However, I still can't discredit the possibility that a higher purpose that the Dalai Lama has to lift Dorje Shugden higher and farther throughout the world seemed like another exciting possibility. If it was not, than we really question the entire lineage of the great Mahasiddhas that continue to inspire us with Tantric vision of perfection that always lie outside the framework of what we ordinarily think is right or wrong. I know! Such an explanation can hardly justify what the Dalai Lama is doing yet I dwell in this notion still, perferring this view to escape the insanity of anger.
Ah, now I see the basis from which you have written some of your posts. I think (and please do correct me if I have seen it wrongly), that you have given yourself only two possibilities: Either (1) the DL is a supreme holy being, whereby all his actions have a greater purpose, unseen beneficial aim, and that there is after all a great plan, or (2) the DL is a scoundrel, utterly evil, to be hated and loathed.
But have you ever considered a proposition number (3)? It says, that the DL is a human being, a monk, and so forth. And that whether he is viewed as a holy one or as an evil one, or even better, as a human being, all he's actions can be judged in a normal fashion. Like for instance: If he lies about Dharmic issues, it is a lie, bad karma, and so forth, but it is not a "mysterious action of a God, that will later save all humanity from the Evil" nor it is an "devilish twisted stratagem made to destroy the whole of Buddhism and plunge this world into the darkness". It is merely an unethical and unskillful action made by a human being.
Proposition 3 is very nice, because it doesn't force one to classify or categorize living beings into separate classes, living or existing under separate systems of ethics. It treats everybody in the same way - according to the teachings of karma, as taught by Buddha Shakyamuni. I like it personally very much.
If one does not accept proposition 3, one will have great problems in one's ethical life. For instance, if one is offered a cup of tea, one has to first assess whether the offerer is a mara or not. If he is a mara, then the offered cup of tea is probably a devilish trick, causing attachement to rise, or something. Or if somebody comes and kicks one to head, one has to assess whether the assailant is a Buddha or not. If he is a Buddha, then one can happily receive the roundhouse kick, and be sure that oh boy, now the blessings do really rain in. But then again, how can anyone assess the person in front of one? How can you know if the cup-offerer is this or that, a mara, a human, or a Buddha? Or the kung-fu kicker? One cannot. But if one accepts proposition 3, one can react to acts of goodness in appropriate way, and one can react to acts of aggression in proper manner. There is no need to asses the "status of the actor" beforehand, or afterwards, but the act can be taken as is. Life outside of the proposition 3 is no life at all. At least it is not Buddhist life.
There is no need, and in normal life no time, to label the actors as this or that, good or evil. The only thing that matters is the act itself, and one can judge those acts by the universally applicable ethical system taught by Buddha Shakyamuni. There is this immediacy and naturalness. The non-judgemental proposition 3.
