When the Message Does Not Travel
To anyone who has been banned from a community, I do not mean to say that I know the particulars of what happened, or that one person’s experience explains another’s. I have been banned too, in what felt to me like a similar kind of mismatch. I recognize something in the mixture of being excluded, smiling at the strangeness of it, and wondering whether what one meant ever had a chance to arrive.
Zen was not my first language. It became meaningful after a long apprenticeship to other books and other ways of listening. Before I came to it, there were texts that spoke more clearly to my ears and gave language to what I could then hear. I have come to think that people meet the same difficult human territory through many doors: Zen, Christianity, poetry, philosophy, psychology, recovery, song lyrics, science fiction, or no named path at all.
So perhaps a ban does not always settle the worth of what was said. Sometimes it says that the message, in the form it took, could not travel in that particular place. Tone, timing, vocabulary, history, and the available ear did not meet. That is not necessarily a verdict on the person who was banned, or on the people who moderated the space. It may simply be a mismatch that became visible.
Zen has its images of cutting through confusion. Still, I keep returning to the thought that the sword which cuts through all the BS must finally cut through the idea that sharpness by itself is wisdom. The question is not only whether something needs saying, but whether I have found a way to say it that another person can receive.
I do not say this as a correction to anyone. I am trying to learn it myself, through my own failures of measured expression. The work, as I see it, is to keep listening for the cues in the traffic, to keep tuning the instrument, and to remember that another place may have another ear.