Story about a Tibetan Buddhist deity

This is something that eventually any Buddhist would encounter. It's about Dorje Shugden, the supposedly demon that the Dalai Lama has banned. I believe that everyone deserves to know both sides of the story and thus, they should at least learn about Dorje Shugden's origins before deciding that that he is bad. I am not going against the Dalai Lama or anything, but shouldnt we as Buddhists have a right investigate and learn before we actually believe in something? 10 out of 10 people out there who are against Dorje Shugden have no idea how he originated and who was his previous incarnation. They only know he's bad because the Dalai Lama says so. There are many resources on him online, so I am hoping that before anyone makes a judgement or decision, please do at least learn about him before deciding. At least, knowing 2 sides of the story is better than following one side blindly.

The same myth can be told by different cults, contain the same basic elements, but be interpreted completely differently. The same story holds different lessons for different cults, and indeed, will be judged morally by the understandings inherent in the teachings of their own ways differently. Sometimes one cults demon is another cults god.

One man's Lucifer could be another man's Prometheus. Like Loki in my own mythology, there are some figures whose first glance judges as evil, and further study reveals the answer may well be far more complex than that.

PS: Cult is used in the ancient sense here; that being a given religious tradition common to one temple or tribe. Often a region would hold many cult centres who shared a common basic belief, with local variations on the importance of each figure, and a different understanding of the meaning of the myths whose basic facts were commonly held.

Even in christianity, . . . there are those who see Satan as the actual "savior", . . . saving people from a god who would keep them in the dark about knowledge. So yeah, . . . a commonly held viewpoint, based upon centuries of hard core doctrines, can actually be quite wrong. I would say that it is equally as probable as the view most hold.