DT: I think it's a misguided and mundane interpretation.
On the other hand, if by 'metaphysics' one means the study of existence and being, then it is somewhat bizarre to suggest that the buddah was disinclined to indulge in such. The suggestion that the buddah engaged in some kind of scientifically empirical methodology as opposed to the above 'metaphysics' is doubly so.
maestro: Buddha's theories about the being and mind ultimately derive their validity from the practice of mindfulness. What is so bad about an empirical methodology that you have such an extreme prejudice against it.
Mate, I am a scientist.
Seriously, how on earth did you derive the conclusion that I have an extreme prejudice against science from what I said? There's no basis for it there whatsoever. It's just gross misinterpretation, again.
As I said, the practice of mindfulness is not a scientifically empirical methodology. You are confusing the philosophical discipline of empiricism with the scientifically empirical. Any good scientist would never make that mistake. There is a big difference. What you've basically said is that the buddah observed and theorized about said observations. That is only the beginning of the scientific method. This is to say nothing of the the potential for objectivity (an essential component of the truly scientific method) when considered from a necessarily subjective viewpoint.
And now you're saying that he was a metaphysician, an ontologist, whereas your original claim was that buddah was somehow counselling against what he actually did - metaphysics - and what you refered to as "building a ironclad, absolute logical philosophy as people here seem to be so hung up about"
, which again is actually exactly what the buddah was doing when he came to his metaphysical conclusions.
You also failed to address my assertion about the weak formulation of metaphysics. This is why I refered to the suggested interpretation as mundane and redundant.
You cut it out when you quoted me for some reason. Here it is again:
If by 'metaphysics', one means nebulous philosophy and considering questions such as "Is there a God?"; then is it not redundant to cite this passage as evidence of disinclination to indulge in such, when so much is obviously evidenced by its complete absence throughout the entirity of the buddha's words?
And this was the definition of metaphysics you were employing originally don't forget.
DT: The lesson is not about refraining from indulging in metaphysics. Rather it is about staying focussed and the detrimental effect thereon of indulging in anything outside of the object of that focus.
The suggested interpretation is therefore a perfect example of exactly what is advised against in the quote. And if it's often cited amongst Buddhists as you suggest, then that's a deliciously ironic example of religious tendencies.
maestro: It seems the quote is clear enough first find a cure for your suffering as soon as possible, and then inquire about god, soul and the universe.
No, the message is concentrate only on finding a cure for your suffering. That's it. No then do this, then do that or then do anything. It is most especially not about "then inquiring about god, soul and the universe"
as you say in your very next sentence:
And in fact he subtly hints that such questions are going to disappear of their own accord, when suffering ends.
Exactly. So why would he then be suggesting that the enlightened person would "then inquire about god, soul and the universe"
? This is a clear contradiction.