"Increasing the Odds" as Correct Practice

Ah, Zen people'¦ so enigmatic.

Gozen wrote: "This is what Pao-chih is criticizing specifically. He scoffs at the notion that if one simply does some particular practices, Awakening will be produced as a mechanical result, in a simple cause-and-effect manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of our practices are methods for 'increasing the odds' that we will Awaken. But since Awakening is beyond conditions, it has no cause. This is why It (Bodhi, Enlightenment) is described as being of the nature of a discovery, recognition, realization, understanding, or'¦awakening... Like waking up in the morning, it just seems to happen without preconditions'¦ What does it take to get you to open your eyes?"

I'm not sure that I understand the full profundity of the above quotation, but I'd like to share what came to mind after reading it. That way, Gozen or any other Zen adepts might help to steer me toward a better understanding of their position on the relationship between Awakening and the practices that increase the odds it will occur.

I have likened meditation practice to erecting a lightening rod in a field. There's no force the lightening to strike the rod, but simply having one up increases the odds. Ken Wilber has said (whether he coined the saying or not) that enlightenment is an accident, and that meditation makes us more accident prone. More metaphors, I know'¦

So if correct practice is not a means of getting something or somewhere (i.e. getting enlightenment, or getting 'to' enlightenment), what is it? Perhaps "correct practice" is any practice that gets "me" out of the way so that Wisdom can shine through. But then we're faced with the question: "Who gets 'me' out of the way?"

I don't know where I'm going with this. If anyone feels like jumping in where I left off, please do

-Jackson

Hi, Jackson. I like Gozen's quote. Here's why: we know there is no one that awakens and we know that whatever is going on when we practice is not mechanical. It's not like baking bread, where if you just follow the same steps you are guaranteed a certain result, the same result every time.

I'd answer the question you asked with another question: why does there have to be a "who" that gets "me" out of the way? The way I see it there isn't.

"I'd answer the question you asked with another question: why does there have to be a "who" that gets "me" out of the way? The way I see it there isn't."

Very nice, Chris. I didn't say so earlier, but I liked Gozen's quote too.

I think you're right. There doesn't necessarily have to be a "who." This fact gets rather confusing for anyone who is convinced that they are a "who." Quite the paradox, isn't it? It is often said that the so called "higher truths" are paradoxical in nature. It would seem that linear logic fails us when it comes to both speaking about and experiencing the Absolute.

Which brings me to an entry from The Diary of Soren Kierkegaard that inspired the title of my blog...

The New Proverb

'I really do believe that Lying is a science,' said the Devil; he was attending lectures at Kiel University.

This amused Bishop Mynster a great deal when I talked to him yesterday. I had it on my lips to say, but did not utter it, for then Mynster would have put the proverb in to circulation, which I rather wanted him to do; '“ I had it on my lips to say: 'That is what I have always said: Lying is a science, Truth a paradox.'

~Jackson

Yes, and lying and paradox can only exist in the mind.

Hi Jackson,

Having exchanged a little with Gozen I have a "feel" for what he does and how he teaches, and what I say here is from this context rather than what you have specifically quoted. Cause and effect considerations equage the thinking mind, and Gozen is in this statement I think is pointing beyond thinking mind. Cause and effect being if I do this practice then ... Though there be the concepts of cause and effect the consideration of such is not the path. The theme is to move beyond this thinking mind TOTALLY. Metaphors like the lightening rod eguage the thinking mind so in some respect the investigation missing the point of Gozens pointing. (sorry for the pun).

Sorry this sort of sounds like you should not have put this thread, this is not the case, the thinking mind has its place, just that Gozen does not miss an opportunity to point beyond it and this is the thrust of what he is conveying.