>>2810542By metaphysics I do not mean ontology, but the type of (obsolete) thinking that mind has intuitive access to intelligible realities that exist in themselves, and which has the pretension of extracting predicates of necessity from such abstract realities that apply to particular entities. For example, since intelligibly the relation of cause-effect require a primal substance in order to make sense of further things, as everything is always the consequence of something that happened before it, then one may conclude that there must be necessarily be a primal uncaused cause in order for the world to make sanse and have integrity. It is in this sense that buddhist thought is metaphysical, since it claims to know realities such as previous lives, metempsychosis, spiritual worlds such as pure lands and etc.
And when I said that the sutra/tantra and layers of commentaries format is troublesome, I didn't say so because of some notion of authorial legimitimacy. This is, in fact, only a Buddhist concern and legitimization strategy, that western-style thinking since Socrates has completely rejected, establishing the sole legitimacy of the concepts' immanent content, systematicity, coherence… Of course, this principle didnt always function in full force in all western history, but it was always available and consistently effective, until it gained full recognition after the advent of modernity, at least virtually so. If buddhist philosophy had achieved this, what we can call "the absolute sovereignty of the concept (in spite of great religious-style figures)" it would be a philosophy on the same footing as western style thinking, but befause of its monastic, religious, doctrinal character, it remains powerless and will be always deconstructed and anylized and integrated by philosophy, not viceversa. This is why I recommend anons to stick to Buddhist meditational practice, over which it still has a monopoly so to say, and leave as secondary it's philosophy.