JDSP 9 (2) pp.

281–294 Intellect Limited 2017

Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

Volume 9 Number 2
© 2017 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jdsp.9.2.281_1

–
Lalitaraja
Roehampton University

Buddhist ethics and the

contact improvisation
practitioner

Abstract Keywords
This article explores what a Buddhist practitioner/contact improviser/dance artist/ contact improvisation
educator can contribute to a discussion of ethics in somatically informed dance Buddhism
practice. The discussion looks at the links between Buddhist ethical practice and the ethics
implicit ethics within contact improvisation. In talking about contact improvisation dance
this article assumes that extrapolating these reflections out to any of the somatic improvisation
practices would bear similar fruit. The goal of Buddhism is vimukti/freedom, but it somatics
starts with ethics. Buddhist ethical precepts are sikkhapāda/training steps; it is this
sense of undertaking training that offers a different perspective on ethical practice.
Ethical mores within the contact improvisation community are strong but implicit,
and yet there is a tangible consensus internationally about the values that inform
the practice. Articulating the similarities between the two, there is an offer to a wider
debate on ethics in somatically informed dance.

Introduction
Sitting at a conference for dance and somatic practices a few years ago I found
myself thinking about what I could contribute, as a Buddhist, to such a confer-
ence. Surrounded by somatic practitioners who know about awareness and are
all capable of finding their own insights from their practice, what might I have
to offer them? Perhaps I can contribute by reflecting on the question, what

281
 –ja
Lalitara

Figure 1: Lalitarāja running. Copyright Eulanda Shead 2013.

links can be made between Buddhist ethical practice and the implicit ethi-
cal stances that exist within contact improvisation? In talking about contact
improvisation my sense is that extrapolating these reflections out to any of the
somatic practices would bear similar fruit.
What follows is part Dharma talk such as one might hear at a Buddhist
centre and part scholarly article, part practitioner viewpoint and part artist
reflection. It is a further attempt to articulate the synergies between contem-
porary Dharma practice and dance practice in various ways. I will speak as a
Buddhist and as a contact improvisation practitioner but more importantly as a
human being, as someone who practices consciously in order to try to live well.
First, there is quite a bit to say about the Buddhist conceptions of ethics from
two viewpoints and how they might map out onto contact improvisation – that
of a conventional list of ethical precepts and that of list of qualities to be devel-
oped that lead directly to positive meditative states. Second, how ethical practice
implicitly informs how contact improvisation is practiced and taught and, finally,
I will reflect on how it is to practice, being firmly embedded in both Buddhism
and contact improvisation and how contact improvisation has provided its own
teachings on ethics that have fed back into my Buddhist practice.

Buddhist ethics
As human beings our actions have consequences both for ourselves and for
the world. Whether we act with the body, speech or mind, Buddhist ethics
are concerned with the principles and practices that help one to act in ways

282   Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

 Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitioner

that are beneficial rather than harmful for oneself and others. The most widely
known ethical code from Buddhism is the five precepts, which are framed not
as rules or commandments but as training principles – sikkhapāda, literally
‘training steps’. As a tool for practising, they acknowledge the complexities
of life and rather than speaking of right and wrong actions, use the language
of the skilful (kusala) and the unskilful (akusala). Because of the empha-
sis on training the mind in Buddhism and also because of the way that they
are framed, they have been called an ‘ethics of intention’ (Sangharakshita
2001: 458).
Each precept against not doing something unskilful has a second clause to
cultivate the opposite skilful behaviour. As can be seen with the first precept,
which sets the tone with ‘I undertake to abstain from causing harm to living
beings” and “with deeds of loving kindness I purify my body’ (Sangharakshita
1999: 16–17). This is the foundation of all the other precepts; they follow on
from the first and are applications of it in various ways. For example, it is not
enough to avoid killing. The commitment to not cause harm means to develop
an ethical sensibility that requires awareness and sensitivity to find the route
of least harm and maximum kindness in each situation. It means traversing a
lot of grey areas and it means taking responsibility for one’s actions. You can
find this list of precepts in use throughout the Buddhist world. I will say a little
bit about each precept and how it might be applied in contact improvisation.

Negative precept Positive precept Working ground

I undertake to abstain With deeds of loving Kindness, compassion,

from causing harm to kindness I purify my empathy, taking into
living beings body account
I undertake to abstain With open handed Sensitive to the use of
from taking the not- generosity I purify my things, time and energy
given body
I undertake to abstain With stillness, simplic- Contentment, consent
from sexual misconduct ity and contentment I of all parties, not
purify my body breaking agreements
I undertake to abstain With truthful commu- Factual accuracy, non-
from false speech nication I purify my evasion, also kindly,
speech timely and helpful
I undertake to abstain With mindfulness clear TV, newspapers,
from intoxicants that and radiant I purify my Facebook, as well as
cloud the mind mind drugs of various kinds

Abstaining from causing harm and practicing loving

kindness
The first precept embodies kindness, compassion, empathy and an attitude of
caring. It covers the range of actions from not taking life to not stepping on
people’s toes in a crowd.
In contact improvisation, it is the basic disposition that is entrained at
the start of class, paying mindful attention to the experience of the body and
engaging in activities that conduce to taking care of the body with a kindly
awareness to what the body needs. This involves using the kind of informa-
tion found in somatic practices such as Body-Mind Centring or Feldenkrais.

www.intellectbooks.com   283
 –ja
Lalitara

Developmental patterns can be used, forming an architecture on which to

build presence and awareness. Sometimes we start together, already rela-
tional, already taking care of each other, such as with some simple bodywork
that can lead to moving or through sharing proximity or weight as a starting
point. Either way we set the tone for how we attend to ourselves and others in
the dance, once things get going.

Not taking the not-given and practicing open-handed

generosity
Whether it is money, things (stationery cupboard ethics), time or energy, prac-
tising seeking permission and consent are important. In contact improvisa-
tion, not taking contact that is not given leads to the generosity of seeking
permission. It means being attentive to the other but also to the generosity of
the space created by surrendering to the dance and not seeking to dance out
our own preferences only. We can also be generous with time in the dance. I
especially notice while teaching undergraduate students that they want to do
a lot but if they slow down they can do more.

Abstaining from sexual misconduct and practising

stillness, simplicity and contentment
It seems to me that the basic ethic of seeking consent for any sexual activ-
ity is the litmus test. This implies a negotiation, which also means sticking
to any agreement. This precept also highlights contentment; can we simply
be content with what is offered without seeking more? In the dance, espe-
cially, can we be content with letting it be what it is? Can we remember the
context in which we are dancing? Can we stay aware of the implicit contract
that is made when we are in a contact improvisation jam? Becuase there are
parameters.
Having sexual energy is part of being human and therefore also present
in dancing contact improvisation; if the sexual energy builds with a partner
during a jam it is generally not judged, but practitioners develop a sensitivity
to what is appropriate in a jam and have a sense of a line beyond which it is
better to take that sexual energy into another context.
Where the line of appropriate sexual behaviour gets drawn is moot, but
mostly in jams there is not usually a lot of explicit sexual activity happening.
Most people want to focus on the dancing. I think there is plenty of scope
for a contact improvisation dance to go into more explicitly sexual terri-
tory, but grounds for consent would need to be established, ideally at the
start.
I see contact improvisation as being sensual – taking pleasure in the
present moment experience of pleasurable sensations – rather than erotic,
which would tend towards sexual expression. As containing sexual energy but
not indulging in it, and I value it for that. Personally, I do not want to be seek-
ing the erotic in a jam, but sharing sensuality does feel appropriate and is very
satisfying in itself. At the same time, it is important not to cut off from one’s
sexuality, but one can be in touch with that without disrupting the dance of
others.
Most contact improvisation classes and jams start with a disclaimer that
reminds participants to take responsibility of their own safety and comfort in
the class or jam. Therefore from the beginning there is an explicit permission
for participants to not do anything that they are not comfortable with. This

284   Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

 Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitioner

is most often expressed in terms of physical safety but usually also acknowl-
edges the challenges to boundaries and intimacy that can occur in contact
improvisation. Within a jam, stopping to negotiate boundaries and consent
verbally does not work very well – although does happen – and hence practi-
tioners of contact improvisation train in sensitivity to what is available in the
body for this dance and learn to extricate themselves from situations that they
are not ready to consent to. In his essay 101 ways to say NO to contact improvi-
sation, Martin Keogh says,

[…] there is a basic principle that each person takes responsibility for
him- or herself. I am the only person who can be inside my body, so I
need to keep a part of me awake – the part that can sense and commu-
nicate (physically or verbally) my needs, limits and desires. I need to
keep myself safe and make sure I don’t hurt others.
(Keogh 2002: 129)

Abstaining from false speech and speaking truthfully

This includes factual accuracy, ‘telling it like it is’ and non-evasiveness.
Skilful speech should also be kindly, timely and helpful. These last points
are important as we do not want to dump our version of the truth on others
when it is neither kindly, timely and helpful nor loaded with our assump-
tions and prejudices. In his essay on ethics, The Ten Pillars, Sangharakshita
points out that

Untruthful speech cannot be a vehicle of communication, so that in any

human society in which untruthful speech predominates communica-
tion will break down. Without truthful speech there can be no civiliza-
tion and culture; indeed, there can be no spiritual life and no Spiritual
Community. Without truthfulness society itself cannot exist.
(1984: 77)

In dancing, a sense of transparency and authenticity can be looked for; in fact

to misrepresent yourself in dance becomes dangerous, if, for example, you
give the impression of being strong but you are not feeling strong, someone
might give you more weight than you can really handle. What became contact
improvisation began in Steve Paxton’s interest in how the body responds to
risk and disorientation.

Steve’s ploy was to put the dancer’s body into unusual, disorienting, and
often emergency situations, pulling the rug out from under our feet, so
to speak. Rather than a predictable and familiar environment of support,
such as the sole of one’s foot meeting the fixed surface of the floor, in
Contact Improvisation, one finds oneself in circumstances that demand
accessing support from any area of one’s own body surface while in
physical contact with any area of another person’s body surface, both of
which are in motion. In this situation, one is not able to rely on habits;
the reflexes take over, and the rest is history.
(Lepkopff 2010)

On the other side, dancing (or speaking) truthfully is inherently satisfy-

ing. To paraphrase Sangharakshita, dance in which untruthful dancing
predominates will break down. There is so much in the way that contact

www.intellectbooks.com   285
 –ja
Lalitara

improvisation has developed, in terms of mindful attending and as research

of the body, that to misrepresent what is happening is entirely counterpro-
ductive. However, it is also a matter of intention and degree; we can only be
truthful to the extent that we are aware, and hence it is always an on-going
practice.

Abstaining from intoxicants that cloud the mind and

practising mindfulness
This can include abstaining from the obvious intoxicants such as drink and
drugs, and some Buddhists do practice complete abstinence from these. But
again it is important to understand the principle involved, which is taking
responsibility for one’s mental states. For example, if I drink a whole bottle of
wine in one sitting I can not expect mindfulness to be easy the next morning.
Spending hours and hours on Facebook, news sites or watching TV can have
a similar effect if we are not careful – mindfulness is impaired. Once or twice
in jams or in classes that I have been teaching, I have come across the smell of
alcohol on my partner’s breath. Safety feels compromised, so I carefully check
out the extent to which my partner feels intoxicated; if they are, it will affect
my ability to trust and commit to the dance. Usually I would suggest a timeout
where we can talk about what is appropriate.
Contact improvisation is a relational practice and to be insensitive or
to be not listening is to come out of relationship, decrease cooperation and
increase the possibility of harm. Safe practice in this form, which has at its
genesis researching what the body does in situations of risk and disorienta-
tion, requires being in skilful relationship with the other of non-harming. Safe
practice is ethical practice.

Spiral paths
The word that the Buddhist tradition uses to talk about ethics is sila, which
as well as ethical codes, refers in a broader way to how we shape our minds
and our lives through our actions. One of the characteristic ways that ethics is
taught by the Buddha is as the first part of the three-fold way of ethics, medi-
tation and wisdom. They can be seen both as a linear path and as being prac-
tised simultaneously all the time. In a number of traditional texts (suttas) this
three-fold way is presented as a spiral path and it gives us a more meditation
focused view on ethics. (I am indebted to Jayarava Attwoods’s articles ‘Ethical
modes in early Buddhism’ [2014] and ‘The spiral path or Lokuttara Paticca-
samuppada’ [2013] for stimulating these reflections.)
A spiral path refers to the idea that instead of chasing around in circles we
can lift ourselves out of our current situation into something better by follow-
ing the path outlined. In these spiral path texts the ethics stage progresses
by (linear) steps until a state of gladness and absence of gross hindrances
(pāmojja) is reached, which then allows the meditation stage to begin. In
other words, the clearer your conscience is, the easier it is to calm the mind.
By traversing the ethical stages, one is in a fit state to enter into medita-
tion proper (samadhi literally means integration). Aya Khema in When the
Iron Eagle Flies goes so far as to suggest that without an absence of gross
hindrances and distractions meditation simply is not possible(!) (1991:
92). At the end of the meditation stage, knowledge and vision of things
as they are arises (yathābhūta-ñānadassana) and leads into the wisdom
phase.

286   Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

 Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitioner

Phase Pali Translation

Ethical phase sati, sampajanñña, yoniso- Mindfulness, clear-knowing,

manasikāra, hiri, ottapa, wise attention, shame/
samvara, and indriyesu remorse, scruple, restraint,
˙
gutta-dvāratā and guarding the gates of
the senses (Attwood 2014)
Meditation pāmojja, pı̄ti, passadhi, sukha, Joy, rapture, tranquillity,
phase samādhi bliss and integration
(Attwood 2013)
Wisdom phase yathābhūta-ñānadassana, Knowledge and vision
nibbidā, virāga,˙ vimutti, of things as they are,
āsavakkhaye-ñānam or Disenchantment,
Vimuttiñāna ˙ Dispassion, Emancipation,
Knowledge that one is
liberated.

The ethical steps leading to a gladdened mind, free from hindrances,

proceed like this: mindfulness, clear-knowing, wise attention, shame/remorse,
scruple, restraint and guarding the gates of the senses (Attwood 2014). The
steps do sound like meditation instructions or a series of contemplative
gestures and they can be used that way, but they can also be applied more
broadly.
Mindfulness, clear-knowing and wise attention are essential to any prac-
tice of mindfulness, whether in formal meditation or not. They might seem like
synonyms but they are quite specific. Here is Kabat-Zinn defining mindfulness
in a way that has been broadly adopted by secular mindfulness, ‘Mindfulness
can be thought of as moment-to-moment, non-judgmental awareness, culti-
vated by paying attention in a specific way, that is, in the present moment,
and as non-reactively, as non-judgmentally, and as open-heartedly as possi-
ble’ (2005: 108). The word mindfulness is used to translate the pali word sati.
Sati also has the idea of memory in its etymology, and so we can add a sense
of being recollected or self-remembering to our definition (Analyo 2003 offers
a thorough discussion of this).
Next, clear-knowing or simply ‘awareness’ adds a layer of particularity to
how these steps are to be practised. Analyo says that it ‘[…] is the ability to
fully grasp or comprehend what is taking place’ (2003: 40).
Wise or appropriate attention adds a layer of discrimination to the attend-
ing. It has the implication of getting to the root of things and is sometimes
cited by the Buddha as being the key quality that leads to wisdom.
Shame/regret and scruple are positive responses to the knowledge of
one’s own unskillfulness. Shame can be said to arise because of the increase
in awareness brought about by the previous stages. Often when we become
more aware, our own shortcomings are part of the picture that is revealed. It
has got a sense of ‘can do better’ or that one has let oneself down. It is impor-
tant to note that no guilt is involved, as this implies a fear of punishment and
there is no one to punish us in this schema.
If shame is one’s own embarrassment at letting oneself down, then scruple
is the thought of having let down others, particularly in the sense of letting
down those who are wiser or are teachers to you.

www.intellectbooks.com   287
 –ja
Lalitara

Restraint here is about avoiding the things that would bring on shame
and scruple. We restrain ourselves all the time (from inappropriate or untimely
impulses) and thus this just speaks to taking that on rather more consciously.
For instance, not having that extra glass of wine because you know you have
a class in the morning is this kind of healthy restraint that is intended, not
repression.
Guarding the gates of the senses is taking care to not invest in any sensory
input in such a way that it would be unhelpful. I am sure we are all famil-
iar with the moment when reading the news turns from being informed to
becoming dulled by all the stimulation. I am reminded of a story that a friend
who studied at Dartington College told me. Steve Paxton, the originator of
contact improvisation, was frequently invited to teach by Mary Fulkerson who
was head of dance at Dartington College from 1972 onwards (Mary had been
involved in some of the first contact improvisation events). My friend said that
Steve Paxton used to come and teach their (evenly gendered) group of hormo-
nally challenged 18 and 19 year olds and over the course of the term he grad-
ually emphasized more and more the phrase ‘calming the glandular activity’.
Guarding the gates of the senses involves making choices about what to give
attention to, in each situation.
Working through these lists can be rather technical […] imagine this
example of a meditation but it could apply to any situation

I sit down to meditate I set up mindfulness, moment to moment atten-

tion on the breath. bring in some clear-knowing of what I’m doing,
which seems to add more detail and precision to the attention. I’m
breathing […] I’m breathing […] I’m thinking about breathing […]
I’m thinking about Donna Fahri’s breath book […] I’m thinking about
someone, a cute person doing yoga […] maybe meeting up with them
later […]and later maybe […] I realise that I’m not attending wisely and
refocus. I feel slightly ashamed about drifting off into a seedy fantasy, no
need to give myself a hard time just notice how that feels […] it doesn’t
really sit well with the commitment I made to my partner […] restrain-
ing the fantasy with a light touch, keeping the mind sense focused on
the experience of breath […] breathing […]. breathing […] calm […]
actually feels good […] breathing

Imagine applying this to a contact dance. Try to think of this happening in the
first three seconds of a dance, although it takes longer to read this.

I make contact […] I’m sensing my partner, I’m present to their pres-
ence […] I know where our bodies are connected, I can sense the
architecture […] I’m sensing the subtle movements between us […]
hmm, they feel strong […] maybe we could do that thing I saw on
that Youtube clip!..Oh hang on that’s not it […] trying to stay with
the sensations […] I hope they aren’t pick up my overexcitement […]
staying with it now, just let that fade […] surrender to the contact […]
whoosh!

Hopefully that makes things clearer. The ethics phase sounds like that is where
the work happens; there are things to practise. Whereas in the meditation
phase it can sound like we are simply enjoying the fruits of the ethics phase,
but each stage requires a deepening of the previous stages in order to arise. In

288   Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

 Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitioner

the wisdom phase too, there is a sense of deepening each stage to reach the
next, while the ethical phase appears to be the driving force behind the whole
process. Thus, right up to the knowledge that one is liberated, mindfulness,
clear-knowing, etc. are being practised. Buddhist ethics represent the natural
behaviour of someone who has achieved this liberation.
Ethics on the spiral path lead to a ‘jumping off’ point for meditation as
it were. On the ground in my own experience it is somewhat messier! But I
can confirm that these steps can lead into deeper, more integrated meditation
experiences, which in turn create a happier healthier life – as long as you are
prepared to work with your experience, but it can be challenging. It is actually
not so hard to find moments where the distractions and gross hindrances are
abated and you can start to test out the next steps for yourself. A spiral path is
a map; there are different versions and there are different ways to follow the
map whether it is a list of precepts or a spiral path.

Mapping contact improvisation

In mapping contact improvisation we can note that it has some similarities to
the spiral path we have looked at, and the territory overlaps quite a bit, but
there are differences.
In terms of guidance, we can use scores, for example, and just as there
are many possibilities for mapping ethical guidelines, there are many kinds of
scores. The Underscore has the distinction of being widely practised, perhaps
the most widely practiced after Round Robin scores, which are often used to
teach beginners about jamming. The Underscore continues the theme of guid-
ing through a series of states that are not necessarily linear, rather than being
a prescriptive list.

The Underscore is a framework for practicing and researching dance

improvisation that [Nancy Stark Smith] has been developing since
the early 1990s. It is a score that guides dancers through a series of
‘changing states’ from solo deepening/releasing and sensitizing to grav-
ity and support, through group circulation and interaction, Contact
Improvisation engagements, opening out to full group improvisation
with compositional awareness, and back to rest and reflection.
(Koteen and Stark Smith 2008: 90)

The Underscore usually begins with various kinds of ‘arriving’ that engender
awareness and presence and begin to prepare the body/mind; once arriving
has happened as arranged, there is usually an opening circle that invites the
relational side of the practice. It is broader and more open-ended than the
precepts and perhaps more like the spiral. The contact improvisation map has
forms and principles that are quite clear but it encourages us to redraw the
map in each dance that we enter into.

Paths of enquiry
Like Buddhist practice contact, improvisation could be said to be a path of
enquiry. When the Buddha left home 2500 years ago it was because he had
questions – why is there sickness, old age and death? Why so much suffering?
In contact improvisation the questions are different, but as Lepkopf points
out, they were there from the beginning of contact improvisation and they
have shaped the form.

www.intellectbooks.com   289
 –ja
Lalitara

The underlying technique needed to prepare for and survive the surprises
of a Contact Improvisation duet is to pose and maintain a question:
[…] This questioning, rather than formulated within one’s verbal mind
is formulated and resides within the tissues of the body: bones, muscles,
organs, nerves, and brain. […]

The idea that a question can be the definition of a movement form is

sophisticated. The dominant association triggered by the word form is
perhaps the idea of the shape of a physical object. In the case of Contact
Improvisation however, the word form refers to a synaptic architecture, a
readiness to receive a particular band of real time information. What is
commonly referred to as ‘the duet form’ has no knowable outer form.
(Lepkoff 2010, original emphasis)

Contact improvisation requires active listening to one’s own body and to

the other bodies that one comes into contact with, listening that is invested
with mindfulness, clear knowing and wise attention alongside curiosity. In
the process there is surrender of control involved, which can be a challenge.
Allowing one’s own intentions to become peripheral for a time.

But this all has to do with intent, which should be minimal, and the
sensing of intent maximal. The more the forms are understood the more
co-operation becomes the subject – an ‘it’ defined by the balancing of
the intertias, momentums, psychologies, spirits of the partners.
(Paxton 1975: 41)

Seeking the sublime dance

In entering the dance, connection is sought, we are curious, we seek consent,
we seek permission that comes through the touch, the touch is seeking
permission, is seeking a ‘yes’, one is always sensing and transmitting yes or
no. For me, one of the immensely satisfying things about dancing contact
improvisation is that we are together sensing deeply and responding at a
really fundamental level. This processing is ‘faster than thought’ (Paxton 1988:
38) and I experience it intuitively; the contact dance emerges in real time at
the speed of falling. The more ‘cooperation becomes the subject’ (Paxton 1975:
41), the more my partner and I trust the emergence of the dance between us –
we can sense the yes (or no) that comes through the skin.
There is a sense, in the practice of contact improvisation, that once you get
going you are in it; if it goes well the sense of flow increases and can develop
into being in the zone. To get the sense of flow one needs to get-out-of-the-way
to let ‘cooperation becomes the subject’ (Paxton 1975) and let the dance happen.
But what does ‘get-out-of-the-way’ and ‘cooperation become the subject’ actu-
ally mean? It means getting the ego, the sense of I out of the way, or at least
cooperating with the dance. All ethical practice challenges this ego-clinging.
For example, taking on the practice of being kind will require us to consider
other people as being just as or even more important than ourselves. This is a
direct challenge to the ego-view of itself being the centre of the universe.
In the essay The Religion of Art, Sangharakshita (1988) discusses the mutual
purposes of religion and art in terms of egolessness. ‘Religious art is that kind
of poetry, music, or any other species of art, which conduces to the experi-
ence of egolessness’. He later offers the perspective that the ego ‘[…] does not
really exist; it is not a thing but a thought; not a metaphysical entity but an
epistemological error’ (Sangharakshita 1988: 85).

290 Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

 Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitioner

There is a story attributed to the Buddha about two wandering acrobats

who earn their living going from village to village and performing. In it the
bamboo acrobat and his assistant discuss how they will show off their craft
and earn good money. The master says that they should each focus on the
other person, while his assistant says that they should focus on what they are
doing themselves. The Buddha concludes the story by saying, ‘Looking after
oneself, one looks after others. Looking after others, one looks after oneself’
(Olendzki 2013). He then says that the way to do this is to look after your-
self by being mindful and look after others by ‘patience, by non-harming, by
loving kindness, by caring’ (Olendzki 2013). I like the idea that they are not
simply independent, just practising mindfulness for themselves; they are also
not co-dependent by only thinking about the others’ needs, and instead they
exemplify interdependence by each looking after their own practice at the
same time as taking care of the other.
Anyone who has practised contact improvisation for a while becomes
familiar with the basis of looking after oneself as the way to keep your partner
safe – each individual looking after their own safety, for example, not grabbing
them as they fall so as to not interfere with their ‘landing gear’. We spend a
lot of time learning how to fall. This sounds like the point of view of the assis-
tant. So for a while the Buddha’s story did not speak to me so much of contact
improvisation, but later I realized that even though I am not interfering, or
perhaps by not interfering, I am practising non-harming and loving kindness.
In practising surrender to the point of contact, I start to consider the other and
my alertness to the other is not just mindful, it is kindly.

No assumptions and no preferences

We have explored two models of how Buddhist ethics might feed into contact
improvisation. But there are also ways of working in contact improvisation
that have fed back into my Buddhist ethical practice. ‘No assumptions’ and ‘no
preferences’ are two ways of working that I find especially helpful in finding
the overlap between my dharma and contact improvisation practices – both
seem to attenuate the tendency of the ego to appropriate the experience and
take-over; they do tend to follow on from each other and both have already
appeared in this discussion.
No preferences is good for staying open to whoever comes along in the
course of dancing. It is important to maintain safe boundaries, and if anything,
letting go of my own preferences can enhance my alertness to the other and
whether my body should be in yes or no mode. Having a preference means
that there is a desire for things to be other than they currently are and includes
a subtle (or not so subtle) element of controlling the situation. One way of
looking at the Buddhist project is to bring an end to dukkha. Usually trans-
lated as suffering, the etymology of dukka is of an ill-fitting cart-wheel that
gives you a rough ride, and hence un-satisfactoriness is often used. The cause
of our un-satisfactoriness is said to be that the mind is constantly running a
programme of want this, do not want that, want this, do not want that, etc. It
is the reactive mind at work. Letting go of preferences is letting go of wanting
things to be other than they are; it is letting things unfold and emerge in their
own way. It is learning to trust what emerges in real time.
True freedom in Buddhism means learning to live not out of the reactive
mind but to live instead in increasingly creative states that lead on from mind-
fulness. So letting go of preferences does not mean that you should not prefer
safety over danger, or creative expansive states over suffering states. It means

www.intellectbooks.com   291
 –ja
Lalitara

rather, becoming sensitive to the demands of the reactive ‘yes this, no that’
mind and choosing more wisely. In day-to-day terms, letting go of preferences
encourages less self-centred living so that one can respond to the objective
needs of the situation as it arises.
In practising making no assumptions, I am again more sensitive to the
other, I cannot rely on all the other dances we have had, I cannot rely on the
other having had any training at all. It is a really delicious state to dance in.
Making assumptions can be a way of resisting change; we want our partner to
be the same and thus we treat them as if they are in the hope that they will be.
Whether our assumptions are positive or negative they get in the way of how
things can actually unfold.
Sometimes assumptions can be a kind of violence; they are the fuel behind
prejudice. On a subtler level, to meet someone you have not seen for years
and for them to treat you as you were, when your responses in the present are
quite different, can sometimes be funny but can also be galling.
Practising having no assumptions and no preferences can create strongly
ethical states in my view. Perhaps with regular practice, contact improvisation
develops an ethical sensibility. No assumptions and no preferences both ask
you to stay close to the way things actually are, and not how you wish they were
or how they were last time. Both suspend judgement and allow the other the
generosity to be able to reveal themselves in each moment, just as they are in
themselves and not as you think they are. To quote the 3rd zen patriarch Seng-
ts’an, ‘The great way is easy for those who have no preferences’ (Clarke 1973: 1).

You are a stranger at the jam. I will never learn your name. Our authen-
tic, spontaneous contact entails surrendering our needs to gain or profit
from this interaction. It is the process of relinquishing a desired result or
outcome. Contact is the crossroads where we meet, where information
and goods are exchanged. Contact is the marketplace, the watering hole,
it is where we allow ourselves to be affected and where our strengths
and limitations are challenged, encouraged, and tested. Authentic,
spontaneous contact is about entering the exchange and flow, willing
to bargain our perceptions and actions without fear of loss or promise
of resolution.
(Keogh 2013)

Buddhist practice is intended to lead towards seeing-things-as-they-are and

freedom. Therefore, to the extent that practicing contact improvisation incor-
porates many of the same or similar principles as Buddhism, then to that
extent one can expect similar outcomes. Although a lot of contact improvisa-
tion dancers meditate and have been on retreat and some are deeply immersed
in the dharma, most have not touched Buddhism. But I have long been struck
by the similarity in tone between the Buddhist and contact improvisation
communities. Friends who have never done meditation formally and do not
profess any spiritual allegiance nevertheless seem to have an acutely devel-
oped ethical sensibility. Even those who have no interest in meditation seem
to carry these values with them, from the dancing into their life.

Concluding thoughts
Contact improvisation has grown up – 45 years and counting – but the under-
lying culture has remained fairly consistent. I would like to suggest that this

292   Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

 Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitioner

has a lot to do with the absorption of the counter-cultural values of the early
1970s and the decision not to trademark or patent contact improvisation, that
in effect it should remain ‘open source’ and that it was the responsibility of
anyone who enjoyed contact improvisation to pass it on safely and with the
values intact (see Novack 1990 for full discussion).
Buddhist ethical practice helps create community around shared values
that the ethical precepts embody. Practising contact improvisation also
tends to build community around shared values, but those values tend to be
implicit rather than explicit. The Buddha gave a teaching about what builds
and sustains a strong community, including generosity, kindness (especially
speech), acting skilfully and exemplification (of values). Whether it is a small
class or a large intensive gathering, these qualities can be found in the contact
improvisation community.
I want to leave you with a quote from Nancy Stark Smith that took me
right back to my early ethical training at the age of three and hearing the story
The Water Babies (Kingsley 1863), which has two prominent female characters,
Mrs Be-Done-By-As-You-Did and Mrs Do-As-You-Would-Be-Done-By; just
to remember their names instilled in me my first ethical precepts.

When I asked Steve recently what he thought the ‘core proposition’

of Contact Improvisation was, at first he said he didn’t know, but on
further reflection he offered this: Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.
(Koteen and Stark Smith 2008: xv, original emphasis)

References
Analyo, Bhikkhu (2003), Sathipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization,
Birmingham: Windhorse Publications.
Attwood, Jayarava (Dh) (2012), ‘The spiral path or Lokuttara Paticca-
samuppada’, Western Buddhist Review, 6, pp. 1–34, https://thebuddhistcen-
tre.com/system/files/groups/files/Jayarava-Spiral%20Path.pdf. Accessed 8
July 2015.
—— (2014), ‘Ethical modes in early Buddhism’, Jayarava’s Raves, http://jaya-
rava.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/ethical-modes-in-early-buddhism.html.
Accessed 7 July 2015.
Ayya Khema (1991), When the Iron Eagle Flies: Buddhism for the West, London:
Penguin Books.
Batchelor, Stephen (1998), Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to
Awakening, London: Bloomsbury.
Clarke, Richard B. (trans.) and Jikihara, Gyoskusei (illustrator) (1984), Hsin
Hsin Ming: Verses on the Faith-Mind, Buffalo, NY: White Pine Press.
Gendlin, Eugene (2003), Focusing: How to Gain Direct Access to Your Bodies
Knowledge, London: Rider.
Kabat-Zinn, Jon (2005), Coming to Our Senses: Healing Ourselves and the World
through Mindfulness, New York: Hyperion.
Keogh, Martin (2002), The Art of Waiting: Essays on Contact Improvisation,
Version 6.5, North Easton MA: The Dancing Ground, privately
published.
—— (2013), ‘Why do you dance contact improvisation?’, Blog post, 24
October, http://martinkeogh.com/why-do-you-dance-contact-improvisa-
tion/. Accessed 26 February 2013.

www.intellectbooks.com   293
 –ja
Lalitara

Koteen, David and Stark Smith, Nancy (2008), Caught Falling: The Confluence
of Contact Improvisation, Nancy Stark Smith and Other Moving Ideas,
Northampton, MA: Contact Editions.
Lepkoff, Daniel (2010), ‘Contact improvisation a question’, http://www.danie-
llepkoff.com/Writings/CI%20A%20question.php. Accessed 26 January
2016.
Novack, Cynthia (1990), Sharing the Dance: Contact Improvisation and American
Culture, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Olendzki, Andrew (trans.) (2013), ‘Sedaka Sutta: The Bamboo Acrobat (SN
47.19)’, Access to Insight, legacy ed., 2 November, http://www.accesstoin-
sight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.019.olen.html. Accessed 26 February 2016.
Paxton, Steve (1975), ‘Contact improvisation’, post-modern dance issue,
The Drama Review: TDR, 19:1, March, pp. 40–42, http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1144967. Accessed 3 July 2015.
—— (1988), ‘Fall after Newton’, Contact Quarterly, 13:3, pp. 48–50.
Sangharakshita (1984), The Ten Pillars of Buddhism, Glasgow: Windhorse
Publications.
—— (1988), The Religion of Art, Glasgow: Windhorse.
—— (1999), Puja: The FWBO Book of Buddhist Devotional Texts, Birmingham:
Windhorse Publications.
—— (2001), A Survey of Buddhism, 9th ed., Birmingham: Windhorse
Publications.
Weisser-Cornell, Ann (1998), ‘The focusing technique: Confirmatory knowing
through the body’, in Helen Palmer (ed.), Inner Knowing: Consciousness,
Creativity, Insight, and Intuition (New Consciousness Reader), New York:
Tarcher/Putnam.

Suggested citation
Lalitarāja (2017), ‘Buddhist ethics and the contact improvisation practitio-
ner’, Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices, 9:2, pp. 281–94, doi: 10.1386/
jdsp.9.2.281_1

Contributor details
Lalitarāja (Joachim Chandler MA) lectures in dance at Roehampton University
where he teaches choreography, contact improvisation and improvisation.
Performance credits include Scottish Ballet, Michael Clark, Adventures in
Motion Pictures, Laurie Booth, Yolande Snaith and Charles Linehan among
others. He has presented more than 25 choreographic works and continues to
choreograph and perform. The name Lalitarāja was given on ordination into
the Triratna Buddhist Order. He has been meditating for more than 30 years
and he teaches meditation and Buddhism in London.
Contact: University of Roehampton, Dance Department, Froebel College,
Roehampton Lane, London, SW15 5PJ, UK.
E-mail: j.lalitaraja@roehampton.ac.uk

Lalitarāja has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submit-
ted to Intellect Ltd.

294   Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices