I did answer: "Off-topic". This was because the thread concerned something else entirely, so I characterized the question thus.Mason wrote: ...can you say one word that is true, up and down and all around? Without the hints, gimmicks, ironies, puns, etc. Just one true word to fill space and time. What would you say, sir?
But I've come to think in a related (but completely different) vein about an aspect of what some call or name the Bible: they call it "The Word of God".
If I had been asked prior to the Christian Reformation (or even afterwards) the question, "Do you accept that the Bible is the word of God?", I would have been burned at the stake for my reply, or given some other inhumane treatment(s) for free-thinking heretics.
The reason is that I'd have to say -- and would have had to say then -- that, "It seems to me that the Bible is a good many MORE than ONE WORD".
And many more than just one voice.
I'd note that the word, or words, are highly edited. The Council of Trent, and other synods and council gatherings, made decisions about which texts were to be included in the Christian Bible. Some texts, like the "Gospel of Thomas" were rejected, and so I suppose were considered to be "contrary to the word of God" or just not of it. Thus, the body of writings which have been declared and marked as canonical writings has undergone a very intentional selection and endorsement process.
The same is true of the early writings of archaic Buddhism.
A good book on the history and doings of the Buddhist Synods and Councils which decided on the Buddhist texts to become canonical in the Tripitaka is one by the modern Indian scholar Amarnath Thakur (b. 1958); BUDDHA AND BUDDHIST SYNODS IN INDIA AND ABROAD, 1996; Abhinav Pubs., New Dehli. I have read and studied it and can recommend it with enthusiasm.