one of this suttanta-pali: mūlapaṇṇassa (1st/3 parts of M.N.) for student in M.N. faculty, mahāvagga (2nd/3 parts of
  D.N.) for student in D.N. faculty,
  sagāthavagga+nidānavagga+khandhavāravagga of S.N. or  mahāvagga of
  S.N. for student in S.N. faculty, before half of A.N.  or after half
  of A.N.  or ekakanipāta+dukanipāta of A.N. for student in A.N.
  faculty, jātaka+commentary  (because kammaṭṭhāna was described in
  commentary) for student in jātaka faculty.

Qualities of bhikkunovdaka-bhikkhu (teaching bhikkunīs)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhunī, they must increase their skill level to all of these qualities:

Proficient to recite whole tipitaka-pali and commentary-pali. Or at least, he still must recite whole tipitaka, but he can recite just one
  commentary of suttanta, first 4 parts of commentary of 7 parts of
  abhidhamma. However, vinaya-commentary is what he must recite it all.

Reference: tipitaka and commentary of vinaya pācittiyakaṇḍa bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada and vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka.

(I still find it difficult to reference the tipitaka and commentary using english resources: there's no translation, very long pages, confused categories, cutting some parts off the tipitaka, cutting commentary off from pali canon, etc.)

Related topic: Should Lay Buddhists Teach the Dhamma?
How to choose one?

Because of the words beginning, "Ananda, it is owing to my being a good
friend to them that living beings subject to birth are freed from birth" (S I 88), it is
only the Fully Enlightened One who possesses all the aspects of the good friend.
Since that is so, while he is available only a meditation subject taken in the Blessed
One's presence is well taken.
But after his final attainment of Nibbana, it is proper to take it from anyone of
the eighty great disciples still living. When they are no more available, one who
wants to take a particular meditation subject should take it from someone with
cankers destroyed, who has, by means of that particular meditation subject,
produced the fourfold and fivefold jhana, and has reached the destruction of cankers
by augmenting insight that had that jhana as its proximate cause.
But how then, does someone with cankers destroyed declare himself thus: "I am
one whose cankers are destroyed?" Why not? He declares himself when he knows
that his instructions will be carried out. Did not the Elder Assagutta [99] spread out
his leather mat in the air and sitting cross-legged on it explain a meditation subject to
a bhikkhu who was starting his meditation subject, because he knew that that bhikkhu
was one who would carry out his instructions for the meditation subject?
So if someone with cankers destroyed is available, that is good. If not, then
one should take it from a non-returner, a once-returner, a stream-enterer, an
ordinary man who has obtained jhana, one who knows three Pitakas, one who
knows two Pitakas, one who knows one Pitaka, in descending order [according as
available]. If not even one who knows one Pitaka is available, then it should be
taken from one who is familiar with one Collection together with its commentary
and one who is himself conscientious. For a teacher such as this, who knows the
texts, guards the heritage, and protects the tradition, will follow the teachers'
opinion rather than his own. Hence the Ancient Elders said three times, "One who
is conscientious will guard it."
Now, those beginning with one whose cankers are destroyed, mentioned above,
will describe only the path they have themselves reached. But with a learned man,
his instructions and his answers to questions are purified by his having approached
such and such teachers, and so he will explain a meditation subject showing a
broad track, like a big elephant going through a stretch of jungle, and he will select
suttas and reasons from here and there, adding [explanations of] what is suitable
and unsuitable. So a meditation subject should be taken by approaching the good
friend such as this, the giver of a meditation subject, and by doing all the duties to
him.
Chapter III Taking a Meditation Subject page 94
cr. http://www.bps.lk http://www.accesstoinsight.urg

What should the practitioner do to his teacher?

If he is available in the same monastery, it is good. If not, one should go to
where he lives.
When [a bhikkhu] goes to him, he should not do so with feet washed and
anointed, wearing sandals, with an umbrella, surrounded by pupils, and bringing
oil tube, honey, molasses, etc.; he should do so fulfilling the duties of a bhikkhu
setting out on a journey, carrying his bowl and robes himself, doing all the duties
in each monastery on the way, with few belongings, and living in the greatest
effacement. When entering that monastery, he should do so [expecting nothing,
and even provided] with a tooth-stick that he has had made allowable on the way
[according to the rules]. And he should not enter some other room, thinking, "I
shall go to the teacher after resting awhile and after washing and anointing my
feet, and so on."
Why? If there are bhikkhus there who are hostile to the teacher, they might
ask him the reason for his coming and speak dispraise of the teacher, saying, "You
are done for if you go to him"; [100] they might make him regret his coming and
turn him back. So he should ask for the teacher's dwelling and go straight there.
If the teacher is junior, he should not consent to the teacher's receiving his
bowl and robe, and so on. If the teacher is senior, then he should go and pay homage
to him and remain standing. When told, "Put down the bowl and robe, friend," he
may put them down. When told, "Have some water to drink," he can drink if he
wants to. When told, "You may wash your feet," he should not do so at once, for if
the water has been brought by the teacher himself, it would be improper. But when
told "Wash, friend, it was not brought by me, it was brought by others," then he
can wash his feet, sitting in a screened place out of sight of the teacher, or in the
open to one side of the dwelling.
If the teacher brings an oil tube, he should get up and take it carefully with
both hands. If he did not take it, it might make the teacher wonder, "Does this
bhikkhu resent sharing so soon?" but having taken it, he should not anoint his feet
at once. For if it were oil for anointing the teacher's limbs, it would not be proper.
So he should first anoint his head, then his shoulders, etc.; but when told, "This is
meant for all the limbs, friend, anoint your feet," he should put a little on his head
and then anoint his feet. Then he should give it back, saying when the teacher
takes it, "May I return this oil tube, venerable sir?"
He should not say, "Explain a meditation subject to me, venerable sir" on the
very day he arrives. But starting from the next day, he can, if the teacher has a   habitual attendant, ask his permission to do the duties. If he does not allow it
when asked, they can be done when the opportunity offers. When he does them,
three tooth-sticks should be brought, a small, a medium and a big one, and two
kinds of mouth-washing water and bathing water, that is, hot and cold, should be
set out. Whichever of these the teacher uses for three days should then be brought
regularly. If the teacher uses either kind indiscriminately, he can bring whatever is
available.
Why so many words? All should be done as prescribed by the Blessed One in
the Khandhakas as the right duties in the passage beginning: "Bhikkhus, a pupil
should perform the duties to the teacher [101] rightly. Herein, this is the right
performance of duties. He should rise early; removing his sandals and arranging
his robe on one shoulder, he should give the tooth-sticks and the mouth-washing
water, and he should prepare the seat. If there is rice gruel, he should wash the
dish and bring the rice gruel" (Vin I 61).
To please the teacher by perfection in the duties he should pay homage in the
evening, and he should leave when dismissed with the words, "You may go." When
the teacher asks him, "Why have you come?" he can explain the reason for his
coming. If he does not ask but agrees to the duties being done, then after ten days
or a fortnight have gone by he should make an opportunity by staying back one
day at the time of his dismissal, and announcing the reason for his coming; or he
should go at an unaccustomed time, and when asked, "What have you come for?"
he can announce it.
If the teacher says, "Come in the morning," he should do so. But if his stomach
burns with a bile affliction at that hour, or if his food does not get digested owing
to sluggish digestive heat, or if some other ailment afflicts him, he should let it be
known, and proposing a time that suits himself, he should come at that time. For if
a meditation subject is expounded at an inconvenient time, one cannot give attention.
This is the detailed explanation of the words "approach the good friend, the
giver of a meditation subject."
Chapter III Taking a Meditation Subject page 94
cr. http://www.bps.lk http://www.accesstoinsight.urg

There are no important commentaries & sub-commentaries. The Buddha did not teach his Dhamma for there to be a necessity for commentaries & sub-commentaries. Commentaries are heretical to what the Buddha taught. If you place faith in commentaries & sub-commentaries then you do not have faith in the Buddha & the Dhamma. Instead, you have faith in other individuals, who often misunderstood the Dhamma. The Buddha taught:

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in the here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.
SN 16.3

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain,
  open, explicit and free of patchwork
MN 22

Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
  saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
  Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
  esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
DN 16

In future time, there will be bhikkhus who will not listen to the
  utterance of such discourses which are words of the Tathāgata,
  profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world, connected
  with emptiness, they will not lend ear, they will not apply their mind
  on knowledge, they will not consider those teachings as to be taken up
  and mastered. On the contrary, they will listen to the utterance of
  such discourses which are literary compositions made by poets, witty
  words, witty letters, by people from outside [the Dhamma], or the
  words of disciples, they will lend ear, they will apply their mind on
  knowledge, they will consider those teachings as to be taken up and
  mastered. Thus, bhikkhus, the discourses which are words of the
  Tathāgata, profound, profound in meaning, leading beyond the world,
  connected with emptiness, will disappear.
SN 20.7

However, if you are that keen:
http://www.tipitaka.de/roman/atthakatha/index.html
http://www.tipitaka.de/roman/tika/index.html

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


text:
Opposite of buddhism
Is there anything considered the opposite of Buddhism? I have guesses and I'm thinking contrasts might give interesting insights.
In my limited understanding, the concept of an "opposite" to Buddhism is over dichotomising. I think some meaning might be put to it though if we consider what's offered as "not-buddhism" here The Four Seals of Dharma and consider thoughts, actions, and other deeds which might increase suffering for oneself and others.
What are we likely to believe that runs contrary to Buddhism and is likely to cause harm?
Possible examples below.
For each of Rinpoche's points we have:
"All compounded things are impermanent": A negation would be "Some compounded things are permanent." While the opposite would be "All compounded things are permanent." We readily see the opposite is false just by virtue of things being able to move. What things can we consider permanent? If we just postulate the existence of such, what are implications and what destructive actions might they lead to? I draw a blank here.
"All emotions are painful": Any contrary to this whether a negation or a precise opposite would probably imply some clinging. If we regard an emotional state as truly representing reality, we are likely to cut ourselves off from reality. Does any emotional state entail a bit of ego, a certain false self distorting our perspective? We also have the dualism problem Rinpoche elaborates.
"Everything is empty; lacking inherent existence": He simplifies, The way things appear is not the way they actually are. The opposite would be, appearances are never deceiving. This means we should never doubt our first impressions.Now impressions are often out of context. What we think they are, we think they are, despite other impressions giving us more insight. I think this would increase delusion.
"Nirvana is Beyond Extremes": I'm not sure what this means in its original form and have no guesses as to what might constitute an opposite.

Well, first point... Things do not have opposites. Things simply are. Qualities have opposites, and to the extent that a 'thing' is seen as an epitome of certain qualities, we can point at other 'things' that have opposing qualities. So (properly speaking) Buddhism doesn't have an opposite, although there may be other movements that try to create exactly the opposite of the qualities that Buddhism strives for.
With that in mind, I'd point at any kind of fanaticism: political nationalism, religious fundamentalism, commercial exploitation, ideological extremism... any movement that intentionally distorts perception and understanding, and purposely creates turmoil, in order to advance some abstraction. I'll leave examples to the reader, so as not to politicize.

As the Dharma teaches about the four Noble Truths, the direction is to help individuals to understand Suffering, and leads them towards the Cessation of Suffering.
It is therefore reasonable to say, for any teachings that disregards the 4 Noble Truths, or attempt to lead individuals towards Pain/Pleasure and Continuation of Pain/Pleasure, is definitely gears them towards a significantly deviated (maybe even opposite, but nothing is ever 100%) direction of the Dharma.

Yes, there are many opposite teaching to Buddha Dhamma.
For instance, Noble Eightfold Path (start from Sammaditthi) has the opposite of Mityaditthi.
Opposite of Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta is the Nicca, Sukha, And Atta.
Etc.

If we're talking philosophers then Nietzsche instantly comes to mind as an avid critic of buddhism, along with other religions. His book "beyond good and evil" is likely his most detailed attack on what he calls slave morality, buddhism included.
There are interestingly enough also common thoughts in Nietzsches existentialism and buddhism as well, but that's probably outside the scope of your question.

Plenty of teachings are the opposite of the dhamma.
A very opposite one is Jainism. For instance they  say that humans cannot reach nibanna while being alive (ie people must die in some specific way to reach nibanna).
All teachings which say that good actions do not depend on the intention. The teachings which say that with good intentions, it is still possible to kill, lie and so on.
Even more general, Anything which relies on cravings, since   “Craving is the path of practice leading to the origination of feeling."" and ''This very noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of feeling''. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_23.html


text:
Modern Narcissism and Buddhism
I was reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and related conditions like Borderline Personality Disorder. Some qualities seemed in direct opposition to what I've read in books by Thich Nhat Hanh. I was wondering if there were descriptions of Modern Psychological Narcissism in Buddhist works (as opposed to vanity in the Greek myth)? Is it closely tied to notions of Ego?
For example, we are encouraged to cultivate Equanimity in Buddhism. BPD has erratic and extreme emotional shifts. Its sufferers have extremely dichotomous, dualistic thinking.
Some notion of objectivity is encouraged in Buddhism, a realization that one is observing a phenomenon, and one may have thoughts, judgments, etc about the phenomenon, but this isn't really the thing being observed. People with NPD and the like may be considered extremely subjective, unmindful that they are having opinions and so failing to distinguish between the observation and the judgments.
Envy is extremely common among narcissists. On the path to liberation, envy is one of the first emotions to disappear.
Are there teachings of Buddhism that could be especially helpful for such people?

There's a passage from the daodejing that I always find appropriate on questions like this. It goes, roughly:
When one man hears of the dao, he sets out to embrace it.
When another hears of the dao, he is interested, and thinks about it sometimes.
When a third hears about it, he laughs out loud at how silly it sounds.
If no one ever laughed at it, it wouldn't be the dao.

In order to appreciate the philosophy of Buddhism, we have to appreciate the problem of Buddhism: the problem of discontent and its cessation. And it isn't enough to appreciate the problem intellectually — in that, "Yeah, I know, a lot of people are miserable" sense — we have to feel the problem. We have to embrace the problem down in the core, because until we embrace the problem, we will have no reason to embrace the solution.
Not everyone can embrace the problem in this visceral way, and so we find a wide range of 'intellectual' Buddhists, who are quite devout (in their own way) but carry on a shallow practice. And we find other people who cannot even appreciate the problem intellectually, and write the philosophy off as mere farce. That is... what is.
When we talk about people with personality disorders, we are talking about people with (in general) a pervasive debility in both self-reflection and other-reflection. At best they make a mental beeline towards immediate gratification without considering secondary consequences; at worst they see the world as a zero-sum game of misery, where the more misery they inflict on others the less they think they will experience for themselves. Such people would have no interest in Buddhism (which they'd probably denigrate as 'sop for losers'). You couldn't get them to sit on the cushion without offering them some immediate, tangible reward (which would be counterproductive). I'm not saying it wouldn't be good for them in the long run — practice benefits everyone — but we'd have a job getting them to take the idea seriously in the first place.
I sometimes find it helpful to remind myself that we can't always help damaged people, but we can aim for a world that damages people less. That is (I think) the essence of the bodhisattva .

I was wondering if there were descriptions of Modern Psychological Narcissism in Buddhist works (as opposed to vanity in the Greek myth)? Is it closely tied to notions of Ego?

In buddhism, what suffering ISN'T a problematic tie to notions of ego?
Joking aside, the personality disorder constructs and buddhism have their own traditions of thoughts, and as as such one can find both similarities and differences in comparison. Your question is interesting, but also run the risk of confirmation bias, as long as one only look for buddhist concepts that fits with mental disorder diagnostics. I believe one may also find diverging concepts in comparing buddhism and personality disorders.
However, since your question actually pertains similarities, some things worth noting is the idea of unwholesome mental factors (akusala cetasikas) in buddhism.
Specific for the etiology of NPD (on the top of my head) is pretty much all of the unwholesome mental factors, with the possible exception of uddhacca (restlessness), kukkucca (regret), thīna (sloth) middha (torpor), or vicikicchā (doubt) which aren't necessary criterias for a NPD diagnosis per se.
Regarding BPD, i'd actually argue that the emotional shifts are only erratic or extreme for a layperson. I also believe that the dichotomous thinking associated with BPD is a bit of a overgeneralization, even though it can be prevalent among those diagnosed. I write this because people diagnosed with BPD run the risk of being burdened with A LOT of unfair misconceptions.
That aside, from a buddhist perspective i'd argue that akusala cetasikas that (arguably) fits with BPD are: moha (delusion), anottappa (disregard for consequence), lobha (greed), uddhacca (restlessness), ditthi (wrong view), or dosa (hatred). Again, these are in no way reserved for a BPD diagnosis specifically.
Looking at the buddhist idea of skandhas, one may argue that the emotional proclivites in BPD relies heavily on constitution (rupa), in conjunction with an unhealthy amount of negative life experiences. However, as far as i understand, buddhism doesn't rely too much on the impact of memories, and seeing past trauma and/or abuse as karma is rather cynical in my opinion.
On can also look at any form of mental disorder as matter of upadana or clinging. As we lose flexibility in dealing with life, mental illness is not seldom the result.

Are there teachings of Buddhism that could be especially helpful for such people?

A little buddhism would likely help a lot of people to improved well being, diagnosed or not.
Fact is that one of the evidence based treatments for people diagnosed with BPD (dialectical behavior therapy, or DBT) is influenced by zen buddhism, and one of the main figures - Marsha Linehan - claims to be a practicing zen buddhist as far as i understand. The treatment relies heavily on mindfulness practice, but there are also other ingredients involved in the treatment, some of which may be contrary to buddhist thought (the idea of emotional validation, or certain aspects of the interpersonal skills training for instance).
A lot more can be said about this, so consider my answer a scratch on the surface. Read it with a grain of salt.

I realize i kind of answered your questions in the opposite direction, i.e. what modern psychological understanding fits with buddhism. Hope this helps nevertheless.


text:
Mahasi Sayadaw Noting Method (mostly as taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikku): Help with mindfulness during daily activities?
I'm having immense troubles with maintaining mindfulness during the day. Is it really as simple as noting whatever is prominent? Do I just need to stick with it?
Generally, I'm confused as to what exactly to note / not note. For example....
When I'm walking around at my job, I see people whom I have a desire for to like me. Others, I don't care so much, and sometimes there is some disdain for these people.
In these times I feel like if I focus on and note the walking or movements of the body or tension in the body, I'm neglecting my attachment / aversion to the person I'm seeing, the unwholesome thoughts and feelings that have arisen, etc.- and vise versa! When I note the thoughts/feelings/tension etc, I feel like maybe I'm just making a stink out of stuff and causing more stress than is beneficial, but maybe I'm wrong.
These times sometimes seem like an endless stream of physical tension / mental anguish / restlessness, and it causes a lot of dysfunction and anxiety in me, and sometimes I just give up and ditch mindfulness until my next formal session, or at least until I get away from these people.
I'll admit that I've seemed to have had success with noting in these moments one time, the other day. Anxiety left me alone for a bit and I was able to joke around with some of these people who I tend to so desperately want to like me. I felt free of that desperate want for them to like me for a bit. That's certainly a step up from feeling paralyzed by anxiety, even if it is mostly just worldly pleasure.
But I still have so much doubt and hopelessness built up that I really would love to hear some other's experiences in these situations, hopefully someone who also practices Mahasi Sayadaw's noting method. Again I'd like to ask, because maybe I just need a kick in the pants, do I just need to stick with it? I've watched a video on how Yuttadhammo dealt with anxiety and he basically said "stick with it even though your body might be freaking out and it might even be obvious to those around you, and maybe you'll be having a terrible time. Eventually you'll get a handle on it". I'm very much paraphrasing. :)
Thanks in advance.

I'm not familiar with Yuttadhammo Bhikku, but from a short look at his teaching I believe the key is that one should not be noting things; one should be noting mind movements. For instance, looking at the discussion of vipassana on his website, he says this:

The Four Foundations of Mindfulness are:

Body: Noting the body while prostrating, walking, and sitting.
Feelings: Noting pain as “pain”, happiness as “happy” and calm as
  “calm”.
Mind: Noting thoughts about past or future – both good and bad – as
     “thinking”.
Dhammas: Noting hindrances as:

“liking”
“disliking”
“drowsiness”
“distraction”
“doubt”

Now, this is within the context of meditation, but notice the focus. He doesn't want you to notice (say) that you like the color of the head monk's robe; he wants you to notice that a feeling of 'liking' has arisen in you, without necessarily paying attention to the external focus of that feeling. You notice it arise, you notice it persist, you notice it fade...
Translate this to walking through your office: If you encounter a person whom you wish would like you, notice the desire to be liked rise in you. If you encounter a person you dislike, notice the disdain rise. If you have a moment of anxiety, notice the anxiety. You don't need to do anything other than notice. When you bring these large movements of the mind into conscious focus they will start to shift and dissolve of their own accord. Then you do it with more subtle mind-movements, and even more subtle ones, until your mind is perfectly calm and still.
Try to keep in mind that the people and things that you encounter do not cause the movements of your mind. You make them, when you form attachments to what these people and things represent to you, and those attachments drag through your mind like a rope pulled through water. Unless you notice the movement, you won't be able to see the attachment.

The Buddha taught mindfulness (is like a gatekeeper) that removes unwholesome thoughts and maintains wholesome thoughts & mental states. The Buddha taught the following about mindfulness:

One recollects that Dhamma (the Teaching of the Path) and thinks it over. Whenever ... recollects (brings to mind) that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused...
SN 46.3

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong thought/resolve & to enter & remain in
  right thought/resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta

For example, at work, you should be particularly mindful to practise right speech, namely, abstinence from false speech, abstinence from divisive speech, abstinence from harsh speech, abstinence from idle chatter.
The word 'mindfulness' ('sati') means 'to remember', 'bring to mind' or 'maintain in the mind' the teachings or the factors of the Path that was previously learned in the past. 'Mindfulness' does not mean to be aware of what is occurring in the present moment.
However, when mindfulness always keeps the mind wholesome, the mind will naturally or automatically be aware of what is occurring in the present moment.
Hopefully, if you only focus on: (i) keeping unwholesome thoughts out of the mind; (ii) maintaining wholesome thoughts in the mind; and (iii) practising right speech, then your practise in daily life will be much more simple, uncluttered & unconfusing for you.

According to the buddha  the result of mindfulness is the lack of ''covetousness and greed for the world''. Anxiety is not the result of mindfulness.
Anxiety and worry in pali is typically uddhaccakukkucca
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/encyclopedia-entries/uddhaccakukkucca.pdf
so first read this and the suttas which talk about uddhaccakukkucca. It is one of the 5 nīvaraṇas , ie hindrances.
And naturally the way to starve this hindrance is the opposite, ie passaddhi-sambojjhaṅga, ie tranquility, which concretely means the jhanas. http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/bojjhanga.htm
First you begin with mindfulness.
Try to be like Nanda:

be mindful of thoughts and avoid bad thoughts
be mindful of feelings and compare  feelings before the jhanas and after the jhanas (normally the feelings of the jhanas are better)
be mindful of perceptions and compare  perceptions before the jhanas and after the jhanas (normally the perceptions  of the jhanas are better)

you must be good at ''guarding of the doors of the senses'', at  sati , at sampajanna, at ''wakefulness'' at ''moderation in eating''
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.009.than.html
All this work is just for ''mindfulness''. Then you need to develop the other ''factors for enlightenment''
As usual with the buddha, samadhi and rapture and all that are brought up by ''mental factors'' https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn46-051.html
ie you have to work on your mind to get them. There is no physical objects which can get you into samadhi. You must directly work with the mind and clean it. Which concretely means having good thoughts [ie renunciation and non ill-will] all the time, which is normally what you do with ''mindfulness''.
then when your thoughts are good, the buddha says that rapture and samadhi will arise
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html

Yes I also practiced mental noting .And had situations like you speak .But I figured out after a long time that this technique is not a button that you can click on to connect or to be in mindfulness mode all the time.When used this way it turns into a reality that an illusive self is trying to project .Thus your ego is trying to be mindful and he is not satisfied with the results.So he keeps on asking where should my attention be,why didn't mental noting work this time .How can I stay or maintain that state .This is all conceptual illusion by the ego,to get more credibility .But actually the goal of mindfulness is not to gain anything but to lose all attachments including to that of the ego false person who wants to do or maintain things,thus there is an emptiness where everything can happen without a doer .
Mental noting can be good if you use it while mediating as an inquiry method that can eventually prove to you that all phenomenas are impersonal including the feeling of you as a person who wants certain results and feels life is doing things to him.


text:
What are the Wikipedia Pages for these Kangyur titles
Not knowing Tibetan or having access to a wide array of sources, I am using the (Tibetan script) Kangyur from these. The table of contents is here pretty much. After converting their Excel file to a CSV, I was able to find at least the English titles for "The Perfection of Wisdom in X Lines" series.
For example:

KL00012-001(eTB)
'PHAGS PA SHES RAB KYI PHA ROL TU PHYIN PA BRGYAD STONG PA
འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་བརྒྱད་སྟོང་པ།
The Exalted Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Arya Ashta Sahasrika Prajna Paramita)

Searching Google for the Sanskrit Romanization (I'm guessing), such as "Arya Ashta Sahasrika Prajna Paramita" yields no exact matches (no matter what romanization from what CSV line I search, I get no results). Google returns Prajnaparamita as the first result, which is correct ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ no idea how Google is doing that. It is technically correct in this case, even though there is not a direct text match between Prajnaparamita and Prajna Paramita, though, well, I guess it's pretty much exact. They get other ones with less similarity correct as well, at least the general category (that may have not been the best example). However, "Arya Ashta Sahasrika" returns nothing, I don't even know what that means (I don't know Tibetan or Sanskrit today).
Luckily I have spent hours on THLib to know that there is a document with the exact same Tibetan script title (འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་བརྒྱད་སྟོང་པ།) here. So that confirms -- in this case -- that the Kangyur "Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines" from asianclassics.org is correct, it matches something else on the web at least.
But searching for other Tibetan texts on Wikipedia returns language/orthography that is completely different from these two sites (asianclassics.org and thlib.org vs. wikipedia.org). For example, Wikipedia has a nice simple page called Diamond Sutra and even goes so far as to write out the Sanskrit name Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, using some romanization system which I am not familiar with. Looking back in the asianclassics.org CSV I made, there's no exact matches for those words, but there is Vajra in a few places, which leads to Vajrachedaka, which is pretty close to the Wikipedia Vajracchedikā. Again, not knowing Sanskrit or Tibetan, I am left guessing if they are the same.

Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
Arya Vajrachedaka Nama Prajna Paramita Mahayana Sutra

Seems like it could be the same thing. I'm not sure though.
Needless to say, this is my approach. I want to find some of the good/classic/standard/interesting/long Tibetan script texts in the Kangyur, based on what I've seen on Wikipedia, but I am not sure I am finding them correctly. Given that THLib's site is broken on most of the documents, we are left with asianclassics.org. So I wanted to ask, what are the Wikipedia titles for these asianclassics.org titles, (from the CSV)?

KL00001-001(eTB),'DUL BA GZHI 1,འདུལ་བ་གཞི་།,"Foundation of Vowed Morality, Part 1 (Vinaya Vastu 1)",༡  འདུལ་བ།/ཀ།
KL00007-111(eTB),'DUL BA GZHUNG DAM PA 1,འདུལ་བ་གཞུང་དམ་པ་།,"The Perfect Classic on Vowed Morality, Part 1 (Vinaya Uttara Grantha B, 1)",༡  འདུལ་བ།/ན།
KL00001-002(eTB),'DUL BA GZHI 2,འདུལ་བ་གཞི་།,"Foundation of Vowed Morality, Part 2 (Vinaya Vastu 2)",༡  འདུལ་བ།/ཁ།
KL00003-001(eTB),'DUL BA RNAM PAR 'BYED PA 1,འདུལ་བ་རྣམ་པར་འབྱེད་པ་།,"The Divisions of Vowed Morality, Part 1 (Vinaya Vibhangga 1)",༡  འདུལ་བ།/ཅ།
MDO,འཕགས་པ་བསྐལ་པ་བཟང་པོ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Book of the Eon of Good Fortune"" (Arya Bhadra Kalpika Nama Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཀ།
KL00133(eTB),'PHAGS PA DA LTAR GYI SANGS RGYAS MNGON SUM DU BZHUGS PA'I TING NGE 'DZIN CES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་ད་ལྟར་གྱི་སངས་རྒྱས་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་བཞུགས་པའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Meditation of the Buddha Who is Directly Present Now(Arya Pratyutpanne Buddha Sammukha Avasthita Samadhi Nama Mahayana Sutra),༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00134(eTB),'PHAGS PA BSOD NAMS THAMS CAD BSDUS PA'I TING NGE 'DZIN CES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO MDO,འཕགས་པ་བསོད་ནམས་ཐམས་ཅད་བསྡུས་པའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོ་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled A Meditation which Incorporates Every Virtue(Arya Sarva Punye Samuchaya Samadhi Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00135(eTB),RDO RJE'I TING NGE 'DZIN GYI CHOS KYI YI GE,རྡོ་རྗེའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་གྱི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་ཡི་གེ,A Word of Teaching on the Diamond Meditation (no Sanskrit),༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00136(eTB),'PHAGS PA KHYE'U BZHI'I TING NGE 'DZIN CES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་ཁྱེའུ་བཞིའི་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Meditation of the Four Youths"" (Arya Chatur Daraka Samadhi Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00137(eTB),'PHAGS PA TING NGE 'DZIN MCHOG DAM PA,འཕགས་པ་ཏིང་ངེ་འཛིན་མཆོག་དམ་པ།,"The Exalted Most Supreme of Meditations"" (Arya Samadhyagrottama)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00138(eTB),'PHAGS PA 'DUS PA CHEN PO RIN PO CHE TOG GI GZUNGS ZHES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་འདུས་པ་ཆེན་པོ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ཏོག་གི་གཟུངས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།,"An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Great Gathering, the Secret Formula of the Tip of Jewel"" (Arya Mahasannipata Ratna Ketu Dharani NamaMahayana Sutra)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00139(eTB),'PHAGS PA RDO RJE'I SNYING PO'I GZUNGS ZHES BYA BA THEG PA CHEN PO'I MDO,འཕགས་པ་རྡོ་རྗེའི་སྙིང་པོའི་གཟུངས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།," An Exalted Sutra of the Greater Way entitled The Secret Formula of the Essence of Diamond"" (Arya Vajra Manda Nama Dharani Mahayana Sutra)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
KL00140(eTB),'PHAGS PA SGO MTHA' YAS PA SGRUB PA ZHES BYA BA'I GZUNGS,འཕགས་པ་སྒོ་མཐའ་ཡས་པ་སྒྲུབ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་གཟུངས།,"An Exalted Secret Formula entitled, The Accomplishment of Infinite Goals"" (Arya Ananta Mukha Sadhaka Nama Dharani)""",༡༠  མདོ་མང་།/ཐ།
...

Specifically, in the CSV, I am looking for the various Mahayana Sutras.

Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
Infinite Life Sutra
Lotus Sutra
Pure Land sutras
Akṣobhyatathāgatasyavyūha Sūtra
Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra
Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra
Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā Sūtra
Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra
Bhadrapāla Sūtra
Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana Sūtra
Kāśyapaparivarta Sūtra
Lokānuvartana Sūtra

Or any other standard/key sutras which would be interesting.
The main thing is, I guess, what are the top 10 or 20 sutras in that CSV, and what are their "common" names so I can find out more info on them on Wikipedia?

I found most of the texts on Rigpa:
Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
Lotus Sutra
Pure Land sutras
Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra
Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra
Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sūtra
Kāśyapaparivarta Sūtra
Lokānuvartana Sūtra


text:
Doubts and Meditation
I am usually filled with common doubts (not necessarily doubts towards the dharma). My mind keeps forming thoughts that say: "Maybe things are like this! Maybe things are like that!" without much certainty.
I wonder: Does meditation help with such doubts, namely by preventing them from arising? I noticed when I am concentrated in meditation, on the breath, that thoughts rarely arise, and that I'm focused on sensory perception rather than this type of speculation.
Hence, does meditation remedy such hesitation and doubtful thoughts? If so does it do so by preventing them from arising? Or, does it do so by another mechanism.
Thank you.

When you are exploring an unknown land you don't waste time wondering 'Is it like this?' or 'Is it like that?', you just explore.

You can practice the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness:

These, bhikshus, are the four focusses of mindfulness that are to be cultivated for the abandoning
  of these five mental hindrances.

(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta
Also,

one understands and sees, as it really is, one’s own benefit,
one understands and sees, as it really is, others’ benefit,
one understands and sees, as it really is, the benefit of both

(Nīvaraṇa) Saṅgārava Sutta
One also can try developing the 7 Enlightenment Factors to overcome it. See: Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta
Wise attention can be used to overcome dought:

Bhikshus, no other single thing do I see, on account of which unarisen doubt does not arise,
  and arisen doubt is abandoned, as on account of this, bhikshus, namely, wise attention.
Bhikshus, through wise attention, unarisen doubt does not arise, and arisen doubt is abandoned.

Nīvarana,pahana Vagga
Also, do not feed dought. See: (Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta
Also see: Nivarana and Vicikiccha by Piya Tan

There is a wonderful sutta, SN24.4, which discusses stream-entry and beyond:

sn24.4: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’
sn24.4: What do you think, mendicants?
sn24.4: Is form permanent or impermanent?”
sn24.4: “Impermanent, sir.” …

And one of the interesting things about meditation is that one notices that very impermanence. Yes, doubts will arise. And just as surely they will fade away and disappear all on their own.
Unless you follow them.
But if you just watch them, minding your breath, you may notice that the breath keeps going while the doubts come and go. With constant awareness of breathing, we become more satisfied and settled in the impermanence of doubt. We become less prone to pursuing doubts. We simply just breathe and meditate.

What is to remedy as long as you don't  cling to the doubt? If you practice with momentary  concentration then you see the doubt  come and go. You won't see the doubt if you are too concentrated. If your attitude is, "Well, there it is,  that's what is there" then there is no attitude of clinging. There is nothing to do. There is no distraction because the distraction is what is.

A doubt is no different than a pain in your knee, a loud noise, or a cold room.  Simply turn your attention back to your object of meditation and any doubt will disappear on it’s own.  The only things that take us out of concentration are the things we give attention to.  Pay them no mind.
Meditation teaches the mind to avoid obstacles.  Over time, these things will lessen or cease to arise entirely.

Anapanasati will distance you from those thoughts due to exertion of effort to create a wholesome state by stilling the unwholesome formations. When you attain the first jhana thinking about doubt will be stilled on account of the power of wisdom, power of exertion and power of composure.
The distance is a thing and a wholesome is close to the wholesome and it is far from the unwholesome. Details on this are in the Abhidhamma.
The stilling of doubt can be tricky but the memorizing of expression so that one can penetrate the meaning is to an extent a must do.
Here on doubt from Sutta and the Vsm;
Doubt
A. Nourishment of Doubt
There are things causing doubt; frequently giving unwise attention to them — that is the nourishment for the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen, and for the increase and strengthening of doubt that has already arisen.— SN 46:51
B. Denourishing of Doubt
There are things which are wholesome or unwholesome, blameless or blameworthy, noble or low, and (other) contrasts of dark and bright; frequently giving wise attention to them — that is the denourishing of the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen, and of the increase and strengthening of doubt that has already arisen.
Six things conducive to the abandonment of doubt are as follows:

Knowledge and pondering of the Dhamma
Asking questions about the Dhamma
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct)
Firm conviction concerning the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
Noble friendship
Suitable conversation

In addition, the following are helpful in conquering Doubt:
Reflection, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
Wisdom, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
Investigation of reality, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).
C. Simile
If there is a pot of water which is turbid, stirred up and muddy, and this pot is put into a dark place, then a man with a normal faculty of sight could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by doubt, overpowered by doubt, then one cannot properly see the escape from doubt which has arisen; then one does not properly understand one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized — SN 46:55

This is called state of confusion( शंका or संदेह in hindi).
It usually arises due to lack of oxygen in brain. You need physical exercise like jogging or yoga in Open(not in Gym) area.
When Meditator put focus on breathing, s/he might put too much pressure without awareness of such. This pressure can be felt inside wind-pipe ,nearby Adams apple. Pressurized sticking of tongue with muscles behind upper jaws can also be observed. Brain might feel like heavy.
Good blood circulation, 1st exercise in fresh air then do meditation will help. Otherwise, good to do some free service involving hard physical work in shifts with meditation work.

This looks Off topic (not a Buddhist answer)

AndreiVolkov♦ May be , may be not. If questionnaire doesn't see it a right suggestion ,can be deleted. Above depicts physical relation with mind and remedy for same problem.

Well, we don't normally allow science answers, yoga answers, Christian answers - unless they also speak from Buddhist perspective.


text:
Buddhism, Symbolism, and Notions
In reading about Zen I see encouragement to question "notions". Understand them as to some extent misrepresenting the things they represent. The map is not the territory. I'm not sure how to interpret that and I can think of a couple different meanings.
Consider a statue like The Statue of Liberty. To some it represents a country with a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws and the statue is a lie. To others, it represents a land of opportunity, an escape from tyranny. To someone else, a statue is just a bunch of copper, the copper itself being made of atoms, the atoms made up of quarks. The statue has no "romantic" or "pessimistic" meaning.
Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"?
I could see the distinction mattering in terms of suffering. If you see a statue and it reminds you of unpleasant things, you suffer. If you just look at the statue and just see a bunch of copper, it won't make you suffer. If "All Emotions are pain", then even positive associations with the statue are a painful thing. Neutral associations like "The Statue is made of copper" seems to be of a different substance, a concept more directly "pointing at" what it refers to whereas the emotionally loaded notions in a since "point away".
Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"?

Buddhism discerns phenomena through the idea of skandhas, meaning that our experiences consists of five components. The rupa skandha pertains to material properties, and vedana regards the emotional qualities. Thus far these skandhas correspond to your example. Further, skandhas also consists of perception, mental factors, and consciousness.

Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

One purpose of understanding the world through the concept of skandhas is that we get a closer examination of what our perceptions actually consists of. Building on this, buddhism concludes that our experiences are ever transforming and impersonal, which in turn means that they're an unreliable base for understanding the world, and how to act in it, so yes, both notions - as well as the other skandhas - are crucial to be wary of. If we fail to realize this, suffering becomes a fact. Instead, breaking out of this illusion with the aid of the noble eightfold path is an alternative to liberate us from this suffering.

It does not matter if the Statue reminds us about freedom, or France, or poverty, or Trump's immigration policy, or copper and atoms - all of these are just thoughts and interpretations.
What matters is, are these thoughts harmonious ("conducive to peace" in Buddhist lingo) or do they have an element of dis-harmony in them, a seed of conflict or clash ("conducive to suffering"). Any time there is clash, there is suffering (assuming we take it seriously). This includes situations like e.g. the ethical or philosophical conflict between the Statue's Poem's message and the current immigration policy. This clash is a conflict of ideas in your mind and is a type of suffering. This also includes situation when two people with two conflicting sets of ideas look at the Statue and attempt to discuss what they see/think. If they are serious about taking their sides, the clash between their interpretations becomes suffering for both.
The point is, reification of our interpretation as reality is what actualizes the clash and makes it into suffering. Being acutely aware of the basic mechanism behind perceptional and interpretative conflicts leads to a more philosophical stance which does not create the basis for conflict and suffering.
Hence "the map is not territory" - because when we remember that map is mere map, we don't fight over whose map is reality (conflict=>suffering!), and we don't get frustrated when the landscape in front of our eyes mismatches our map-driven expectations (conflict=>suffering!).
So it's not about so-called "objective" (scientific) observation vs. symbolic meaning. It's about the relative nature of any and all observation, and not getting caught up in it as a way to peace.
The next question to ask is how does the Buddha see the Statue of Liberty and how should we see it if we want to be like the Buddha. At the first approximation, the right way to see the statue is from phenomenological perspective, as a stimulus for the process of interpretation. Thus the phenomenological perspective is the Buddhist equivalent of your seeing in terms of atoms - what scientific materialists would call the most objective mode of perception. Retaining mindfulness of the perceptual mechanisms at all times is an important stepping stone in the Buddhist practice.
The real perspective of Buddha is far more radical than seeing things in terms of their phenomenology. To explain this point, let me draw a parallel between our perspectives and the planetary model of atoms. If we compare any single interpretation to a specific location of the electron, then the Buddha's perspective is like seeing the entire electron cloud as its orbital function. Buddha integrates all known factors of interpretation without collapsing them into one simplified position.
This is why Buddha's perspective is not "conducive to suffering" and is as "conducive to peace" as possible - because the orbital function is never in conflict with any single position of the electron. Meaning, Buddha's perspective is never in conflict with any single human perspective, it is a superset of whatever is actually valid in each of them.
As my root guru once said,

Buddha is like a lawyer - sees situations from all sides at once.

Now, since you tagged your question with Four Noble Truths, let me map this back to them. Suffering is that experience when something is perceived as irreparably "wrong". The nature of suffering is conflict between "wrong" and "right" (or actual and expected, which is same thing). Origin of suffering is attachment to one of the sides and declaring it "right", "the way things are supposed to be". Cessation of suffering is peace that comes from not creating the conflict, through not attaching to a side, through transcending the limits of simplified positions. Path leading to cessation of suffering is methodical application of the principle of not creating conflict and the causes of conflict, hence not creating suffering and the causes of suffering - from coarse, to intermediate, to subtle.
Not creating long term causes of conflict is tricky. It's definitely NOT being a pushover always accepting other opinions. As said, it requires being above one-sided opinions, and in touch with reality behind all perspectives; being able to translate between different views. Above all, it requires being consistent at NOT letting confused one-sided agendas drive one's behavior.

I would just note that this avoidance of one-sided views is explained by Nagarjuna's metaphysics and doctrine of 'Two Truths'.  Extreme views would be unhelpful simply because they are wrong.

Or the other way - extreme views are considered wrong because, being one-sided, they are faulty and unhelpful.

You may have highlighted the difference I was getting at. I wasn't altering your words but It seems important sometimes to note that avoiding one-sided views is not just about their unhelpfulness or their tendency to cause friction but is a matter of avoiding wrong (and demonstrably wrong) views. I.e. not just a pragmatic matter but a philosophical/logical one. I feel this point is quite often missed.   .

I think most buddhist teachers would view this emotion/material distinction as a mistake. Thinking of the Statue of Liberty (SoL) as a lump of copper atoms is just as much a 'notion' as seeing it as a symbol of freedom or of tyranny, and is just as subject to emotional attachment. It may be a mere fact that the SoL is made out of copper, but that 'mere fact' is not something we would ever mention or think about except in an emotional context (e.g.: "Bob was trying to imbue that lump of copper with some kind of moral significance; how dumb is that?").
Notions themselves are not the problem; attachments are. We only worry about notions to the extent that notions are what we attach to. The SoL is a lump of copper, and a symbol of freedom, and a symbol of tyranny, and a work of art, and other things, all at the same time. It's only when we commit ourselves to one facet of the SoL being true and the others being false that we find ourselves mired in misery, because each of those facets is impermanent, and will betray our expectations.
Don't fall into the materialist fallacy. Mystical teachings are not about the world; they are about our relationship to the world.


text:
Where can I read the oldest and purest texts of Buddhism?
I happen to read this text from the Buddhist Catechism (which was written by Olcott, published 1881):

Q. What striking contrasts are there between Buddhism and what may be properly called "religions?"
A. Among others, these: It teaches the highest goodness without a creating God; a continuity of life without adhering to the superstitious and selfish doctrine of an eternal, metaphysical soul-substance that goes out of the body; a happiness without an objective heaven; a method of salvation without a vicarious Savior; redemption by oneself as the Redeemer, and without rites, prayers, penances, priests or intercessory saints; and a summun bonum, i.e., Nirvâṇa, attainable in this life and in this world by leading a pure, unselfish life of wisdom and compassion to all beings.

But any recent texts I read about Buddhism all make it appear as if Buddhism is no different from any other dogmatic religion. I understand that Buddhism also underwent a lot of changes due to local cultures and competition from other religions.
What I want to learn is the original core message of Buddhism before it was made into a religion. Where can I find texts for understand this message.

At the same time as ancient Buddhist texts, I hope others will recommend to you some modern texts since modern interpretations can help, including academic works by scholars whether Buddhist or not. It may help you to also learn about the Vedic religion and ancient Indian history. Some elements of Buddhism appear to exist as a reaction to Vedism. For example, were you to read Assalayana Sutta it may make more sense if you have an understanding of Brahmans, and castes in general, since a large portion answers a question about the brahman caste calling itself superior.

The original teachings are found in the Pali suttas, where the Refuge in the Dhamma (Teachings) is described as follows:

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in the here &
  now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.
SN 16.3

You start with the 1st three sermons of the Buddha, which are:

Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path
Three Characteristics
Three Defilements

Then:

Dependent Origination
Emptiness

Also, where the Buddha declares what exactly he uniquely teaches:

Handful of Leaves
"Suffering and the cessation of suffering"
Emptiness
Six elements; six bases for contact; eighteen mental examinations; and four noble truths

To understand the original teachings, the following words are best understood:
(i) "jati" ("birth") or "jatiya", which means "self/social identity".
(ii) "marana" ("death"), which means "death of identity".
(iii) "kaya" (often translated as "body"), which means "group" or "collection" of aggregates.
(iv) "nirodha", which can mean "cessation" but often means the cessation of ignorance & craving.
(v) "beings" ("satta'), which on a spiritual level refers to thought created "idea" or "view".
(vi) "dukkha". in relation to the four noble truths, "dukkha" means "suffering" or "stress"; in relation to the Three Characteristics of the 2nd sermon, "dukkha" means "unsatisfactoriness", "ungratifying" or "unable to bring true happiness"; in relation to feeling, "dukkha" means "painful" or "unpleasant".
Once the above is understood, you will be able to negotiate your way through the teachings.
You can read these book to help you:

Two Kinds of Language
Buddha-Dhamma for Students
The Shape of Suffering up to & including page 6
Nibbana For Everyone
Kamma in Buddhism

Wonderful post, but I don't necessarily agree with the most important words to understand. I would argue, dukkha, anatta, and anicca.  If one truly understands dukkha, one understands Buddhism.
+1 for The Shape of Suffering by Ajahn Geoff. All of his texts are extremely lucid

I added "dukkha" to the list of words. As for anicca and anatta, there words are straightforward. The words I have emphasised are the words commonly interpreted in superstitious ways; which prevent understanding the teachings properly.

Much of the original teaching, as remembered by students, is preserved in the Pali Canon.
The texts are there, but how to understand and interpret them remains subject to debate. There's no concensus on what the core Buddha's teaching was. There are at least 3-4 (if not more) different interpretations.
One interpretation is called Theravada, and it focuses on obvious literal meaning of Pali Canon. Another is what I call the Buddhadasa interpretation (represented by Dhammadhatu here on this site), which understands the texts metaphorically as speaking about mind. The third is Madhyamaka, which goes even further into what they say Buddha really meant behind what he said. Then there's Zen and Dzogchen which took the main points from Madhyamaka and threw away Pali Canon.
If you read some Pali Canon, you will see the first layer right away, what Theravada studies. If you try to connect it all together and understand how it all fits, you may rediscover some of the Buddhadasa's ideas on your own. Then if you are good at reading between the lines, you may notice that all of the Madhyamaka ideas come from the Pali Canon, too. Then, if you try to implement these ideas in practice, you will see that Zen and Dzogchen really know what they are doing.
There's no concensus on how deep the teaching goes. It's up to you to decide, how much of the inferred meaning is too much, and how far you want to go.
That said, in every group of Buddhists there are always people who stick to their tradition superficially, thus turning it into a religion. If you can be free from sectarianism, you can learn from each school and assemble the entire puzzle by yourself.

I agree with you that deeper study of Pali suttas lead to Buddhadasa's ideas and extrapolations lead to Madhyamaka.

It seems to me the question is based on false premises.
But any recent texts I read about Buddhism all make it appear as if Buddhism is no different from any other dogmatic religion. I understand that Buddhism also underwent a lot of changes due to local cultures and competition from other religions.
I don't know what you've read but I have never found a text suggesting Buddhism is a dogmatic religion unless it was written by as sceptical person with no knowledge.
There have been changes and the teachings will continue to be represented, repackaged and re-explained to suit the times, but the message has not changed a jot.
What I want to learn is the original core message of Buddhism before it was made into a religion. Where can I find texts for understand this message.
This is a matter of definitions. Nothing has changed. It always was a religion by a certain definition but not by other definitions. A good and well-known book is 'What the Buddha Taught'.
There is no method for determining the truth and accuracy of texts except by using your own knowledge and judgement. It would be hopeless (and not good practice) to imagine that someone else can tell you which texts are 'the core message' and which are not.
Some Buddhists argue that the Mahayana message is not 'core' some that it is. Only you can decide this matter. It would be more or less suicidal for a practitioner to trust other people to tell them which texts are important and which should be ignored except in very obvious cases. There would be no consensus on this forum as to which texts give the core message and which not or even what the core message is. This is as it should be, since we cannot read it in a book, or at least cannot be sure our interpretation of the book is correct. So as usual this is all about practice and the pursuit of knowledge that does not come from books. Armed with this we are then able to judge the books for ourselves.
For a start one would have to be able to judge the claim that Theravada is the correct doctrine and Mahayana is not. This is not a question that can be answered just by asking an expert but takes time and work. If you ask an expert you still won't know whether their answer is correct.
Just thinking out loud and I'm not sure this is particularly helpful.
EDIT: I'd recommend the Bhagavad Gita but that might be contentious. I'll mention my usual recommendation which is 'The Sun of Wisdom' by Kenpo Tsutrim Gymatso but this is rather more philosophical than practical. Or maybe 'Abhidhamma Studies' by Nyanaponika Thera. I read the suttas as Mahayana texts so could recommend them. A good book on Zen might be useful so perhaps 'Three Pillars of Zen' by Philip Kapleau or something similar.

What the Buddha Taught seems to be based on the Pali suttas. Then you mention "the Mahayana message" and, I'm not sure, you say there's some argument about whether it's "core" -- but I don't see you mention what "the Mahayana message" is and what texts or books if any it's associated with?

@ChrisW - Quite so, I've added an edit.

Below is the core of buddhism which extracted from Saccabihanga sutta

"What is meant by not getting what one desires, that too is suffering?
  To beings subject to birth there comes desire: 'O might we not be
  subject to birth, and birth not come to us.' But this cannot be
  attained by mere desiring. So not getting what one desires, that too,
  is suffering. To beings subject to aging there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to aging, and aging not come to us...' (as
  before). To beings subject to disease there comes the desire: 'O might
  we not be subject to disease and disease not come to us...' To beings
  subject to death there comes the desire: 'O might we not be subject to
  death and death not come to us...' To beings subject to sorrow,
  lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair there comes the desire: 'O
  might we not be subject to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and
  despair, and sorrow, lamentation, suffering, misery, and despair not
  come to us.' But this cannot be attained by merely desiring. So not
  getting what one desires that too is suffering.

But in above translation it is written with the word too (that too1 is suffering). But in pali cannon there's nothing like that. It just say, not getting what one desires (yampiccan na labhathi thampi dukkhan). The equal meaning to this in english would be insatiable meaning.
This is the core of the real buddhism, once you understand then you will get a complete different picture about noble truths, dependent origination etc..
And one other correction should be, above explanation is given thinking jathi as birth of living beings, jara as aging of living beings. But that's not 100% correct, in dhamma what is highlighted as birth jathi is the birth of thoughts (good and bad both). And when you are in the right track you will get more wider picture on this. It's bit hard to explain here. If you are interested visit the this website.
Due to the most of the misguided people this real dhamma is hidden. That's the nature of it. That's why it says Buddha is a very rear person who comes to the world only once for a long long time period. And exposed the reality (dhamma) of this world, which only buddha can be realised without help of anyone. So no need to worry about that.
NOTE: Interesting question from someone who really wants / tries to understand the buddha's message. This answer might be down voted as it doesn't understand by the majority in this forum. Anyway I wrote it though I'm to be given down votes as it seems you are seeking the truth of the world.

a method of salvation without a vicarious Savior;

this is not false, but people need a buddha to hear about the dhamma, which can be seen as a revelation, like when there is some prophet revealing some teaching to people.
For instance the people who keep saying that ''mediation is enough'' to be enlightened are competently wrong.
Even if people were skilled at whatever samadhi they cultivate,  they would fail be enlightened, since they did not hear about the dhamma and then investigate  for themselves the cause of the arising of dukkha and the cause of the cessation of dukkha.
Anyway, since there was always a vinaya and some bikkhus told by the buddha how to live and what rules to follow, it can be said that that the dhamma is a religion, at least for the bikkhus.
But since there is not what people crave the most, ie  cults, rituals, arts, entertainment, symbols, philosophy, as meritorious activities, even less for enlightenment, you can say that the dhamma is not religion, especially for lay people.
Currently people do not talk about pre-religion buddhism and post religious. They talk about pre-sectarian buddhism and post-sectarian buddhism, which is taken to mean before and after some council long time ago, eg after the 2nd council.

For the oldest texts which are easily available in english, it would be as usual the texts in pali,  ie some texts from this long list

and in more details here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_Texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

There is also the ''Ashoka's edicts'', since people currently date them to the year -250 and one edict mentions what Ashoka thought people should read. Of course people have tried to found those texts in the suttas in pali.

https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf

There is disagreement amongst scholars concerning which Pali suttas correspond to some of the text. Vinaya samukose: probably the
  Atthavasa Vagga, Anguttara Nikaya, 1:98-100. Aliya vasani: either the
  Ariyavasa Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, V:29, or the Ariyavamsa Sutta,
  Anguttara Nikaya, II: 27-28. Anagata bhayani: probably the Anagata
  Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, III:100. Muni gatha: Muni Sutta, Sutta Nipata
  207-221. Upatisa pasine: Sariputta Sutta, Sutta Nipata 955-975.
  Laghulavade: Rahulavada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya, I:421.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammika/wheel386.html

There is a general consensus on the Buddhist Canon, loosely these texts are thus classified;
Samyutta Nikaya, Mahjjima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Digha Nikaya are the 'core canonical texts' and the search for proto-canonical texts has not yielded any results.
Peri Canon;
Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata, Patimokkha, Kuddhakapatha, Udana, Vimanavatthu, Theragatha, Therigatha, Niddesa, Patisambhiddamagga, Apadana, Buddhavansa, Cariyapitaka
Quasi Canon would include works like Vinaya and Abhidhamma books as well as;
Suttavidhanga, Khandaka, Parivarapali, Milindapanha, Suttasangaha, Petakompadesa, Petavatthu, Nettipakarana and Jataka.
Afaik some of the Quasi Canonical texts are not universally accepted as the Pali Canon among Theravadins, ie Milindapanha is generally not included in 'the canon' outside of Myanmar and 'Jataka' lit means 'causing confusion' so my impression is that the collection is hardly given any authority.
As for works specific to a school like the Abhidhamma, these would be school specific and there is no consensus on the status of these works even within the school itself like Theravada ie wherein many Bhikkhus would reject Abhidhamma books, let alone Abhidhamma, people frequently question the autheticity of even the Digha Nikaya and particular discourses generally included in the core canon but it is only a not so impressive minority of people who go that far in entertaining their delusions.
You can find the translations for most of these texts available as pdfs online and sites like suttacentral and accesstoinsight. I recommend Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations because they are, as i see it, the most litteral and thus free from personal interpretations being put in as a translation.

From ancient times to the present, the Dhammapada  has  been  regarded  as  the  most  succinct  expression of the Buddha’s teaching found in the Pali Canon and the chief spiritual testament of early Buddhism. ~ Bhikkhu Bodhi

Free translations exist online:

Acharya Buddharakkhita
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Daw Mya Tin
Narada Maha Thera
Weragoda Sarada Maha Thero
F. Max Muller
Albert J. Edmunds
Ānandajoti Bhikkhu

You can read "the original" Pali and compare various translations on neatnik.net

The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men.

~v97

Not despising, not harming, restraint according to the code of monastic discipline, moderation in food, dwelling in solitude, devotion to meditation — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

~v185

His passion, aversion, conceit, & contempt, have fallen away —
  like a mustard seed from the tip of an awl: he's what I call [someone of worthy conduct and spiritual maturity1].

~ v407
1 Gil Fronsdal's translation of brāhmaṇa / brahmin in the context of this chapter.


text:
Buddhism and Integrative Complexity
I noticed a coincidence between something I read in a book by Thich Nhat Hanh, and an article on research about a psychological phenomenon known to facilitate inner and outer peace. My question is: What Buddhist concepts are similar or have something in common with the "integration" and "differentiation" phenomenon mentioned below? My guess is emptiness and impermanence, I could be wrong about those and doubtless there are others.
Here's the coincidence.
Years ago I was reading Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh. I found it had my mind going in many interesting directions.
I saw some parts of the book, like those describing impermanence, encouraging the Differentiation of things. A book isn't a book. It's made of wood and glue, was put together by a machine somewhere and hauled to the book store by a guy in a truck. The book is made up of many non-book elements. Everything changes, so the book itself isn't even that book over the smallest amount of time depending one which features you choose to measure.
But there was also a call for Integration. Even as we distinguish between the book and the truck and the guy hauling the books in the truck to the bookstore, they are all part of the process leading to the experience of reading the book. The book might have one meaning to one reader, and a different meaning to a different reader. So many things depend on the context bringing them together. The same elements at a different time and place produce a different experience. The individual elements create the here and now into a unified whole, any part of which alters the thing when changed.
With my math background I was inclined to think of these things as Integration and Differentiation, just as helpful mnemonics, they are pretty different from the math concepts.
A few months back I was reading about Integrative Complexity.
"The measure of integrative complexity has two components: differentiation and integration. Differentiation refers to the perception[or weighing] of different dimensions[or qualities] when considering an issue. Integration refers to the recognition of cognitive connections among differentiated dimensions or perspectives.1"
It has some things in common with what Thich Nhat Hanh was talking about, in terms of understanding of all things as composed of not-that-thing elements. One can find similarities in different things, and differences in similar things. The interplay of those techniques are proving conducive to both inner and outer peace according to the researchers.

While I don't have any comments on the individual concepts of Differentiation and Integration, reading that wikipedia article about Integrative Complexity as a style of thinking - strikes me as being very similar to the "Buddha can see from all perspectives" idea I presented in my answer here.
Quoting the wikipedia:

Integrative Complexity is ...recognition and integration of multiple perspectives and possibilities and their interrelated contingencies.
For example, it could take the form of explaining why someone may view an event in a different way or in what ways a compromise could be made between conflicting values.

So by this definition Buddha is the champion of Integrative Complexity.
That said, these parts:

Integratively complex thinkers are also more prone to defer to others or put off making a decision when faced with difficult cost–benefit decisions.

and

Additionally, while integratively complex thinkers are more likely to reach a mutually advantageous compromise when dealing with reasonable opponents, unreasonable opponents are much more likely to be able to exploit them.

-- do not sound relevant at all. Perhaps whoever wrote this did not realize that one's ability to integrate diff. perspectives does not preclude one from having clear agenda. Buddha knows what is ultimately good (cessation of suffering!) and has no problem utilizing his Integrative Complexity skills to use people's own motives to their ultimate good.
So perhaps we could say that Buddha is the champion of Integrative Complexity AND ethics.

An opened mind freed from worries and stresses has more space to understand things that catches its attention.
This includes seeing the painful actions of others more clearly.

There is an important notion of conjoinment and differentiation in the discoursed.
Discernment and consciousness are conjoined elements; what one discerns that one cognizes but consciousness is to be understood and the latter developed. They are conjoined but are not the same thing, having delineated the difference it is still not possible to separate them.
An analogy i can offer is that of the Doppler Effect and Sound. The two are conjoined but are not the same and it is not possible to take them apart for that sound is the effect and the effect is sound.
There is this famous thought experiment where an observer watches a passing train being struck by two lightnings simultaneously on each end and in due time comparing his observation to a person located inside the train to whom it would appear as if the front of the train was hit by the lightning first, preceeding the second strike, that is because he was in motion and the light from the first lightning made contact with the external eye & consciousness elements before the second eventuality, thus the expression of causes coming into play is different.
Herein both the internal and the external contact are understood to come into play but both the external& internal elements are conceived and perceived internally. It is by analyzing what your senses present that one analyzes the world with it's internal and external elements to make sense of what the senses present and how it happens.

Interesting idea in regards to the realm of form, but it has little to do with emptiness or the experience of shunyata.  What is left when there is no perceiver, no object, no components, and no form?  When you can point to that, you’ll have identified what Thay was talking about.
See the following:
CASE 3 of the Mumonkan
GUTEI'S FINGER
Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A boy attendant began to imitate him in this way. When a visitor asked the boy what his master had preached about, the boy raised his finger.
Gutei heard about the boy's mischief, seized him and cut off his finger with a knife. As the boy screamed and ran out of the room, Gutei called to him. When the boy turned his head to Gutei, Gutei raised up his own finger. In that instant the boy was enlightened.
When Gutei was about to die, he said to the assembled monks,"I received this one-finger Zen from Tenryu. I used it all my life and yet could not exhaust it" and then he passed away.
Mumon's Comment:
Where Gutei and the boy attained enlightenment is not at the tip of the finger itself. If this simple truth is not comprehended, Tenryu, Gutei, the boy and you also will be bound together once and for all.
Gutei made a fool of old Tenryu,
With the sharp blade he did simply harm the boy.
That's nothing compared to the Mountain Spirit when he raised his hand
And split Kasan (the great mountain) in two.

The impermanents come only with arisable-reality.
The perspective of something can be reality or not.
A present thing must be depending on  widely factors. The factors could be widely present, past, and future factors.
When each factor is present, it has widely factors as well.
Every arisable-reality must has its own factors.
Every arisable-reality is difference from the others, but is same impermanent, suffering, and uncontrollable.


text:
What is "Pattichha Samuppadha" in buddhism
i want clarification about what is "patichcha samuppada" its in
"Anekajati sansaram  sandhavissam anibbisam
Gahakarakam gavesanto dukka jati punappunam"
“This tour, this cycle of existence, has run
 through numerous births without encountering,
 looking for the builder, the creator of the world
 and self. For, repeated birth is painful.”
Link

Dependent Origination explains how everything is a result of the previous action. (Sankhara)It does not explain how it began. Hover it explain how it can be ended.

then how it began

@ORBIT A valid question. No one knows how, unfortunately.

You don't have to know who build the house to break it.

ignorance is the bilder right?

Agree. It is the Dependent Origination. Each builder use the skills of the previous builder

Pratityasamutpada means "gradual auto-emerging". It describes the process by which a newborn baby develops subjective experience of "I" and "desirable/undesirable objects" and "the world".
Information is an ever-present part of the universe. All physical interactions carry information. As these interactions have some amount of regularity (they repeat in patterns) - the baby accumulates information.
As information accumulates, it becomes more and more complex and integrated, until it can reflect or represent something about the world. Now it can be called "mind".
This process evolves until it culminates in recognition, when the baby can recognize something from before, and associations when it can relate things that were somehow connected before.
The process evolves further until the baby develops notions of objects or entities, each having a stable identity. The baby begins classifying these objects as "desirable" and "undesirable" based on experience of peace or disturbance that they bring. It starts pursuing desirable objects and avoiding undesirable.
Then gradually the baby develops a notion of "I", as the subject that experiences contact with the objects, and as the entity that pursues an object and enjoys the result.
In the baby's mind there is entire world, with people, objects, problems, and happy moments. It grows, matures, gets old, and dies.
Then the cycle restarts when a new baby is born. It starts from scratch again, going through the same process. This goes on indefinitely.
Every generation starts with complete ignorance of the fact that nothing completely disappears and nothing appears from scratch, and that everything keeps transforming from one form to another. Every person grows up assuming that he or she is completely separate from everyone and everything else. Then they begin pursuing some selfish goals and fighting with each other. The cycle repeats on and on.
If only they knew that this world of separation is an illusion! They would teach their children to live differently! No pursuit of stupid material goals, no fear of death, no fighting, no murdering the planet! But they don't know and so the cycle goes on and on and on...
This is "the cycle of existence" that "has run through numerous births".

Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising — which comes from several different causes and conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases — has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, like the flow of a river. - The Rice Seedling Sutra.

Now, if you look at this process from afar, you will see that it's not really about an individual baby, it is about the overall pattern of subjective experience emerging from information and then taking its model of reality for reality itself. The exact way this happens, the reason it relates to Buddhist Ethics, and the way to undo it, is the heart of hearts of Buddhism.

'Paṭicca+sam+uppāda' means 'dependent+co+origination'. It refers to 12 conditions that arise together to result in sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair, as explained in the scripture SN 12.2.
It others words, it does not describe some conditions in the past, some conditions in the present & some conditions in the future and it is not about reincarnation or past and future lives. It is about 12 conditions that arise in the present that result in sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. The Buddha said about dependent co-origination:

Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be
  seen here & now, immediate, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves.
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

Anekajātisaṃsāraṃ sandhāvissaṃ anibbisaṃ gahakārakaṃ gavesanto dukkhājātipunappunaṃ is about the mind cycling/spinning in "births". The word "birth" ("jati") means "identity", which is a fixed view of self or "beings" ("satta") born from attachment & craving. The "builder of the house" ("gahakārakaṃ") is craving; is all twelve conditions of dependent origination.
Therefore, in terms of Dependent Origination, "identity" ("birth") means things attached to called "acquisitions" ("upadhi"), as follows:

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
  subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
Ariyapariyesana Sutta

"Identity" includes attachments such as "myself", "my life", "my mother", "my father", "my sister", "my daughter", "my brother", "my son", "my friend", "my car", "my computer", "my money", etc.
When these attachments are lost because of impermanence, the idea of "death" arises, such as the "death of my mother", "death of my father", "death of my son", "death of myself".
Because of this "death", there is  sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and suffering.
Therefore, when Buddha destroyed the house-builder of craving & dependent origination, the Buddha also destroyed "identity" or "self". When there is no "identity", there is no "death" and no suffering.
The scriptures say:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I
  shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I
  shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is
  a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By
  overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace.
  And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is
  not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by
  which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing,
  how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken,
  why should he yearn?
Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta

If it's the impermanence then, why some people feel happy when his partner is dead? Or when Bin laden is dead only few people were sad, almost all of the world were happy. So impermanence (death) brings sorrow etc...?

Why? because of no attachment. The suttas say attachment causes birth & death. If you are not attached with love to Bid Laden, you don't suffer. I did not say impermanence brings sorrow.

why not you've mentioned that: "when thses attachments are lost because of impermanence ..... because of this there is sorrow" If impermanence is nothing to do with sorrow then why impermanence is mentioned here?

i did...........