"I" looks like K's reincarnation

"I" looks like K's reincarnation
This is the first point I want to point out in this book.

× I don't know why "I" is following the teacher.
△ "I" and K are related.
○ "I" seems to be K's reincarnation.
× "I" is a reincarnation of K.
× I do not notice any hints.
△ I notice hints.
○ I'm dazzled.
× I'll neglect my hints.

The relationship between "I" and K, and the connection with the teacher, have been repeatedly implied, but it has not been explicitly stated that this is the case.
"I really found the teacher during this miscellaneous work" means that the teacher was known to me. "I couldn't seem to look like a face I had seen somewhere." "I didn't understand why this kind of emotion only happened to the teacher. It was today when the teacher died "I came to understand for the first time," "I want to walk with my teacher," "How old are you?"

Soseki clearly stated in Literary Theory that "the second purpose of literature is dazzling" and distinguishes between scientific and literary truths.
The interpretation of trying to resolve what is implied is a mistake ignoring literary ingenuity that has not been stated.
Imagine what is not written is the pleasure of reading. However, it is a mistake to delusion of what is not written and impose it on others.
In the first place, I did not recognize the relationship between "I" and K, but I did not read "Kokoro", but at the moment such a simple fact, Soseki says "I" and K There is no indication that there is an indication that it is related.