narrative on L's command: the two (or four, if we include the
　　　　  narrative pair) are involved in the process of zazen; they sit in
　　　　  meditative poses and ask questions of each other (via the knocks).
　　　　  This iterative patterning of reading, knocks, and repeated text will
　　　　  "grind text, wear down the book in the center of the deal table ...,
　　　　  softening meaning - until ... [the] mind reawakens to true
　　　　  mindlessness"(14) -- a re-visioning of the patterning of reality
　　　　  which takes "the mind out of a rationalistic habit of thought into
　　　　  true mindlessness."(15) The characters are working toward
　　　　  enlightenment -- escape from the suffering of the singular "I" --
　　　　  and use the repeated zazen ritual of reading and mulling over
　　　　  "their" koan to achieve -- or better yet, be -- this state.
　　　　  At this point, we might be inclined to try to figure out "who is
　　　　  who" in Ohio Impromptu: as with many of Beckett's other plays, a
　　　　  pair is present -- and in this case one exists in the narrative as
　　　　  well. Is one a "Zen master," the other a student? This is not a
　　　　  simple issue, as this pair of pairs is in constant flux, the
　　　　  relationship(s) changing as identity shifts and recombines from
　　　　  moment to moment. To simplify matters, then, we will momentarily
　　　　  dissect the play into pieces, each populated by a pair of characters
　　　　  or a doubled event. Though this effectively kills the organic unity
　　　　  of the play, our discourse is, of necessity, still trapped within
　　　　  the normative logical framework and thus a distillation of arbitrary
　　　　  parts is at least momentarily necessary.(16)
　　　　  If we first consider the play's internal narrative (the "sad tale")
　　　　  as a koan in itself, then it follows that either of the stage
　　　　  characters reading this koan -- L or R -- can be master or student.
　　　　  The next logical question is, of course, which is which? Apparently
　　　　  L is the student, as he listens to R's reading, yet other
　　　　  possibilities are also viable: perhaps R is the student, as L forces
　　　　  him to read and re-read a text which he, as Mary A. Doll puts it,
　　　　  "seems at a loss to comprehend";(17) perhaps both are students,
　　　　  reading the printed words of some unidentified master -- possibly
　　　　  (and recursively) themselves -- in an attempt to understand it.
　　　　  Within the narrative, the apparently distinct reader and
　　　　  listener/protagonist are also mingled in a dynamic pairing as they
　　　　  grow "to be as one" during their repeated ritual of reading (another
　　　　  koan?). They, we are told, find a state of "mindlessness" together.