Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

"Of sustained calm and profound insight, it is profound insight that is most important; but profound insight cannot arise without a preliminary calming of the mind. What is crucial here is to calm all the wild thoughts that constantly agitate, unsettle, and condition the mind, for such thoughts give rise to negative emotions which, in turn, you express as the words and actions that comprise the causes of suffering.

Calming the mind is like closing the glass of a lantern around the flame, so that it can shine brightly and steadily, protected from the wind."

igm wrote:

Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

"Of sustained calm and profound insight, it is profound insight that is most important; but profound insight cannot arise without a preliminary calming of the mind. What is crucial here is to calm all the wild thoughts that constantly agitate, unsettle, and condition the mind, for such thoughts give rise to negative emotions which, in turn, you express as the words and actions that comprise the causes of suffering.

Calming the mind is like closing the glass of a lantern around the flame, so that it can shine brightly and steadily, protected from the wind."

...I don't think man is autonomous, I think man is part of a whole...

jerlands wrote:

igm wrote:

Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

"Of sustained calm and profound insight, it is profound insight that is most important; but profound insight cannot arise without a preliminary calming of the mind. What is crucial here is to calm all the wild thoughts that constantly agitate, unsettle, and condition the mind, for such thoughts give rise to negative emotions which, in turn, you express as the words and actions that comprise the causes of suffering.

Calming the mind is like closing the glass of a lantern around the flame, so that it can shine brightly and steadily, protected from the wind."

...I don't think man is autonomous, I think man is part of a whole...

I agree everything is interdependent. Unfortunately, your post as a whole, seems to me to miss the point of my post, but that is understandable.

Words in and of themselves are active things.

jerlands wrote:

Words in and of themselves are active things.

The OP is, "Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?"

A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

A word, in its attempt to describe, fails, because it is not the referent. Reality can never be describe using words because it is 'not' reality, just an attempt to describe it, which must always fail.

Reality experienced directly is where wise, intelligent thoughts, words and actions arise from, full of compassion, used only to point either directly or indirectly at how to experience the true nature of reality directly. The experience of which is ineffable but conventionally it is called non-dual happiness.

jerlands wrote:

Words in and of themselves are active things.

A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

igm wrote:

jerlands wrote:

Words in and of themselves are active things.

A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

That is quite apparent. A bird isn't a bird unless it's considered in reference to something else. If you put everything together would it give a sound? If so then that sound would contain the meaning of everything.

jerlands wrote:

igm wrote:

jerlands wrote:

Words in and of themselves are active things.

A word without a referent is a meaningless sound. The interdependence of the sound and the referent gives meaning to the sound, which is called by the name 'word'. Therefore an individual word isolated from its referent is meaningless.

That is quite apparent. A bird isn't a bird unless it's considered in reference to something else. If you put everything together would it give a sound? If so then that sound would contain the meaning of everything.

As long that sound isn't described using a word or words.

As long as that sound isn't described using a word or words.