This is an open thread for anyone to post about aspects of K’s teachings that may have been a source of puzzlement or confusion (for them), but about which they now feel better able to comprehend and state more clearly.
These ‘comprehensions’ - or clarifications - are not intended as final, authoritative explanations (interpretations) about what K has said; but are merely a space for people to share those aspects of K’s teachings that have been difficult for them personally to understand, along with any clarity (or otherwise) they have been able to come to with respect to them.
For example, one thing that K said that has always puzzled me is why truth is not something to be experienced.
I have shared elsewhere why I have found the way K uses the word “experience” perplexing, but that has been explored on a separate thread. All I mean here is that for me (at least, as I have previously understood it) to ‘experience’ something means to be in direct contact with it. K often talks about the need for having a direct perception, to be directly in contact with nature, with people (or with a content of consciousness); of the need to “meet life” directly. And I always took this “meeting” to imply direct experience.
However, what I understand now is that when K uses the word “experience” (at least usually!), he is talking about a situation that involves thought and memory. That is, for K, experience implies an “experiencer” - the ego, the self; which is synonymous with thought, memory, one’s conditioning, etc - and this inevitably colours one’s perception. The “experiencer” (made up of thought, memory, conditioning, etc) interferes with perception, so that instead of a direct perception one instead ‘experiences’ one’s own background projections of thought and memory (one’s conditioning). And truth (or reality) cannot exist within the confines of the ego, of memory, of one’s projected background.
So only when psychological thought and memory are absent - which means the ego is absent: the “experiencer”, the observer, the self, etc, is in abeyance - can reality or truth show itself.
This is why K says that
Truth, God or what you will, is not something to be experienced, for the experiencer is the result of time, the result of memory, of the past, and so long as there is the experiencer there cannot be reality [i.e. truth]. There is reality only when the mind is completely free from the analyser, from the experiencer and the experienced (The First and Last Freedom).
I am not claiming that this clarification is the last word on the matter, but I hope it shows what kind of thing is intended by this thread.