Posted by Waveway on September 10th 2009 - 15:23:29 to
uncategorized 
About feeling good.
Good is always related to morals.
So when questioning about good or bad, question your moral, ethics.
I think word moral comes from morality.
We have moral because we are aware of dying, that we are temporary, that we will die.
So when feeling good, when you do something that feels good, why does it feel good?
and why do you think that feeling good would be good for others.
Extreme example, it’s highly possible that hitler or stalin felt extremely good about themselves and what they were achieving. And it’s highly possible that mother teresa didn’t (and in my point of view ms. teresa didn’t do only good). And it’s highly possible that Mr. Gautama or Jesus didn’t actually felt good…
feeling good. About what I do feel good about, and why?
Don’t use your feeling good for justification for anything.
Ask yourself why would you need justification?
Do you need justification for anything?
And if, to whom you need to justify your actions?
Who is that imaginary judge?
Society?
Parents?
Friends?
God?
You?
If I don’t care about the judgement of others why would I have a need to justify?
If I don’t care about the suffering of others why would I need to justify?
And If I don’t care about the suffering of others, what do I call love?
And If I don’t care about the suffering of others, what do I call good?
And If I don’t care about the suffering of myself, what do I call love?
And If I don’t care about the suffering of myself, what do I call good?
Some Zen or Taoist teachers said along these lines: “if you truly are a man, you can take the last piece of bread from the hungry, kill and slay”
Elevating.
So what do we talk about when we talk about good.
Common good?
Why do I feel good?
Why would I feel good?
As soon as you think what you feel, do you feel it anymore?
As soon as you concentrate on the presence of god, is the god present?
As soon as you think of something is holy, is it holy anymore?
As soon as you try to hold on to something, do you have it?
I dance in the world of abundance, where nothing is, and nothing is denied.
I dance in the world beyond good and evil, good and bad, ethics or morals.
I dance in the world of freedom.
I dance in physicality, bounded by forces I feel/sense.
I dance in the world of banality, where nothing is holy,
I dance in the world of flesh and blood and bones.
I dance on the earth, where everything comes from, where everything goes to.
I dance in the world of time, measured by perception, sensations, not by the hours of the clock.
I dance in me, moments flowing to moments, sensations to sensations, thoughs to thoughs and into the earth again.
I dance not.
Dance is me, me is dance. I do not exist out from the dance, dance does not exist out from me.
Who is dancing?
Words are meant to divide.
Make sections, differencies.
To be me is to separate from others.
There is no physicality without spirituality, spirituality without physicality.
CI is not physical practise, nor is it a spiritual one.
It’s a practise.
For me it’s the practise.
To me words have always been an intellectual tool, dividing, analyzing the world, my perception.
More I concentrate on the spirituality, on the holiness, more I question it, more fake I feel, more farther I drift.
Going to the mass at the times of being more connected with the lutheran congregation, was always problematic for me. I always felt it separates me from god rather than takes me closer.
What we name we control.
Who are you to control God?
CI is a practise of present moment.
Present moment is infinitive, infinity.
Nothing.
Two wonderful concept that we have as words are infinity and nothing.
Both sucha things we can’t truly ever intellectually realise.
We might have a sensation of both of them, (or maybe they’re the same)
Soon as we try to verbalise the sensation we’ve lost it already.
To feel the rush of love.
There is two persons I have felt the most unselfish love I have ever felt.
Both person are important to me, but at the same time I’m not attached to them in everyday life.
With both of them the realisation of the sensation of love have come out through the dance.
What I say afterwords is memory of that feeling, afterburns of it, but not the sensation itself.
But it has repetition, the feeling.
Almost whenever I dance with either one of them I feel it.
And I don’t know why.
Why it does’t happen with other people. After all I have great dances with other people too.
And then again.
Maybe:
With them I don’t have great dances. I know afterwards that the dance was great, but while in it. it’s all that is, not good not bad.
Maybe with other I know already while dancing that the dance is great?
This is not the truth….
No matter how I try to approach this topic, I can’t get into it. I can’t truly explain what happens and what do I feel.
Because it’s felt, not said.
Word is not a feeling.
In this culture of ours, we are so concentrated on the words.
Gospel by John starts: In the beginning was a word and the word was with god, the word was a god”
But as Arie so beautifully in Moscow reminded: “For there to be a word, there must be some one to hear it”
Am I talking aloud or is this happening in my head?
Where’s my head?
What is my head?
And how the hell I got these words in here after all?
I’m trying to tell…
What Am I trying to tell?
I said this in the meeting… and then Annukka said it so beautifully and so much simpler.
Why I want to keep SOS just concentrating on the “physicality”
The “technique” of the form is that it has inside all of it.
It’s for people to be found.
Why I don’t want to have sound healing work etc…
I want to concentrate on CI because that is the practise.
That is the practise we as a group have done.
We all might have different interest but all of us have rather strong technical, physical base to the dance.
Of sharing. Sharing the weight. Sharing the presense.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
And I crumble back into dust.
1 tale
