Actually, I hit it right on the head.
For obvious reasons, Tibetans when talking to wooly-headed liberals (to be a little redundant) tend to emphasize their religion’s esoteric and philosophical aspect, while downplaying its earthier and more mundane ones. But it is certain that worship of actual deities is extremely common in Tibet itself, complete with sacrifices, even if the monks and lamas explain it away metaphirically.
In fact, Tibetan Buddhism is a blend of Bon, a shamanistic pre-Buddhist religion and Mahayama Buddhism. Obviously, different groups and individuals will emphasize different aspects of that blend. In fact, a good many Buddhists of SE Asia, where the more “pure” Theravada version is atill practiced, don’t consider the Tibetans to be Buddhists at all.
Were there no gods in ancient Greece or Rome, simply because some of the philosophers explained them away as metaphors or aspects of the single Divine? Is the same true today in Hinduism? Do the thousands of deities worshipped with great devotion by hundreds of millions of Hindus not exist because some Hindus who are more educated and embarassed by polytheism explain their gods away similarly?
I think not.
I would suggest your categorical statement as to what Tibetan Buddhism is, and therefore is not, is more than a little odd. As far as I’m aware, Buddhists have nothing resembling a formal statement of doctrine or dogma similar to the various Creeds of Christians. So categorical denials seem a little out of place.
ROTFLOL That is all absolute bullshit. All of it. I am not a wooly-headed liberal and neither is my teacher. You’re a great example of the old saw “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Except that you’re not really dangerous.