Which Mobile OS Is Best for You?

Most people don't think twice about which operating system will power their new smart phone or other mobile device. Should you?

By Ari Hakkarainen, Computerworld    May 2, 2007 1:00 am

Most people don't think twice about the operating system that's going to power their new PC -- their minds have already been wired for Windows, Mac OS X or Linux. Similarly, most people don't think twice about which operating system will power their new smart phone or other mobile device.

But that can be a big mistake because the underlying software has major impact on how you use your mobile device. For example, a look at the Linux-powered Nokia N800 Internet tablet shows just how an operating system can have strong advantages and shortcomings.

This Internet tablet runs customized Linux software, Maemo, which has been developed from the Debian and Gnome technologies. Out of the box, the unit can browse the Internet, read RSS feeds, send and receive e-mail, play music and videos, and make Internet phone calls using Google Talk. It also can transmit live video during phone calls via a built-in camera. Internet connection can be established via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or by using a broadband-capable cell phone as a modem.

However, while the N800 might initially seem to be feature-rich, you can't take photos or capture videos with the built-in camera because imaging software isn't included with the device. The same applies to personal information management -- calendar, notes and document-viewing applications are missing from the product. Such omissions may seem like quite a drawback for a product like the N800.

Because the device is based on open-source software, you can find and install those capabilities for free. Yet, this type of flexibility isn't for everybody -- many people will find it easier and more satisfying to buy devices based on other, less-open platforms such as the Symbian OS and Windows Mobile.

Let's look at how the Linux platform as deployed on the N800 compares in functionality with the Symbian OS and Windows Mobile.

Customizing the N800

For the N800 users, the place to start shoring up the device is the maemo.org Web site. The site hosts downloadable applications that open-source developers have made available for free.

For instance, readily available are a digital camera/video capture application, a multimedia player, calendar, spreadsheet, office document viewers, instant messaging, games and many other applications. It takes a single click (and a few security confirmations) to download and install a new application to the N800.

Smart phones built on Linux are available from many vendors, including Motorola, NEC, Panasonic and Samsung. Practically all current products are targeted at Asian markets, but the situation is changing. Apple has said that its iPhone will run on OS X, which is derived from Unix software. Palm is switching from Palm OS to Linux later this year.

The practice of building up a system configuration from freely available software components is nothing new for Linux desktop and server software users, who tend to be power users. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that an average Joe would pay for a product knowing that he would have to find, download and install an imaging application on the device before he could take photos with the camera.

While Maemo is used as the model of the open Linux culture, Windows Mobile and Symbian OS as major competitors of Linux have completely different origins and objectives. Both operating systems are licensed as traditional software products, both provide tools for programmers to create applications, and both are controlled by commercial enterprises.

Windows Mobile

Practically everyone who has used a desktop computer has used some Windows software. Yet, that knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to Windows Mobile, which is a separate piece of Microsoft software designed for smart phones and PDAs. Lately, devices like the Motorola Q and Samsung Blackjack have made the smart phone edition familiar to business people and consumers.

When you take a Windows Mobile smart phone or PDA out of the box and charge it, you are ready to roll. You can make phone calls right away. If you purchased the device from a carrier, messaging and Web access settings are already in place for sending e-mail and for browsing the Web.

Everything you need for managing your schedule, contacts, notes, to-do lists and messages is installed in the device. If you want to synchronize information with a desktop PC, you simply plug in a cable between the devices and use ActiveSync (on Windows XP) or Windows Mobile Device Center (on Windows Vista) to update the information.

Multimedia is another area in which integration between a Windows Mobile device and a PC works well. Streaming and downloading video or audio to a Windows Mobile device from the Internet doesn't require any additional software or settings. Windows Mobile can also play WMA and WMV formats, which are commonly used by media companies.

In contrast to Linux, Windows Mobile comes as ready-to-run software. You can enhance the software by downloading additional -- typically commercial -- software into the device, but you can't (or you don't have to) tweak the underlying operating system.

Symbian OS

Symbian is owned by a consortium of cell phone manufacturers that has specifically targeted the platform for smart phones. Products running on the Symbian OS include the upcoming Motorola MOTORIZR Z8, Nokia E- and N-series products, and the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 series devices. Interestingly, Symbian is, by far, the most widely used platform for smart phones worldwide, although it has yet to catch on in the U.S. despite the availability of some nice devices like the Nokia E62.

Like Windows Mobile devices, a Symbian-based device is ready for action as soon as it comes out of the box. Telephone, messaging and Internet access features are the key virtues in most Symbian OS devices. Typically, these features have been tightly integrated with relevant applications in the user interface software.

Symbian OS provides three alternative user interfaces while Windows Mobile keeps the choices to one. The user interface -- UIQ, S60 or MOAP -- is customized by the device manufacturer. The user can modify the system graphics, colors and sounds but can't touch the underlying software.

Contacts, calendar, notes, calculator and other applications for managing personal information are included with the user interface software. As with Windows Mobile devices, synchronizing personal information with a PC via cable or Bluetooth is also possible.

The integration of multimedia capabilities in Symbian OS/S60, however, has room for improvement. There's nothing wrong with individual components that let you view videos or listen to music, but the lack of integration between the media player and other applications can be painful when trying to stream video or music from the Internet.

Which Platform to Choose

Symbian OS and Windows Mobile have their competitive advantages. The former has strong telephone, messaging and browser integration, while the latter comes with stronger sync and media streaming capabilities. Both operating systems allow enhancing the functionality by downloading additional software, typically at a price. However, the underlying premise is the same: What you see is what you get. By contrast, Linux devices tend to be more bare-bones out of the box, but you can customize and upgrade easily and, typically, for free.

It all comes down to user needs and skills. If you are a tech-savvy person who enjoys spending extra time with new electronic devices, examining their options, looking for support from the Internet and customizing features, you are a strong candidate for a Linux device. If you would rather walk the dog in a freezing rain than configure software for a new device, a ready-to-run product built on an established operating system software is your choice.

However, while that's the scorecard today, the technology communities aren't sitting still. Palm has announced its intention to migrate its Palm OS-based software assets to Linux. Apple is about to launch iPhone, which will run on OS X, a Unix-based software. Both companies have a track record of delighting customers with easy-to-use products that work out of the box without any extra work.

If vendors such as those can leverage the ability to customize Linux devices with the ease of setup found with Symbian OS and Windows Mobile devices, Linux could easily catch on -- big time -- as a mainstream mobile platform.

A more than 20-year consulting and marketing career has taken Ari Hakkarainen across the world in high-tech business. In addition to having authored a book about smart phones, he is the mobile expert at Avec Mobile.

Vegetaranism : For the Good of our Planet

Will Facts and Figures change your opinions?

Here we approach the issue from another perspective, examining the devastating harm caused by a meat-laden diet–not only to the animal which is killed and eaten, but also to the meat-eater himself, to humanity as a whole and to our very planet. The following presentation is based on the poster, “How to win an argument with a meat-eater,” published by Earthsave, of Felton, California, giving facts from Pulitzer Prize nominee John Robbins’ book, Diet for a New America. This version details ten arguments against meat eating.

1. The Hunger Argument

The world’s massive hunger problems could be greatly alleviated by reducing or elimination meat-eating. Vast quantities of food suitable for humans are fed to livestock for meat production–wasting most of its protein in the process; in addition, the huge acreages now used as pasture for meat animals would produce much more human food if converted to grains and vegetables.

This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die of malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition every 2.3 seconds. One hundred million people could be adequately fed using the land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by a mere 10%. Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the US is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%. One acre of good farmland can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250 pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all US farmland is devoted to beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16 pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed the hungry.

2. The Environmental Argument

Many of the world’s massive environmental problems—including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rain forests and species extinction—could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating. The meat industry’s voracious need for pasturelands is the primary force driving the destruction of old-growth forests–which are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and of the rapidly escalating losses of topsoil and endangered-species habitat. Two hundred sixty million acres of US forestland have been cleared for meat production. An alarming 75% of all US topsoil has been lost to date,and fullly 85% of this loss is directly related to livestock raising. Another devastating result of meat-eating is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species disappear due to destruction of tropical rain forests for cattle grazing and other uses—driven by US demand for meat. The rate is growing yearly.

3. The Cancer Argument

Those who eat flesh are far more likely to contract cancer than those following a vegetarian diet. The risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week; 2.8 times greater for women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week; and 3.25 greater for women who eat processed butter and cheese two to four times a week as compared to once a week. The risk of fatal ovarian cancer is three times greater for women who eat eggs three or more times a week as compared with less than once a week. The risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater for men who consume meat, eggs, processed cheese and milk daily as compared with sparingly or not at all.

4. The Cholesterol Argument

The average cholesterol consumption of a meat-centered diet is 210 milligrams per day. The chance of dying

from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol intake is 210 milligrams a day is greater than 50%. It is strange but true that US physicians are as a rule poorly educated in the single most important factor of health, namely diet and nutrition. As of 1987, of the 125 medical schools in the US, only 30 required their students to take a course in nutrition. The average nutrition training received by the average US physician during four years in school is only 2.5 hours. Thus doctors in the US are ill equipped to advise their patients in minimizing foods, such as meat, that contain excessive amounts of cholesterol and are known causes of heart attack .

Heart attack is the most common cause of death in the US, killing one person every 45 seconds. The male meat-eater’s risk of death from heart attack is 50%. The risk to men who eat no meat is only 15%. Reducing

one’s consumption of meat, processed dairy products and eggs by 10% reduces the risk of heart attack by 10%. Eliminating all of these products from one’s diet reduces the risk of heart attack by 90%.

5. The Natural Resources Argument

The world’s natural resources are being rapidly depleted as a result of meat-eating. Raising livestock for their meat is a very inefficient way of generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended

to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and vegetables. For example, more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US is consumed in livestock production. The amount of water used in production of the average cow is sufficient to float a destroyer (a large naval ship).

While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are needed to produce a pound of California beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can produce 200 pounds of wheat. Thirty-three percent of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed

by the US are devoted to the production of livestock, as compared with two percent to produce a complete vegetarian diet.

6. The Antibiotic Argument

Another danger of eating meat is the fact that large amounts of antibiotics are fed to livestock to control staphylococci (commonly called staph infections). The animals being raised for meat in the United

States are diseased. The livestock industry attempts to control the various diseases by feeding the animals huge quantities of antibiotics. Of all antibiotics used in the US, 55% are fed to livestock. But the diseasecausing

bacteria are rapidly becoming immune to the antibiotics, thus endangering humans who depend on these antibiotics to combat disease. The percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin, for example, has grown from 13% in 1960 to 91% in 1988. These antibiotics and/or the super-resistant bacteria they were intended to destroy remain in the meat that goes to market. The European Economic Community banned the importation of US meat because of this routine feeding of antibiotics.

7. The Mad Cow Argument

In February, 2001, Cornell University reported, “Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, has now been officially identified  in a dozen European countries including the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands..

8. The Pesticide Argument

US-produced meat contains dangerously high quantities of deadly pesticides. Many people believe that the USDA protects consumers’ health through regular and thorough meat inspection. In reality, fewer than one out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues.A study of mothers’ milk in the US has clearly demonstrated that these chemicals are ingested by the meat-eater: 

a. Ninety-nine percent of the meat-eating mothers in the study produced milk with significant levels of DDT–compared to only 8% of the vegetarian mothers’ milk. This shows that the primary source of DDT

is the meat ingested by the mothers.

b. The breast milk of meat-eating mothers has 35 times more chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides than the milk of non meat-eating mothers.

c. The average breast-fed American infant contains nine times the permissible level of the pesticide dieldrin, which (though now banned in the US) continues to accumulate in the food chain and often exceeds safety

guidelines in fish and seafood.

9. The Ethical Argument

Many people have become vegetarians after reading about or personally experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the thousands of slaughterhouses in the US and other countries, where animals suffer thecruel process of forced confinement, manipulation and violent death. Their pain and terror is beyond calculation. Most slaughterhouse workers are not on the job for long and have the highest turnover rateof all occupations. It also has the highest rate of on-the-job injury. In the US alone, 1.14 million animals are killed for meat every hour. The average per capita consumption of meat in the US, Canada and Australia is 200 pounds per year! The average American consumes in a 72-year lifetime approximately eleven cattle, three lambs and sheep, 23   pigs, 45 turkeys, 1,100 chickens and 862 pounds of fish!

10. The Physiological Argument

The final argument against meat-eating is that humans are physiologically not suited for a carnivorous diet. The

book Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism in the World Religions, summarizes this point of view as follows. “Many nutritionists, biologists and physiologists offer convincing evidence that humans are in fact not meant to eat flesh.…” The book gives seven facts in support of this view:

1. Physiologically, people are more akin to plant-eaters, foragers and grazers, such as monkeys, elephants and cows, than to carnivore such as dogs, tigers and leopards.

2. For example, carnivores do not sweat through their skin; body heat is controlled by rapid breathing and  extrusion of the tongue. Vegetarian animals, on the other hand, have sweat pores for heat control

and the elimination of impurities.

3. Carnivora have long teeth and claws for holding and killing prey; vegetarian animals have short teeth and no claws.

4. The saliva of carnivora contains no ptyalin and cannot predigest starches; that of vegetarian animals contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

5. Flesh-eating animals secrete large quantities of hydrochloric acid to help dissolve bones; vegetarian animals secrete little hydrochloric acid.

6. The jaws of carnivora only open in an up and down motion; those of vegetarian animals also move sideways for additional kinds of chewing.

7. Carnivores must lap liquids, as a cat does; vegetarian animals take liquids in by suction through the teeth.

Nice Little Story - The Buddha and the Gift

Nobody could make Buddha angry very easily. Once when He was passing by, one man wanted to incite anger in Buddha’s heart. He went to Buddha and shouted at Him scorching, painful words of insult. Buddha still appeared to be smiling. It’s said there is aura around Buddha. Even if tiger and deer come into that circle, they would forget the enmity. He is so powerful. When the person is giving all these harsh words, He (Buddha) didn’t take it seriously. After sometime, this man felt great pain in this heart. He was surprised “I am giving such words to Buddha, instead of He feeling pain, why I am feeling pain?”

Buddha asked him “Do you ever get guests in home?. He said “yes”. “So when they come, do you offer some gifts to them?”. He said “yes”. “What will you do if they don’t accept?”. That Person said “who cares? I will keep with me only.” Buddha said “That’s what I did with you also; you offered me something(harsh words) which I didn’t accept”.

So Life is like a mirror. The words which you give will come back to you. We should be careful about what we give to others. Now somebody may say “I gave so much love to some person, still that person is rude with me”. No! If you give love to someone, don’t expect love from same person, it may come from somebody else. For example- Dhruva Maharaj is gentle to his step mother. But He is mistreated by her. He didn’t get love from his step mother, but he got love from Krishna later. His mother told him “Supreme Lord can give you so much love that millions of mothers like me cannot give”. Similarly in our life also, if we become vehicles of love n give love, we will get that love back.

Excerpts from IYF Lectures

Credit to Venkatesh Y

IS VEGETARIANISM THE CHRISTIAN THING TO DO?

History Of American Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism as a movement did not start with the hippies of the late 60′s and early 70′s as I would have imagined but rather it started long before that in 1817 with a small group of pilgrims who voyaged from Britain to the New World. Like the first Pilgrims, they were seeking escape from religious persecution and desired to practice their faith. They were serious about the Bible, and they took even more seriously the admonition in Genesis 1:29-30 which commands that the first humans only eat herbs and vegetables. They firmly believed that this was the original will of God. They called themselves the “Bible Christian Church” and one of the conditions necessary to become a member was being a vegetarian.

Does The Bible Command Vegetarianism

This author is also a Christian and a vegetarian but my marching orders did not come from Genesis 1:29-30 but rather I believe that although all the Bible is FOR us, it is not all written TO us, orABOUT us. I believe that the specific part of the Bible that is written directly to Gentiles in the Dispensation of Grace is found in the thirteen Gentile Epistles of Paul. As far as this writer is concerned Genesis 1:29-30 is not directly admonishing us regarding food but rather such verses as Romans 14:14 and I Timothy 4:4 in which Paul states by the Holy Spirit; I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (Rom. 14:14) For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. (I Tim. 4:4)

Although as stated I am a Christian and a vegetarian, nevertheless I do not snatch a verse out of Genesis to the exclusion of many other verses and attempt to establish a religionbased on a single passage of scripture. Instead I attempt to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth (II Tim. 2:15) and find out exactly which part of the Bible is speaking directly to me. So although I believe strongly in the cause of vegetarianism for reasons of health, protection of the environment, and protection of the rights of animals, I do not feel it prudent to teach that God has commanded all men throughout the ages to practicevegetarianism. I also believe that although God is not commanding the practice of vegetarianism in this Dispensation of Grace (Eph 3:13), He would nevertheless have us to realize that under grace All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me but all things edify not. (I Corinthians 10:23) Therefore I must choose that which is expedient and that which edifies. In regards to the consumption of animal flesh and their by-products as far as I am concerned the expedient and edifying thing to do is to abstain.

I hope the reader will be clear of at least one thing in regards to my stance on vegetarianism. It is my firm conviction that if all the evidence regarding human health, environmental issues, and animal cruelty are weighed in the balances, the only reasonable choice would be to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. I attempt to be intellectually honest about my convictions and offer evidence to support my conclusions. I do not however, seek to use an obscure passage of scripture to back up my strong intellectual belief in the many merits of a vegetarian lifestyle. It is not necessary to do so. Actually from my study of the Bible, I am fully persuaded that each of us must come to our own conclusions about this matter based on objective evidence. God is not condemning the practice of eating meat nor is He championing the merits of vegetarianism. Therefore if you are a Christian meat eater, I would not be so foolish as to try and prove to you from the Bible that you are out of God’s will.

I must admit however, that I secretly wish that the Bible did condemn the eating of meat as a sin in this present dispensation because as far as this writer is concerned, if it did it would end allarguments. But unfortunately it does not. In reality it asks Christians to weigh all the verses in the Bible as to God’s will in a matter and to pay specific attention to the verses that speak directly to us. As for the consumption of meat, it is clear to this author that God does not condemn the practice.

That said, I also believe that farm factories which treat animals as mere commodities and raise them under the cruelest conditions and then slaughter them in the most barbaric fashion imaginable would be very much condemned by God. Greed is the major force behind the raising and slaughter of animals in the present factory system and this is clearly not in God’s will. I also believe that God would have us to be good stewards of the environment as well as our own bodies and as far as food is concerned this in my opinion can best be accomplished through adopting a vegetarian lifestyle, but Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5b)

In conclusion it is my opinion that there are many compelling reasons to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle but I cannot in good conscience use the Bible as my reason for championing the cause. I also think that when someone uses one verse from theBible to try and make others believe that it is actually God who is commanding vegetarianism that they do more harm to the cause of vegetarianism than good. We who believe in the merits of a vegetarian lifestyle do not need to play fast and loose with the scriptures in order to make our point. We are better served by presenting a searching soul with the mountains of evidence in favor of the vegetarian way and let such a person make an intelligent decision based on the facts.

I am passionate about health issues, and the state of the health of our wonderful America. I believe the American diet is literally killing us and that a steady flow of money and perks from the meat, egg, and dairy

Copy from http://theblogisdead.com/2010/is-vegetarianism-the-christian-thing-to-do/

Brahmanas, Dog Eaters and the Holy Name!

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.33.7

aho bata śva-paco 'to garīyān

yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam

tepus tapas te juhuvuḥ sasnur āryā

brahmānūcur nāma gṛṇanti ye te

SYNONYMS

aho bata — oh, how glorious; śva-pacaḥ — a dog-eater; ataḥ — hence; garīyān — worshipable; yat — of whom; jihvā-agre — on the tip of the tongue; vartate — is; nāma — the holy name; tubhyam — unto You; tepuḥ tapaḥ — practiced austerities; te — they; juhuvuḥ — executed fire sacrifices; sasnuḥ — took bath in the sacred rivers; āryāḥ — Āryans; brahma anūcuḥ — studied the Vedas; nāma — the holy name; gṛṇanti — accept; ye — they who; te — Your.

TRANSLATION

Oh, how glorious are they whose tongues are chanting Your holy name! Even if born in the families of dog-eaters, such persons are worshipable. Persons who chant the holy name of Your Lordship must have executed all kinds of austerities and fire sacrifices and achieved all the good manners of the Āryans. To be chanting the holy name of Your Lordship, they must have bathed at holy places of pilgrimage, studied the Vedas and fulfilled everything required.

PURPORT

As it is stated in the previous verse, a person who has once offenselessly chanted the holy name of God becomes immediately eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices. One should not be astonished by this statement of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. One should not disbelieve or think, "How by chanting the holy name of the Lord can one become a holy man to be compared to the most elevated brāhmaṇa?" To eradicate such doubts in the minds of unbelievers, this verse affirms that the stage of chanting of the holy name of the Lord is not sudden, but that the chanters have already performed all kinds of Vedic rituals and sacrifices. It is not very astounding, for no one in this life can chant the holy name of the Lord unless he has passed all lower stages, such as performing the Vedic ritualistic sacrifices, studying the Vedas and practicing good behavior like that of the Āryans. All this must first have been done. Just as a student in a law class is to be understood to have already graduated from general education, anyone who is engaged in the chanting of the holy name of the Lord — Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ HareRāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare — must have already passed all lower stages. It is said that those who simply chant the holy name with the tip of the tongue are glorious. One does not even have to chant the holy name and understand the whole procedure, namely the offensive stage, offenseless stage and pure stage; if the holy name is sounded on the tip of the tongue, that is also sufficient. It is said herein that nāma, a singular number, one name, Kṛṣṇa or Rāma, is sufficient. It is not that one has to chant all the holy names of the Lord. The holy names of the Lord are innumerable, and one does not have to chant all the names to prove that he has already undergone all the processes of Vedic ritualistic ceremonies. If one chants once only, it is to be understood that he has already passed all the examinations, not to speak of those who are chanting always, twenty-four hours a day. It is specifically said here, tubhyam: "unto You only." One must chant God's name, not, as theMāyāvādī philosophers say, any name, such as a demigod's name or the names of God's energies. Only the holy name of the Supreme Lord will be effective. Anyone who compares the holy name of the Supreme Lord to the names of the demigods is called pāṣaṇḍī, or an offender.

The holy name has to be chanted to please the Supreme Lord, and not for any sense gratification or professional purpose. If this pure mentality is there, then even though a person is born of a low family, such as a dog-eater's, he is so glorious that not only has he purified himself, but he is quite competent to deliver others. He is competent to speak on the importance of the transcendental name, just as Ṭhākura Haridāsa did. He was apparently born in a family of Muhammadans, but because he was chanting the holy name of the Supreme Lord offenselessly, Lord Caitanya empowered him to become the authority, or ācārya, of spreading the name. It did not matter that he was born in a family which was not following the Vedic rules and regulations.Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Advaita Prabhu accepted him as an authority because he was offenselessly chanting the name of the Lord. Authorities like Advaita Prabhu and Lord Caitanya immediately accepted that he had already performed all kinds of austerities, studied the Vedas and performed all sacrifices. That is automatically understood. There is a hereditary class of brāhmaṇas called the smārta-brāhmaṇas, however, who are of the opinion that even if such persons who are chanting the holy name of the Lord are accepted as purified, they still have to perform the Vedic rites or await their next birth in a family of brāhmaṇas so that they can perform the Vedic rituals. But actually that is not the case. Such a man does not need to wait for the next birth to become purified. He is at once purified. It is understood that he has already performed all sorts of rites. It is the so-called brāhmaṇas who actually have to undergo different kinds of austerities before reaching that point of purification. There are many other Vedic performances which are not described here. All such Vedic rituals have been already performed by the chanters of the holy name.

The word juhuvuḥ means that the chanters of the holy name have already performed all kinds of sacrifices. Sasnuḥ means that they have already traveled to all the holy places of pilgrimage and taken part in purificatory activities at those places. They are called āryāḥ because they have already finished all these requirements, and therefore they must be among the Āryans or those who have qualified themselves to become Āryans. "Āryan" refers to those who are civilized, whose manners are regulated according to the Vedic rituals. Any devotee who is chanting the holy name of the Lord is the best kind of Āryan. Unless one studies the Vedas, one cannot become an Āryan, but it is automatically understood that the chanters have already studied all the Vedic literature. The specific word used here is anūcuḥ, which means that because they have already completed all those recommended acts, they have become qualified to be spiritual masters.

The very word gṛṇanti, which is used in this verse, means to be already established in the perfectional stage of ritualistic performances. If one is seated on the bench of a high court and is giving judgment on cases, it means that he has already passed all legal exams and is better than those who are engaged in the study of law or those expecting to study law in the future. In a similar way, persons who are chanting the holy name are transcendental to those who are factually performing the Vedic rituals and those who expect to be qualified (or, in other words, those who are born in families of brāhmaṇas but have not yet undergone the reformatory processes and who therefore expect to study the Vedic rituals and perform the sacrifices in the future).

There are many Vedic statements in different places saying that anyone who chants the holy name of the Lord becomes immediately freed from conditional life and that anyone who hears the holy name of the Lord, even though born of a family of dog-eaters, also becomes liberated from the clutches of material entanglement.