Actually Sanatana Gosvami belonged to a very respectable brahmana family. Nonetheless, he submitted himself as a fallen, lowborn person because he had served in the Mohammedan government. A brahmana is never supposed to be engaged for anyone's service. Accepting service for a livelihood (paricaryatmakam karma) is the business of sudras. The brahmana is always independent and busy studying sastra and preaching sastra to subordinate social members such as ksatriyas and vaisyas. Sanatana Gosvami felt unfit to write Vaisnava smrti about the behavior of Vaisnavas because he had fallen from the brahminical position. Thus Sanatana Gosvami clearly admits that the brahminical culture should be standardized. Presently in India, so-called brahmanas are almost all engaged in some mundane service, and they do not understand the import of the Vedic sastras. Nonetheless, they are passing themselves off as brahmanas on the basis of birth. In this connection, Sanatana Gosvami declares that a brahmana cannot be engaged in anyone's service if he wants to take a leading part in society. In Srimad-Bhagavatam Narada Muni states that even if a brahmana is in a difficult position, he should not accept the occupation of a sudra. This means that he should not be engaged in service for another, for this is the business of dogs. Under the circumstances, Sanatana Gosvami felt very low because he had accepted the service of the Muslim government. The conclusion is that no one should claim to be a brahmana simply by birthright while engaging in someone else's service.