Not creating additional causes of suffering

My recent posts have managed something of a convergence. How does Buddhism touch my lived experience? What do the Bodhisattva vows really tell us (what can we gain from appreciating the nature of suffering)? How does fulfilling them actually work (what is the benefit of one's practice)? And then, what should I write about here?

I think that the key question is "How does fulfilling {the Bodhisattva vows} actually work?" Which is basically the question I was left with at the end of parts four and five of the Pondering the meaning of liberation from suffering series. One easy answer is to say that it doesn't matter because any positive effect is, well, positive, so why try to hash out the distinction? But I don't see the differences in the benefit of practice, or one's perspective on the benefit of practice, as trivial.

If one's practice is a recognition of symbolic solidarity with all sentient beings but the benefit is extended only to those touched by a visible causal material chain (the things you do and say, including records of such events, and their influence on others who hear, read or otherwise learn of what you do or say, etc), that is certainly different than one's practice being a reflection of an immediate and intimate connection to all sentient beings regardless of such a causal chain in the historical dimension (time and space). This latter view presupposes a connection of what may appear to be distinct phenomena through an ultimate dimension, for example as framed in reflections about form and emptiness. To what degree is the latter view given more of a kind of lip service than an actual serious attention, especially among Western students who may prefer an intepretation more in line with traditional Western paradigms of epistemology and ontology?

Turning it around, what about the harm we do? It is one thing to say "Well, I don't know if the benefit of my practice is limited in the way described, but still, a benefit is a benefit." But what about that which increases the affliction of others? In the limited-result model, well, there is hopefully only so much dmage I can do, especially if my overall "impact" on the lives of others isn't very great. But if each prejudice, each hateful thought, and every deluded action compounds the confusion and misery of others, then following the Bodhisattva path is imbued with much greater seriousness and urgency.

In either view, the nature of the benefit can be summarized as "not creating additional causes of suffering". This is especially valid if one percieves that Buddha-dharma and Bodhi do not need to be "sought" or "acquired" so much as accepted and realized, which involves a process of struggle (or the resistance we display in wanting to either protect or reject the "ego") and surrender (existing in peace alongside all transient phenomena including the "ego"). Implied in this is the idea that we get in the way of our own potential as Buddhas.

So is Buddhism the West (only) a humanistic philosophy with an Eastern flavor or is it something more? I think that determines how the other questions mentioned previously are adressed: How does Buddhism touch my lived experience? What do the Bodhisattva vows really tell us (what can we gain from appreciating the nature of suffering)? How does fulfilling them actually work (what is the benefit of one's practice)? And then, what should I write about here?