Foreign TV stations show more?
Showing posts with label live. Show all posts
Showing posts with label live. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2026
Sunday, August 16, 2026
Mandy Kahn: I can LOVE you regardless
I can love you regardless of your views
 |
| Universal unconditional agape love is metta. |
When we meet someone, do we wait to see what they will say to determine whether or not we can love them? Do we find that we are constantly evaluating people's ways of seeing, ways of believing, to determine whether we can love them?
We bring about great healing when we are able to say, "Whatever you believe, I hold unconditional love for you. I am aware of my own beliefs; I do not need to fear your ideas. I honor your path. I can honor you and hold love for you regardless of your ideas."
Mettā is Buddhism's term for unconditional, universal love as explained in the Karaniya Metta Sutta (Sn 1.8) and Metta Sutta or "Discourse on Lovingkindness" (Khp 8-9):The Buddha knows, peace, love, views? - May all living beings be well and happy! May they be happy in heart/mind. Whatever living beings there are—feeble or strong, long or short, stout or medium, small or large, seen or unseen [deities, divinities, demigods, avians, humanoid-serpents, spirits, ghosts, hellions], those dwelling far or near, those born or waiting to be reborn—may all beings without exception be happy.
Let no one deceive another nor despise anyone in any place. In anger or ill-will, let no one wish suffering upon another.Intro to Buddhism (Peter Harvey) - Just as a mother would protect her only child even at her own risk, let one cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings.
- Let one's thoughts of boundless lovingkindness pervade the whole world: above, below, across without obstruction, without hatred, without enmity.
- This they say is a divine abiding here and now.
- One will surely not come again to any womb [to any rebirth in this Sensual Sphere (kama-loka), lowest of Three Spheres].
- — Metta Sutta (Khp 8-9), translated by Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, p. 279) and edited by Wisdom Quarterly
 |
| 31 categories of rebirth planes |
In fact, I cannot help but love you, knowing your inherent lovability—your innate worth.
All are worthy of my unconditional love, as all are aspects of divinity in expression and exploration.
As we explore, as we try on worldviews (outlooks, paradigms, points of view), we are able to hold love for one another. Changes in our worldview will not mean less love from us. Our love is constant; our worthiness of love is constant.
 |
| Monthly Deep Dive Poetry at PRS Library |
By embracing the other wherever we currently are in our journey—the human journey of beliefs and worldviews—we embrace the journey itself. The journey leads to peace.
And evolution leads to choosing peace.
All beings are evolving from wherever they are towards choosing peace. When peace is finally chosen, a living being has fully evolved. All that precedes that is an exploration of the human experience.
 |
| We can love each other no matter what. |
Because all exploration eventually leads to choosing peace, all exploration is ultimately part of the "peacening" process.
Peace is the destination of all human exploration, without exception.
I embrace you on your human journey, which is a journey towards peace.
When we choose to love others regardless of their views or where they are on their human journey, we heal -- we heal ourselves, we heal collective wounds of rejection and judgment, and we heal the person before us with our unconditional love.
Unconditional love (metta, agape) is the energy of pure healing. We share that pure healing when we share that love-without-limits.
Ancient Greeks spoke of six kinds of "love":
Is it love when we see everyone as special?
- divine unconditional love (agape),
- familial love (storge),
- friendly or platonic love (philia),
- erotic or romantic love (eros),
- self-love (philautia), and
- guest love (xenia).
- There are even more forms love that English speakers could be lacking because there exist culturally unique words, definitions, and expressions.
 |
| I'm in it for Me, Myself, and I. |
The heart knows the inherent worthiness of all living beings. The heart does not labor to love. The heart loves by its nature. The heart leads us towards love-without-end.
 |
| Give me that heart, Buddha! - With joy, friend |
It is a lot of work for the lower mind to constantly assess the lovability of each person and each idea.
We can love, and we can choose
 |
| The Buddha's mind was in his heart |
When we ask our hearts to lead, our hearts lead with wise discernment, not judgments. Our hearts can discern which idea best resonates with us. The heart determines then chooses—embraces—that which resonates.
An idea is chosen, whereas others are simply allowed and not chosen.
If the lower mind rejects some person's idea, it also rejects that person.
The heart can choose or not choose a person's idea yet can still hold love for the person.
 |
| We can lead with our heart toward all. |
When we are heart-led, we do not fear any ideas. We simply choose them or leave them unchosen. We do not need to reject idea-holders to “remain safe” from their ideas. A person in balance can simply choose the idea s/he resonates with and hold love and space for all the idea-holders whose ideas were not chosen.
We can honor everyone at every place on their journey. No rejection is required.
Love can be total, universal, unconditional (metta, agape).
Choosing can be used to navigate. Choosing led by love is all that is needed.
As we encounter others, we may employ the following phrases to navigate with love:
- I do not choose this idea. Simultaneously, I hold love for this person.
- I choose this idea. Simultaneously, I hold love for this person.
- I observe this idea, neither choosing it nor not choosing it. Simultaneously, I hold love for this person.
 |
| The Buddha's heart of love (佛爱之心) |
The lower mind can be taught that it is one's responsibility to reject a person who carries an idea we do not choose. But the heart knows that every person is inherently worthy of love, just as every part of us is inherently worthy of love.
The heart also knows that when we reject others, we simultaneously reject a part of ourselves because we are all connected aspects of the same human organism.
Thus, when we reject others, we reject a part of ourselves, and we experience the wound of that rejection.
 |
| Rejected and left behind once again!! |
Rejection wounds unilaterally: It wounds the rejected, it wounds the rejector (oneself), and it wounds the collective, which retains that rejection energy.
Rejection builds fear among the not-yet-rejected which blocks creativity, blocks new ideas, and blocks freedom of expression. It encourages people to be less fully themselves.
 |
| I love and accept you, so let's start to heal. |
When one steps from judgment and to discernment—when one chooses to navigate by way of choosing and simultaneously by loving—with each choice, a being is healing the collective.
 |
| Peace Class Wednesdays (prs.org) |
 |
| Is your poetry as peaceful as your class? |
There is ever-flowing creativity, and there is the profound joy of choosing and loving, again and again, from a place of perfect freedom and total possibility, to act towards others with peace.
- Zoom link to join Peace Class
- Learn more about Peace Class and sign up for future classes: eventbrite.com/e/peace-class-with-mandy-kahn...
- Convert Los Angeles meeting time of 6:00 pm (PT) to any other time zone: dateful.com/time-zone-converter
- Holy Doors: Poems by Mandy Kahn
- 50 Words: Mandy Kahn’s Math, Heaven, Time
- Sign up for mailing list: mandykahn.com
- Mandy Kahn, text Nov. 29, 2023; edited by Dhr. Seven Aug. 15, 2026, Wisdom Quarterly
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Jackie Chan on Bruce Lee, Steven Seagal
Who's Jackie Chan, Chris Tucker? (Rush Hour)
I will kick your @ss right here, Chinaman!
Steven Frederic Seagal (April 10, 1952) is a Jewish American actor, producer, screenwriter, martial artist, musician [2], and possibly a Russian national who is a personal friend of Pres. Vlad Putin. A 7th-dan black belt and shihan in Aikikai aikido, he began his adult life as a martial arts instructor in Japan, where he became the first non-Japanese and American to operate an aikido dojo [3, 4, 5]. He later moved to Hollywood, Los Angeles, where he continued teaching aikido. In 1988, Seagal made his acting debut in Above the Law, which is regarded as the first American film to feature aikido in fight sequences [6]. More
(Bruce Lee Eternal) "You're an actor, not a real fighter" - Steven Seagal mocked Bruce Lee on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show on LIVE television or pure AI slop?
This cat right here is Matt Ricard
 |
| This is not a dyed toupee, OK? |
 |
| You're a good boy, Steven. You should move to our Jewish Autonomous Oblast. - May I? |
Saturday, June 27, 2026
Alcohol was ruining my life. How I quit
Why alcohol is ruining our lives (Jordan Peterson, Andrew Huberman, Mike Tyson)
- soberclear.com
- soberclear.com/dark-contr...
- Get INSTANT access to BRAND NEW “Alcohol Control 🍺 Video Training” (2023)
- 📞 Book a roadmap call to see if the Soberclear Program and First Principles Thinking could be a good match: soberclear.com/bookcall-ytd 🎭
- SOBERCLEAR PROGRAM: See if REFRAMING method is the right thing to try. (Spots are limited): soberclear.com/soberclear...
- MEN ONLY: First Principles Thinking to control alcohol: soberclear.com #sober #stopdrinking #alcoholfree
- TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - The truth about alcohol 02:15 - Andrew Huberman & James Hetfield 02:37 - David Harbour 1 02:53 - Bill Burr 03:14 - Nikki Glaser 03:41 - Ben Affleck 1 04:09 - Joe Rogan & Malcolm Gladwell 04:47 - David Nutt 05:29 - Jordan Peterson & Theo Von 05:50 - Joe Rogan & Malcolm Gladwell 2 06:22 - Daniel Radcliffe 06:52 - Ben Affleck 2 07:12 - Daniel Radcliffe 2 07:25 - Jordan Peterson 2 08:22 - Robert Lowe 08:48 - Brad Pitt 09:28 - James Hethfield 2 10:13 - Mike Tyson 10:48 - Janey Lee Grace 11:48 - Scott Strode 12:38 - Jordan Peterson 3 13:15 - Andrew Huberman 2 13:54 - Paul Churchill 15:06 - Anthony Hopkins 16:02 - Bradley Cooper 16:28 - Patrick Bet David 17:02 - David Harbour 2 17:45 - Ian McShane 18:06 - Ben Affleck 2
- 🗣 Interact with me on a personal level! Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/43652...
- 🎁 Check out the SOBERCLEAR website
- 🚨If this video helped, share it with friend to benefit as well :)
- Sober Leon, May 10, 2023; Seth Auberon, Pfc. Sandoval, CC Liu (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
Monday, May 25, 2026
Egoless Led Zeppelin (JBLZE) in Hollywood?
The only Led Zeppelin reunion in history
 |
| There is a self, but it's ultimately impersonal. |
To demonstrate: I went to a college called UCLA. It doesn't exist. It started as a campus near USC, which is close to the skyline of DTLA/Downtown Los Angeles.
 |
| Plant, baby, is there really a "manic" nirvana? |
That's impossible to accept. So reject it. Of course there's a self (atta). It's writing right now, and another self is reading right now...in a conventional way of speaking. No one is saying there's not that.
That being the case, WHY would the historical Buddha ever say there wasn't a self? We have to consider that. What is the reason, what did he mean, was he serious?
 |
| How does "suffering" come to be? 12 links. |
- Understanding D.O. in one example: What is a "candleflame"? If we break it down, deconstruct it, we find that it is five things. Who cares? Well, it's important because in place of this "self" we all believe in and never question the existence of, the Buddha is going to teach us that what we have been failing to see and penetrate is this very principle of conditioned co-arising or D.O. Okay, then, what five things?
There is (1) wax, (2) wick, (3) heat, (4) oxygen, and (5) a very mysterious process of combustion. (Add to the list or take away, it doesn't really matter for the example to sink in). When these five are in a functionally integrated arrangement, bam, candleflame! Where did it come from? When it goes out, where will it "go" -- east, west, north, south, hell, heaven, the sphere of nothingness, the ground, my neighbor Robby Joiner's yard never to be seen again like all my frisbees? No, the designation does not apply; it is not correct to say the candleflame "goes" here, there, or anywhere. We just say it goes "out." That is to say, when these [factors, conditions, limbs] are present, that [candleflame] arises. When they are not, it is not. Therefore, in a sense one can say that a "candleflame" does not really exist, which is to say it does not exist independent of those factors upon which it utterly depends.Where does suffering go?
Yet, we don't think it is any of those factors. It really seems independent, a new thing that came into being or brought those things (causes and conditions) with it. When does it come into being? When does it manifest what we conventionally call its "being" (beingness) into existence? When the final element (aggregate) is added. Try it. Put together any four of the five elements. There won't be a candleflame. Now, add the fifth. Viola! "Candleflame" arises in the mind -- which is what these five aggregate processes look like. We think it arises in the world, but probably all that was there before is still there now, nothing actually having been added. And when it goes out, one or the other factors (limbs) upon which it depended has been exhausted or removed. Right? Try it. Can we say that, for example, the heat is the candleflame? No, because there's heat everywhere yet there are very few candleflames. Is it the wax? No, because there's a world of wax yet relatively few candleflames.... But when we add the final element, "candleflame" seems to jump into existence. And, of course, it does conventionally speaking. But ultimately speaking, it does no such thing. It doesn't really ever exist, in a manner of speaking. I'll make this point again and again until it clicks what's being said and what is not.A candleflame does not exist.
 |
| UCLA does not (ultimately) exist. Here's why. |
- All of the faculty are different
- All of the students are different
- All of the curricula, books, desks...
- In fact, let's imagine the first place burned down and was completely incinerated, so that nothing, not a brick, not a scrap of the original went from DTLA to the Westside, would we still call it "UCLA"? We sure would! Why? What we identify or imagine to be UCLA is moving from here to there.
- In a century, will there be a "UCLA"? No, but there almost surely will be a college (university) called "UCLA." All the faculty, students, books, lesson plans, and ephemera will be different, but it'll still -- in a sense -- be good ol' UCLA, at least in our minds and on some plot of real estate somewhere in LA.
There is no ship
 |
| Is it the same ship or a different ship? |
 |
| Whaddya mean "there's no car?" It's right here! |
There is no oxcart
 |
| There is no such thing as an oxcart. |
In the same way, in ancient times, an oxcart. What is it? It is, broadly speaking, five components fitted in a functionally operational way (wheel, axle, body, steering, ox). Add pieces to the definition or take them away, it doesn't matter. But five is easy. Whose oxcart is this? It belongs to Thad. Its wheels are broken. Change them. Axle is broken. Change it. The body is broken. Change it. The steering is shot. Change it. Ox is exhausted. Change it. Now, every part having been changed, what oxcart? That one. Whose oxcart is it? Thad's. Why? It's because in a conventional sense (by our agreement and his delusion) it has been his all along, even though it is completely different. He has no control over it really; he can't keep it from breaking apart. But we still call it his, and we seem to have no trouble identifying it even as every single part gets switched out.
This "SELF," what is it? It is five things (form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness). Whose is it? This one's mine. What do you call it? "Me." Sometimes "I." It's myself, I mean, my self. My soul. My ego. My personality. My atta (Sanskrit atman). My vessel into which I load my store of karma (deeds, doings, intentional acts, or all of my willed actions).
- By "form" you mean this rapidly deteriorating arrangement of materiality composed of solidity, movement, cohesion, and temperature? That's the one! So this material form, this body (this temporary vessel or vehicle), is actually just Four Great Elements, which are not "elements" as such but rather qualities of materiality, in a sense quanta or quantities of it because all material particles (rupa kalapas) are actually composed of all four elements or dhatus (or maha bhuta) but in differing amounts, so that when solidity is in preponderance, it gets labelled "solid" but still has all of the other features to a lesser degree. This is "you"? No. It is my body, but I am not the body. The body changes, but "I" stay the same forever and ever, the eternal self, the unchanged soul, the essence or core of the ego (psyche), the invisible watcher, holder, and owner of all that stands.
- Okay, these feelings, that's "you"? Yes, that's me. I'm the feeler. So you're not the feeling? Well, no, not exactly, but feeling-feeler, same thing. Okay, all of them? Which all? You are all pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings passing through? Yeah, sort of, I am the feeler.
- All right then. These perceptions? Yes, I am the perceiver. And you are the perceptions passing through, too? Sure, okay, perception-perceiver, I am the all.
- And these other mental formations, like these volitions, impulses, motives, intentions (cetanas)? Yes, I am the intender. And the intention? Intention-intender, same thing. I am the all, the owner, the doer, the knower, the experiencer, the controller or the one-who-thinks-he's-in-control.
- Okay, and this consciousness? Yes, I am consciousness. All of them? "All"? "You" are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind-consciousnesses? Uh, yes, I am consciousness. And all the consciousnesses passing through conscious experience? Uh, I guess.
Does anyone know why the Buddha called each of these heaps an "aggregate"? It's very important. It is because there are trillions of them, not one form, one feeling, one perception, one formation, one consciousness. At least with the oxcart, it seems like there is one (or more) wheels, axle, one body, one steerer, one ox, and the conglomeration of those forms one oxcart. But with "SELF," there are no such single items. There are aggregations (heaps of rupa kalapas) of material particles, countless numbers of them in every "material" thing, and that's just the body, the form, which has 32 main parts and lots of subsidiary parts, so many that one cannot find it tenable to consider one's "self" this body. So we cling to the other four mental formations as "self." (Yes, we call the fourth heap "mental formations" or sankaras, but the fact is that feelings, perceptions, and consciousnesses are all mental formations, too. The Buddha segregated them into these five for explanatory and insight purposes. As we develop liberating insight into these, we will clearly know-and-see that what we took to be MY feeling was just feeling being felt -- arising, turning, and passing away at all times, hurtling towards destruction, never standing still for even a submoment. The reason a feeling lasts is not because it arises and hangs around for a while then, realizing it's impermanent, it leaves. One feeling arises, turns, passes away, as another almost identical feeling arises, turns, passes away, in succession until this process dies out, at which time "the feeling" which was a heap of feelings passes to be replaced by another kind of feeling. The same is true of the other four aggregates. Science tells us this material body is nothing but a conglomeration of cells, which are molecules, which are atoms, which are quarks and strong-and-weak forces and thingies and whatnots, ever more subtle until they're not even material."Self" as impersonal processes
Add ingredients to the definition of "SELF" or take them away, it doesn't matter. The same is true. What we call "self" is not-self. It is impersonal, and radically impermanent, and ultimately disappointing, painful, stressful, incapable of ever fulfilling us.
*What is a "band"?
 |
| Meet the future legendary "Mr. Jimmy" [Sakurai] as he shreds on guitar for an adoring crowd |
.
 |
| With John Travolta as Robert Plant |
(Whoever owns the name, which is just about the only stable thing other than ownership rights of music catalog performed and/or written under that name).
What five members (factors)?
 |
| Fifth member Pete (Manager Peter Grant) is the best like Fifth Beatle Pete Best |
So one day four guys and their manager became the New Yardbirds. And they got threatened with a lawsuit, so they became Lead Zeppelin. But Peter Grant, the manager and fifth member, said, "To avoid mispronunciation, let's call the band Led Zeppelin." All agreed. They played, recorded, became famous, and then the drummer had a son and died. End of the story. Led Zeppelin was over. But capitalism and greed being what they are, Led Zeppelin lived on. There was even a reunion of sorts, but they couldn't bring back the dead, so they did the next best thing: They brought in the next of kin, drummer John Bonham's son Jason. It was like having 3.5 of the original four members present. It worked!
It worked so well, that everyone but Jimmy Page or Robert Plant could have quit, and the behemoth could have gone on like the Who, Stones, Chicago, or any other massive rock act has done for years and years until not even a single member of the original band is touring! How is that possible?! Ship of Theseus. Oxcart.
Who am I? There is no me?
 |
| What're ya doin in my hole?! |
There is no UCLA?
 |
| "UCLA" can restart anywhere with anyone. |
Because Jason must have asked all the remaining members of Led Zeppelin, Inc. to join him on tour. But for one reason or another (think ego, clashes, not wanting to ruin the profitable brand, and solo careers), they did not. So he did. Jason did. Jason went on tour.
 |
| Is there a Robert Plant? - Now and Zen |
- Is original Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant a Buddhist or simply a Gypsy mystic with a penchant for writing epic Nordic lyrics? What about Now and Zen and Manic Nirvana?
- Science find a cure for ringing in the ear? Lenire ®: Tinnitus treatment using bimodal neuromodulation
Original Led Zeppelin drummer John's son Jason’s Led Zeppelin Experience Evening “Kashmir” LIVE The Greek Theater Los Angeles Hollywood, California May 23, 2026
THERE IS NO SELF (an-attā, not-atta): "not-self," egolessness, soullessness, the impersonal nature of all phenomena (particularly the Five Aggregates clung to as "self") is the final and most incomprehensible of the Three Universal Characteristics of All Existence (ti-lakkhana).
Anattā is not a joke or punchline. All things are impersonal and always have been. And so long as we do not realize it (or that they are impermanent and disappointing, too), we will cling. And by clinging, we will suffer. And the way to let go (and stop suffering) is to realize the True Nature of All Things.
All things are impersonal: anattā
Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary of Doctrines and Terms edited by Wisdom Quarterly
 |
| What are the Five Aggregates in Buddhism? |
The anattā doctrine is unheard of throughout the universe, except that a supremely awakened buddha has made it known (or a nonteaching buddha has cultivated up to supreme realization) and thereby opens up an escape from the phenomenal world of endless rebirth and incomprehensible suffering.
This doctrine teaches that neither within body-and-mind (nama-rupa, the bodily and mental phenomena of existence) nor outside of them can there be found anything that in THE ULTIMATE SENSE able to be regarded as a self, soul, self-existing real ego-entity, or any other abiding essence or substance.
This is the central doctrine of Buddhism. Without understanding it, real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.
It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddha's Teaching (Dhamma) stands or falls.
All of the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found or hinted at in other philosophical systems, doctrines, or religions. But the anattā-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by a buddha.
It is on account of this that the historical Buddha was known as the anattā-vādi, or "Teacher of Impersonality." [He was also called a karma-vadin for emphasizing personal actions and karmic results.]
Whoever has not penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming PROCESS of arising, turning, and passing away of bodily-and-mental phenomena and that there is no separate (independent, self-standing) ego-entity in or outside of this process, that person will be unable to understand Buddhism.
That is, that person will be unable to understand the teaching of the Four "Noble" (Enlightening) Truths (sacca) in the correct light. One will instead think that it is:
- one's soul, self, ego, or personality that experiences suffering (dukkha, disappointment, pain, distress),
- one's personality that performs skillful and unskillful deeds (good and evil actions)
- one's soul who will be reborn according to such actions (karma),
- one's personality that will enter into some kind of everlasting heaven, sphere, place, or state the Buddha called "Nirvana" (Pali Nibbāna),
- one's "self" that practices on the Enlightening (Noble) Eightfold Path.
"Mere dukkha [ignorance] exists;
No experiencer of dukkha is found;
Deeds are, but no doer of deeds is there;
Nirvana is, but not one who experiences it;
Get Him to the Greek: smoke Epstein
Rock's future: Japanese Buddhist girls?
- Dhr. Seven, Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Ashley Wells (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
