Is the world inherently good or is it something to be shunned? Reading most of the responses given here related to my question and also reading many suttas it seems to me that there are two contradictory views. I don't want to name any school of thought, I don't think I'm qualified to do so, however, when one read, for example, Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh it seems clear that this world is to be abandoned, and everything we do is inherently gross and scary to say the list, but there are many responses given in this platform and I may even cite some suttas that view this world as a in harmony and perfect.

In short, according to this latter view, the world is perfect it's the mind which is f**kedup ; a worldview akin to Taoism or Stoicism in the west where everything is perfect except the deluded mind. 

My question is how do these two seemingly incompatible view work in Buddhism or should these be viewed as ideas propounded by different schools of thought? 



I have got three response up-to now; @ruben2020 think the world to be indifferent, @Andrei Volkov believe that the world is good and for @ ChrisW the question is wrong and to be avoided as an extreme view. 

However, when one read most of the Suttas such as the Adittapariyaya Sutta and many more the teaching seems to gravitate towards negative view of the world or at list the Suttas instruct us to sail very close to the view of seeing the world as bad. So, i'm going to live the question open as unanswered.
In Buddhism, there is the notion that we can use a skillful technique or theme of thinking, which is the best technique or theme of thinking that it is suited for a particular situation, for a particular purpose, to cater for a particular need. Some of these techniques may be mutually exclusive or contradictory to each other.

It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry, sometimes you need to broil, sometimes you need to grill and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques may appear to contradict each other, but are used at different times to achieve different results.

First example:

For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it.

Second example:

The Buddha taught that not everything we experience is caused by what we did in this answer. This is the Buddha teaching anatta, so that we can let go of the self-view.


  Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." ...  He then said
  "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it): being one
  existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then
  one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one makes (it),
  another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by feeling, his
  suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".


But in some cases, for other practitioners, it might be useful to think that we are the creators, owners and heirs of our kamma. The Themes Sutta has many examples of different themes of thinking and what problems can be resolved by such ways of thinking. One of those is to think that what we experience is caused by what we did, in order to eradicate unvirtuous habits.


  “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.


Now back to your question ...

Based on this, I would say that thinking of the world as disgusting and to be abandoned is a technique to be used if you're addicted to the pleasures of the world. But if you're depressed and negative about the world, then its useful to think about the world as being beautiful and harmonious but it's only your thinking that's the problem.

What is the inherent nature of the world? It is neither good or bad, or ugly or beautiful. It simply is conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca) i.e. everything in the world is always changing being influenced by other things.

This is also corroborated by physics - everything in the universe changes, influenced by everything else, including space, time, matter and energy. These can be seen in the consequences of General Relativity and Special Relativity, e.g. curvature of space-time, time dilation, gravitational waves and, equivalence of matter and energy.

In most Mahayana Buddhism schools, the inherent nature of the world is emptiness. See this answer for details.