22 03 26 summary

23 March 2026

On separating the person from the affliction wearing them, and why holding a grudge mostly hurts the holder.

Where we are in the book
Still in the long approach to Day 16 (p. 499) and the sevenfold cause-and-effect method. Jampa flagged at the end that she wants to finally move onto the sevenfold path next week, assuming we've done the equanimity work. We didn't open the book — the whole class lived in discussion.

Opening — form, emptiness, parts and whole
The class began mid-thread on the Heart Sutra line everyone half-remembers: form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Jampa unpacked it through interdependence: tall only exists in relation to short, whole only in relation to parts, "you" only in relation to "me." The emphasis was less metaphysical than practical — because we grasp the I so strongly, the rest of the world gets pulled into orbit around it.

The six perfections — order or arrangement?
A question from the WhatsApp chat: do the six perfections (generosity, ethics, patience, joyful effort, concentration, wisdom) have to be done in order? Do you need to be a bodhisattva first before practising them?
Jampa's answer: they work together. The architecture is:

Renunciation comes first — wanting freedom from one's own afflictions

This naturally extends outward when you notice everyone else is in the same bind → bodhicitta, the wish for full enlightenment so you can actually help
Then the six perfections become the way that bodhicitta cashes out in action
You don't wait to be a bodhisattva to practise them, but they only do their full work when bodhicitta is animating them

Accumulating merit — the energy reserve
Why bother with kindness when no-one's watching? Because helping others is uplifting, and an uplifted mind has resources. Working with sentient beings is hard — different minds, different capacities, hurdles everywhere. Merit is the stored fuel that gets you through. A heavy, depleted mind has nothing to draw on. A bright, generous mind keeps going.

This frames "good deeds" not as moral accounting but as energy management — building the reserves that practice will need.

Equanimity — the meditation we keep getting wrong
A genuinely useful moment of clarification. Someone described their equanimity practice: bringing three people to mind (loved one, stranger, enemy), starting with the easy one, observing how each makes them feel.
Jampa redirected — gently but pointedly. The three people aren't the object. Your own mind is the object. You're not trying to transform the friend into an enemy or the enemy into a friend; you're watching what your mind does when each appears. The categorising itself is what you're meditating on.
This is why we've been on equanimity for months. The point isn't to like everyone equally — it's to see the labelling machine running, and stop feeding it.

Walking through Westfield
A lovely concrete report: someone described walking through the shopping centre and noticing the mind's automatic sorting of every face — friend-ish, threat-ish, ignorable. Now, with practice, the sorting still happens but it gets caught. The categorising hasn't stopped; the relationship to it has changed.

Jampa: this is what His Holiness means by seeing everyone as brothers and sisters — not sentiment, but the felt sense that comes after the sorting has been quieted.
"It says more about me than him"
The most striking exchange of the night. Someone described meditating on a person they really didn't like — "on sight, buddy" (😄) — and finding the aversion traced back to feeling judged. Then:

"It says more about me than him… does this actually matter? Is my life better because I'm holding on to this grudge? And then where are you in that, aren't you?"

Jampa picked up the thread — we hold grudges to protect identity, label, reputation, hierarchy. The grudge is the ego's life-support. Let it go and a piece of "me" goes with it. Which is why it's so hard.

The intellectualising trap
A subtle point worth pinning down. One contribution noted: they don't exist the way they appear, so the categories are illusion-like, so I shouldn't hold them.
Jampa pushed back — that's still intellectualising. You're examining the appearance instead of examining what your mind is doing with the appearance. The work isn't to negate the appearance. The work is to catch yourself reacting to it and ask: why am I gripping?
The emptiness analysis comes later. For now, the question is always: what is my mind doing right now?
The bodhisattva is the star, but doesn't grasp it
A nice riff. The bodhisattva does take responsibility — if I don't help them, who will? So in that sense, yes, you're the star. But you don't hold the role. Best supporting actor, maybe. Diamond star. (!?) The mind that wishes to help is the same mind that doesn't need credit.

Jampa added an autobiographical note — she doesn't enjoy teaching, but if she didn't teach, no-one in the room would have access to this. So she teaches, and in teaching, teaches herself. Preparing for class is her own practice. Anyone who's tried to explain something they thought they understood will recognise the move.

The actor and the action — the central teaching
This was the heart of the class. The actor is not the action. What a person does doesn't represent who they are; the action is what arises when the person is gripped by affliction. The action is the affliction speaking through them.
When we resent someone, we conflate the two — we attack the person as if they were the cruelty, the dishonesty, the carelessness. But the person is just a body and mind being moved by delusions. The delusion is the cause; the person is the agent it's working through.
Hit a dog with a stick, the dog attacks the stick
Jampa's image for what we're doing:

If you hit the dog with a stick, the dog will attack the stick.

The dog mistakes the proximate instrument for the actual cause. So do we. We attack the person, not the delusion. Dogs are arguably more bodhisattva than we are — at least they attack the immediate thing rather than holding grudges for years.

Even Trump. Jampa offered the most uncomfortable test case: even Trump deserves compassion, because look at the suffering being created — first and worst in his own mind. Someone in tremendous internal suffering, generating more suffering, can't be sat back from with "ooh, he's bad." That's still categorising.
The room pushed: does that mean letting people walk all over me? No — and this is where the actor/action distinction earns its keep. You can stop someone from harming others without resenting the person doing the harm. The action gets resisted; the agent gets compassion.
Letting go — of what, exactly?
The phrase came up. Jampa kept pressing: letting go of what? Not letting go of the object (that's just jumping to the next object). Letting go of the self-cherishing mind — the thought that engages in actions only for the benefit of "me" through the senses. That's the root cause. Knowing the theory isn't the same as actually catching the self-cherishing mind in the act.
One last hook

We cultivate causes that bring about suffering, thinking they'll bring about happiness.

The whole class in one sentence.
What to take into next week
Jampa was explicit: jot down what landed today on equanimity and on the continuum of mind. She'll assume we've perfected it (her word, smiling) and we'll start the sevenfold method proper — first stop, recognising all beings as having been our mother.

Note:

This summary was created with AI (Claude Opus 4.7). AI can make mistakes and sometimes produces inaccurate information. It functions through prediction and pattern-matching rather than genuine understanding or wisdom. Please read with mindfulness and discernment. Corrections and suggestions are warmly welcome.

Note:
Note created using AI