I shall say

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> Writing is also uttering aloud, to pronounce.

> The printing press and Srila Prabhupada's books from the press are

> considered brhad mrdanga because they can be heard all over the world.

> Whereas the mrdanga can at most be heard for 1 or 2 blocks.

 

I am quite sure that on April 22, 1977 by "I shall say" Srila Prabhupada did

not mean "I shall use the printing press to print 'Now you become acarya.

You become authorized.'"

 

> > The other meanings of say do not apply here.

>

> Why not? Just because you SAY so? (In writting!)

 

Because it is an orally announced future action by a person.

 

> 4. Have or contain a certain wording or form

> "What does the law say?"

 

Srila Prabhupada is not an impersonal thing that has or contains a certain

wording or form.

 

> 10. Communicate or express nonverbally

> "What does this painting say?"; "Did his face say anything about how

> he felt?"

 

Nonverbally means "not expressed in words". So this excludes "in writing".

 

> Please note that 4 & 10 above, once more completely destroy your pityful

> speculations.

 

Sorry that my statement was not clear to you. By "verbally give the

authorization" I mean "mündlich", "orally". If "verbally" has an additional

meaning not meantioned in my German-English dictionary, then I am sorry.

 

(www.dictionary.com: "Usage Note: Verbal has been used since the 16th

century to refer to spoken, as opposed to written, communication.")

 

So my argument is:

 

On April 22, 1977 Srila Prabhupada said that he will orally give the

authorization. He said: "I shall say, 'Now you become acarya. You become

authorized.'".

 

You have not quoted a dictionary that confirms that when a person orally

says "I shall say, '...'", then it can also mean "I shall write, '...'".

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Ramakant prabhu;

 

Pamho. AgtSP.

 

 

 

> Because it is an orally announced future action by a

> person.

 

 

 

Could be orally, but could also be written. Since

Srila Prabhupada never stated which, it could be

either or both. So for you to speculate and state that

it must mean 'verbal' is wrong.

 

 

 

 

> > 4. Have or contain a certain wording or form

> > "What does the law say?" [from

www.dictionary.com - a meaning to the word say]

>

> Srila Prabhupada is not an impersonal thing that has

> or contains a certain

> wording or form.

 

 

I have not mentioned such. So you are presenting the

classical 'straw man' argument.

 

"contain a certain wording or form" - as above -

refers to the dictionary definition of the word say.

Quoted from www.dictionary.com - YOUR quoted from,

on-line dictionary.

 

Furthermore I object strongly to your misleading

attempt above. Whereby you atribute a dictionary

meaning - of the word say - TO Srila Prabhupada. This

is NOT only misleading but also offensive to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

Since you continue to demonstrate that you cannot

follow the debate with accuracy. I see not point in

continuing to discuss with you.

 

Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax

ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> > > > The other meanings of say do not apply here.

> > >

> > > Why not? Just because you SAY so? (In writting!)

> >

> > Because it is an orally announced future action by a person.

>

> Could be orally, but could also be written. Since Srila Prabhupada never

> stated which, it could be either or both. So for you to speculate and

> state that it must mean 'verbal' is wrong.

 

I wrote that the other meanings of "say" do not apply here because it is an

orally announced future action by a person.

 

But you now replied to following straw man argument: It must mean "verbal"

because it is an orally announced future action by a person. I never wrote

that.

 

> Furthermore I object strongly to your misleading attempt above. Whereby

> you atribute a dictionary meaning - of the word say - TO Srila Prabhupada.

> This is NOT only misleading but also offensive to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Don't you remember? On September 11 you quoted,

 

"4. Have or contain a certain wording or form; 'What does the law say?"

 

and then you wrote,

 

"Please note that 4 & 10 above, once more completely destroy your pityful

speculations".

 

So who was it who offended Srila Prabhupada by attributing "4" to him?

 

Outraged I wrote that "4" CANNOT be attributed to Srila Prabhupada. Didn't

you notice that?

 

> Since you continue to demonstrate that you cannot follow the debate with

> accuracy.

 

Can you? (see above)

 

> I see not point in continuing to discuss with you.

 

Do you give up, defeated?

 

ys Ramakanta dasa