In theory you could make up a whole lot of bullshit about how Christianity is all about the love and only the New Testament and only about what Jesus and his disciples say, but that's theory, not practice. In theory Buddhism is all happy nirvana-seeking attachment-denying goodness, but in practice it's just as narrow-minded as any brand of Christianity I've seen. And let's not forget the endless religious wars fought in the name of Buddhism. (Just look at what happened to the Manichaens in China during Buddhist rule, or for a more relevant and contemporary example, the Buddhists who burn Christian effigies and loot Christian shops in South Korea.) Sure, a few practitioners could come up with their own vanilla-flavoured white-washed version of Buddhism, but Buddhism practiced on a wide scale, Buddhism that believes in manifestations of bodhisattvas and such doesn't strike me as any more enlightened or tolerant than any other religion.

So anyway, thank you.

The Lama rule of Tibet was one where class oppression was heavily enforced. Its ironic that the western left are so quick to yell "free Tibet" and follow the Dalai Lama - when Lama rule meant slavery and total lack of freedom for 95% of that country's population.

That's the worst defense of religion (or anything else) that I have ever heard. Do you have that attitude about, say, drugs that have been shown to kill too many patients in trials, or food that's gone rotten, or wars where lots of civilians are killed? Slavery? Oppression of the many to benefit the few? Climate change because powerful nations enjoy living excessively?

Yes, let's always ignore bad things and only acknowledge good things. If there's a negligible and highly-debatable "upside" to anything, that's all that matters.

Attachment, as I understand it, is like addiction; there's nothing wrong with having money as long as having money isn't so important to you that you cannot be happy without it. Having sex - of any sort, with whomsoever you choose - is great, as long as you can be happy without it as well. I love my vibrator, and it's better than a coffee to put me in a good mood for the morning, but if I don't have it with me, that's ok too. If I couldn't get out of bed in the morning without that vibe, or if doing so left me in a bad mood all day, then it would be attachment, and no healthier than an "attachment" to cigarettes or cocaine.

As for the Dalai Lama being homophobic - one of the other core Buddhist teachings is to not take anything on faith, no matter who says it. To think for yourself, and show compassion to all. The Dalai Lama says some very insightful and wise things, and if he also says some hateful and unwise things, then surely we can learn to take the good and ignore the bad? His own religion and writings demand that we do no less.

It would be really nice if I could briefly sum up Buddhism, wouldn't it! But, amazingly, I can't. The issue I have with what you say in your article (but not in the comment, where you specify "worldly" pleasure) is that you don't acknowledge the possibility of pleasure in Buddhist practice itself. And we are, sometimes, talking about an awful lot of pleasure. The difference being that this pleasure is a by-product of practice, not the goal of the practice.

It's great that you have your wonderful and varied sexual outlets, and I agree with you that they should be available for all. But speaking for myself, sometimes I just don't get what I want. And when that happens, do I want to let my attachment to sex make me miserable, or do I want to try and examine it and see what's really going on inside me? Is that sex-negative or sex-positive?

"Saying "the right thing" when you're trying to win the support and money of liberal westerners doesn't count, in my book". Of course it counts. It's a whole lot more than Ratzinger's ever done. If the DL is, indeed, a filthy black-hearted homophobe, then getting him this far is a good first step. Let's keep going, not start a witch-hunt.