True teachings are a dialogue not a doctrine. A doctrine closes, like an answer to a question. A dialogue opens, like a question to an answer. A dialogue is simultaneously unique & universal. Exclusive & inclusive. The delivery morphs around the observer, not the observer to the delivery. This is why in Christianity (the least understood of all religions especially when born into it) “The Word” which is a God, really means “The Spirit of the Word when lived out or embodied”. It is actually a very simple & inclusive message when translated to the times & not translated to the translation.
Anyways, The words we place on the spirit of an expressed sentiment, are symbols of the energy in which we express them. And a skillful teacher translates the times, to pluck the symbols that may match the spirit the most effectively, in a particular instance. But it’s secondary to the Spirit of the communication. The same way gestures & mannerisms are used as language. Once we loosen the collar of the oxford dictionary on what we express, what we say becomes a simplification of how we say (or don’t say). Dive into that concept further, adding the context of YOU to the application.
What I’ve outlined personally, after reflection of that question, is that we are always communicating whether we know it or not. The next question I asked myself (which I’m still currently with) is “So then, what do I want to choose to communicate when I’m not tangibly communicating? And does the answer to that end up being the spirit of what I do end up speaking & sharing? Or, do I speak & share the spirit of the deeper, less tangible communication? Chicken or the Egg?”