The question is if morality is egoistic... Is it? I think this may get into how morality is defined and apperceived. Is morality created by the sense of self or is it perhaps a function of the brain, including one that has changed due to meditation? What does it mean to be moral? Are some people moral just because they are naturally disinterested or not compelled to cause another person suffering or is morality a premeditated (though perhaps subconscious) thought based on a kind of quid pro quo? Or is morality the result of a realization that all is oneself as the totality of consciousness (existence) as I mentioned in my other response?

I cannot speak for Buddhists, but to your other point I have often heard Buddhists use the term "sentient beings," in which case a stone or a sofa would not be considered sentient. From Wikipedia: "[I]n Mahayana, it is to sentient beings that the bodhisattva vow of compassion is pledged and sentient beings are the object of the all inclusive great compassion (maha karuna) and skillful means (upaya) of the Buddhas."

From the Dalai Lama "Our practice of nonviolence applies not just to human beings but to all sentient beings - any living thing that has a mind. Where there is a mind, there are feelings such as pain, pleasure, and joy. No sentient being wants pain: all wants happiness instead. I believe that all sentient beings share those feelings at some basic level."

https://www.dalailama.com/messages/environment/universal-responsibility

You ask, "why would the universe as a whole do so" through this Buddhist? This gets into something much deeper, but my first inclination is to say that the universe isn't acting through the Buddhist but rather the Buddhist is the universe (as is everyone) and he recognizes this fact whereas most others do not.

The last thing you wrote in this response gets to another point, perhaps the main point you are trying to make all along yet it alluded me... I would say that Buddhism teaches the Middle Way and this suggests that the universe is neutral. But the key idea from the last sentence is about how Buddhism is portrayed. Not that I want to defend Buddhism, because I don't, but I would question who in particular is portraying Buddhism. If it's the Dalai Lama then I would consider the source to be valid.

I have found that most people who speak about enlightenment have never experienced what they are speaking about. I do agree with this that you wrote: "... the enlightened Buddhist should [leave] morality for the unenlightened egotists..." But I would say, theoretically at least, that the enlightened Buddhist would already be in the state of neutrality (but not always). People are human, even enlightened ones, and as humans we come with the baggage of a psychologically conditioned mind and limited human brain.

There will always be outrageous claims that are, and seem to be, birthed by hypocrisy. Some are misunderstandings while others are hypocritical or duplicitous. We can add to this the problem of not really knowing what is going on with another person's mind — are they really enlightened or just pretending? I would say that three people come to mind in this regard (though there are many others): Eckhardt Tolle, Sadhguru, and Osho. Though they are considered enlightened by throngs of people, their actions and statements would betray the ideal and their own teachings.