Buddhism basically is agnosticism, but it ain't monolithic there's a lot of varieties and some are almost indistinguishable from deity-worship.
I'd be down with it if it weren't for the aesceticism, I'm too much of a decadent hedonistic neurotic. I'll never reach nirvana with all the baggage I'm carrying.
You refer to the buddhist concept of emptiness, that all things in an objective reality have no value, and that it's people and their subjective perception of things that end up giving thing value, and thus end up suffering from it. Example: a pencil for a dog is a piece of wood, but for us it's an instrument for writing, so we are giving the pencil a value of utility. Same goes with friends and people we give our affection, we create these values on these people, and when they disappoint us, we suffer.
Jamie has given alcohol a very extreme value, and he's been attached to it and dependent to it. When really alcohol is this substance that should have no significance at all, in an objective reality. It's just that us humans, inevitably end up putting value on things and then end up fucking shit up and suffer.
Buddhist monks take this concept to the extreme and real significance, and follow asceticism. But the regular buddhist person don't follow this to its extreme. What I'm trying to say is that for us, normal people who fall in love and may have addicting tendencies to whatever, it is very useful to understand the concept of emptiness, to avoid great suffering once these things we give value betray us.
Also Buddhism is monolithic itself: it's the Buddha and his teachings.
Thing is that to make it accessible to people in the past, it has been combined with the religions/traditions at the time. In Tibet, the deities that we see in their gompas belong to the previous Bon tradition. When Buddhism was introduced in Tibet, it was made cohesive with the religion of the time.
It's also true that even in Tibet there are 4 branches of Buddhism... the Dalai Lama belongs to one of them, the yellow hats (in western slang). I don't know where the differences lie. If it is a historical dispute, an interpretative dispute, etc.