Let's take as an example, Krishnamurti's teaching itself. When we first encounter Krishnamurti's work, we naturally first think about the ideas presented, and, if found to be convincing, then start contemplating how best to turn those ideas into reality.
"our version of his ideas takes root in the mind as memory."
I sometimes feel lucky that I heard K’s words without any expectation or desire for solutions. And also that the ideas were so completely incomprehensible that no personal interpretation arose.
I was just a young lad on holiday, and ideas like ‘the observer is the observed’ stayed in my head, simmering as pure mystery.
I think that how we react to Krishnamurti’s teachings when we first come across them, given we have not lived the teachings ourselves, is a very interesting area to explore. I would say that there is a tendency to adopt the truth of the teachings as if we had actually lived them rather than to find out thatvtruth for ourselves. I don’t really know why this is so.
Apart from being able to “explain” the reasons thanks to some model of human psychology or neurology (from reading books for example) - would you say that you are able to see the process (of interpretation or confusion) happen in yourself?
Hello Douglas. I’m not entirely sure I understand your question. The original post from Krishnamurti Information Network is very deep and I’ve re-read it a few times to try to get my head round it. This post seems to open a door to exploring how we react to the teachings given that we have never lived the truth of what K is saying ourselves. Am I able to see the process of interpretation and confusion happening in myself? Are you referring to the following from the original post?:
All I can say that I am partially aware of this, certainly not all the time. What about you?
No I was trying to dialogue directly with you - namely with you when you said: “I don’t really know why this is so”
Not relying on the words, or the authority of others, as what I see and feel, can only be seen and felt by me.
There is no right and wrong when it comes to feeling what you feel - others have no place here - despite the fact that we are all feeling and seeing too.
Take care. 
Hello again Douglas and thanks for the clarification.
When I said “I don’t really know why this is so”, I was expressing my confusion as to how we react when we first come across (and possibly much later too) Krishnamurti’s teachings given that we have not actually lived the truth of what he is saying. According to the original post from Krishnamurti Information Network, our version of his ideas takes root in the mind as memory. If this is so, aren’t we missing something very important from the very outset? What about Krishnamurti himself? Should he have addressed this fundemental flaw in our approach to his teachings more than he actually did? If we are “not getting it”, isn’t what was pointed out in the original post by KIN something that we should be giving great importance to?
Sure thing. And it is definitely something that we point to regularly on the forum.
So I interpreted your comment “I don’t know why” we interpret the unknown from the perspective of the known - or why we have a tendancy to interpret weird (as in new or “false”) ideas by comparing them to our internal model of reality; to mean that you found this surprising - rather than the other interpretation that you would like some technical explanation.
Thats why I asked whether you had noticed whether you were reacting in the same way as everyone else.
I’m afraid you’ve lost me here Douglas. I would say that I don’t think I ever come here looking for technical explanations though. Apart from finding these boring, I think this goes against the whole spirit of exploring Krishnamurti’s teachings together and, perhaps, discovering something new.
Thats why I said that I didn’t think you wanted that.
Maybe I am not good at writing comprehensible sentences.
Although I do find science fascinating and seemingly endless.