Vastutah: The Meaning of “In Reality” According to the Acharyas – Vande Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami

Sridhara Swami

1. Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.31

Bhagavan is described as appearing as though He possesses or is associated with the material gunas.

gunavan iva … na tu vastutas tatha

“He appears as if possessing qualities produced by the gunas, but in reality He is not so.”

In Reality
The appearance of association with the material gunas does not describe Bhagavan’s actual nature. Sridhara Swami explicitly contrasts how He appears with what is true vastutah, “in reality.”

2. Srimad Bhagavatam 3.7.8

The Lord is described as appearing as though He were displaying pride.

smayann iva … vastutas tu gata-smayah

“He appeared as though displaying pride, but in reality He was free from pride.”

In Reality
The outward appearance does not establish the actual inner condition. The description remains meaningful as appearance, while vastutah identifies what is actually true.

3. Srimad Bhagavatam 5.21.8

Sruti speaks of the Sun rising from the waters in the morning and entering them again in the evening.

adbhyo va esa pratar udety apah sayam pravisati iti sruti-vyavaharo | na vastutah

“‘He rises from the waters in the morning and enters the waters in the evening’ is the manner of expression used by Sruti; it is not literally so in reality.”

In Reality
Sridhara Swami distinguishes scriptural language based upon ordinary observation as something different from the physical reality actually being described. He then explains that sunrise and sunset refer to the Sun becoming visible and invisible to the eye.

4. Srimad Bhagavatam 6.15.4

Living beings are spoken of as coming into being and ceasing to exist.

isa-maya-preritanam eva bhavanam abhavanam, na vastutah

“Their coming into being and ceasing to be occur only through the Lord’s maya; not in ultimate reality.”

In Reality
Ordinary language speaks of birth and death, it describes the manifested condition, but it does not describe the real ontological status of the living being.

5. Srimad Bhagavatam 9.8.14

Asamanjasa is regarded by ignorant people as improper or unsuitable.

yo ‘samanjasa ity uktah kevalam ajnaih, vastutas tu samanjasa eva

“He was called ‘Asamanjasa’ only by the ignorant; in reality he was behaving entirely properly.”

In Reality
The apparent descriptive force of a name or designation must not automatically be taken as an accurate description of the person’s true character.

Sanatana Goswami

6. Sri Brihad-bhagavatamrita 2.2.62, Dig-darshini

An area in a transcendental realm is described as though night had fallen.

iveti vastutas tatra tama-ady-abhavena ratri-samyasambhavat

“The word iva, ‘as if,’ is used because, in reality, there can be no actual similarity to night there, since darkness and the like are absent.”

In Reality
The word “night” communicates a resemblance, but ordinary material night cannot literally exist there. Familiar material language is being used without implying material identity.

7. Sri Brihad-bhagavatamrita 2.4.37-38, Dig-darshini

The residents of Vaikuntha are described with familiar designations such as ‘men,’ ‘sages’ and other recognizable types of beings.

sac-cid-ananda-vigrahanam sri-vaikuntha-vasinam vastuto naratvady-asambhavat

“Because, in reality, it is impossible for the sac-cid-ananda forms of the residents of Vaikuntha to possess ordinary human-ness and so forth.”

In Reality
A being may be described as “a man” because of humanlike form without being an ordinary material human being. The familiar noun does not automatically establish literal material identity.

8. Sri Brihad-bhagavatamrita 2.5.242, Dig-darshini

The forests, rivers, Govardhana and other places of Braja appear empty.

iveti vastutah sarvada tatretara-janalaksyamana-sri-bhagavat-kridanuvrtteh

“The word iva is used because, in reality, the Lord’s pastimes are always continuing there in those places, although they are not perceived by people.”

In Reality
Something may appear absent to ordinary perception without actually being absent in reality. Here “empty” describes what is perceptible to certain observers, not the actual ontological condition of Braja.

9. Sri Brihad-bhagavatamrita 2.6.11, Dig-darshini

Gopa-kumara says that he regained consciousness.

labdhveva samjnam … vastuto ‘ntar-bodhanapagamat

“As if regaining consciousness … because in reality his inner awareness had not ceased.”

In Reality
The expression “regaining consciousness” does not mean that his consciousness had literally disappeared then returned. Two states of xxternal awareness and inner awareness are distinguished.

10. Sri Brihad-bhagavatamrita 2.6.202, Dig-darshini

The devas of the material world are described as pratirupah, counterparts or reflections, of associates in Vaikuntha.

vastutas tu pratirupatve ‘pi tat-sadrsyam evohyam

“In reality, although the term ‘counterpart’ or ‘reflection’ is used, only a slight similarity should be understood.”

In Reality
The term “reflection” must not be assumed to be literal ontological identity. What is intended is the indication of a resemblance between two objects. This is an especially clear example of representation without literal identity.

11. Sri Brihad-bhagavatamrita 2.7.133, Dig-darshini

A moment of separation from Govinda is experienced as though it were a hundred yugas.

iveti vastuto yuga-satam na bhavaty eva

“The word iva is used because, in reality, it did not actually become a hundred ages.”

In Reality
The duration of the experience and a specified chronological timespan are not identical. The subjective experience is real, but a moment has not literally become a hundred ages.

Rupa Goswami

12. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.3.4-5

Rati becomes manifest within a mental function, but Rupa distinguishes its mode of manifestation from its actual nature.

vastutah svayam asvada-svarupaiva

“In reality, it is itself of the nature of spiritual taste.”

In Reality
Something may manifest through the mind without being a mere product made by the material mind. The medium through which something becomes perceptible is not necessarily identical with its ontological nature.

13. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 2.5.108-109

Sri Rupa Prabhu discusses the apparently painful condition of separation in Krishna-rati.

alaukiki tv iyam krsna-ratih sarvadbhutadbhuta

“This Krishna-rati is transcendental and more astonishing than everything that is said to be astonishing.”

He then says that in separation it manifests:

pragadharti-bharabhasatvam

“the appearance of an intense burden of suffering.”

In Reality
Srila Rupa Goswami distinguishes phenomenal appearance from the underlying transcendental nature. Srila Visvanath Chakravarti later formulates Rupa Prabhu’s point explicitly, writing:

duhkhatvena bhana-matram, na vastuto duhkha-rupatvam

“It merely appears as suffering; in reality it is not of the nature of suffering.”

14. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 2.5.123

Sri Rupa contrasts the perception of an unqualified worldly observer with that of a person who understands rasa.

pratiyamana apy ajnair gramyaih sapadi duhkhavat
karunadya rasah prajnaih praudhananda-maya matah

“Although karuna and the other rasas immediately appear to ignorant worldly people as though they were suffering, those who understand rasa know rasa is filled with profound bliss.”

In Reality
What a phenomenon appears to be depends partly upon the qualification of the observer. An outward appearance of sorrow need not establish that the underlying spiritual reality is material suffering.

Jiva Goswami

15. Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.20, Krama-sandarbha

Krishna appears in human form and may therefore be mistaken for an ordinary material human being.

kapatenaivasau tatha bhatity arthah | vastutas tu narakrter eva para-brahmatvena

“He only appears to be so by concealment. In reality, that very humanlike form is Para-brahman.”

In Reality
Krishna’s humanlike form is not denied. What is rejected is the conclusion that because He appears human, He is therefore an ordinary material human being.

16. Srimad Bhagavatam 3.19.3, Krama-sandarbha

An event caused by Bhagavan is described as though it were astonishing.

iva-sabdo … na vastuto ‘dbhutam iti bodhayati

“The word iva indicates that it was not actually astonishing in reality.”

In Reality
Something may appear astonishing from the human viewpoint while not being extraordinary from the viewpoint (tatastha-vichar) of Bhagavan’s direct associates.

17. Srimad Bhagavatam 10.23.12, Krama-sandarbha

The sacrificial brahmanas see Krishna’s human form but fail to see His divine nature.

vastutas tu bhagavad-anugrahahabhavan na tat-tattva-jnah

“In reality, because they lacked Bhagavan’s grace, they did not know His true nature.”

In Reality
Their sensory perception was not necessarily wrong: Krishna did appear human-shaped. Their mistake was ontological classification – assuming that a human appearance indicates merely human nature.

18. Srimad Bhagavatam 11.21.6, Krama-sandarbha

Scripture establishes that there are distinctions of superior and inferior grades in regard to particular places, times, personalities and other things.

kalpyante, kevalam upacaryante

“They are constructed ideas; they are merely conventionally or figuratively attributed.”

In Reality
A scriptural statement classifying that one transcendental object is “higher” than another, and thereby serve a practical purpose in teaching about tattva, without necessarily expressing an absolute ontological reality. Vaikuntha objects such as grains of sand are atoms of sat-chit-ananda, and as such they have the mighty power to grow into pearls, then manifest themselves as seeds of kalpa-vriksa trees that produce gems, or even manifest as a human-like form; Vaikuntha forms are entirely different from material things.

Visvanatha Cakravarti

19. Srimad Bhagavatam 1.12.8

The form of Bhagavan seen by Pariksit in the womb is described as angustha-matram, “the size of a thumb.”

tat-pramanam eva bhagavaty upacaritam | vastutas tu … yathavat pramanam eva bhagavantam dadarsa

“That measurement is only figuratively applied to Bhagavan. In reality, Pariksit saw Bhagavan in His proper size.”

In Reality
A definite scriptural measurement is explicitly identified as upacara, a figurative attribution. The stated size is therefore not a literal specification of delimiting Bhagavan’s actual form.

20. Srimad Bhagavatam 2.7.29

An activity of Krishna is described as divyam iva, “as if divine” or “as if extraordinary.”

divyam iva iti lokokti-rityaivoktih | vastutas tu sarvam karma tasyaprakrtam eva

“‘As if divine’ is merely an expression according to ordinary speech. In reality, all His activities are transcendental.”

In Reality
Here vastutah does not weaken the scriptural assertion. It strengthens it. Krishna’s activity does not merely resemble something divine; in reality all His activities are indeed transcendental.

21. Srimad Bhagavatam 3.11.37

The duration of Brahma’s life is described as one blink of Vishnu.

upacara-matram na tu vastuto nimeso ‘pi

“It is merely figurative usage; in reality there is not even an actual blink.”

In Reality
The language of bodily blinking is used to indicate a span of time, although Vishnu has an immeasurable and entirely different relation to time that a mortal being. A ‘blink’ must not be converted into a literal calculation of Vishnu’s physiology or any hypothetical ‘lifetime of Vishnu’.

22. Srimad Bhagavatam 3.23.21

A thing is described as being ‘astonishing’ even to the person who created it.

iveti sva-nirmitatvat svasya vastuto na vismapanam

“The word iva is used because, since he himself created it, in reality it was not truly astonishing to him.”

In Reality
The narrative presents astonishment as an appearance or poetic expression without requiring an actual state of astonishment.

23. Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.33

A self-satisfied person appears to become dejected.

vimanah iveti vastutas tv atmaramatvan na vimanah

“He appeared as though dejected, but in reality, being self-satisfied, he was not dejected.”

In Reality
The outward manifestation must not automatically be identified with the person’s actual inner condition.

24. Srimad Bhagavatam 5.9.5

Jada Bharata appears to perform his duties improperly.

iveti tasya tad api vastutah samicinam eveti

“The word iva indicates that even that conduct of his was in reality proper.”

In Reality
An worldly observer may classify behavior as improper on the basis of its outward appearance, while a Vaishnava Acharya who understands the status of an Avadhuta instead identifies the same action as proper, because the behavior’s true purpose and circumstances are properly understood by enlightened Acharyas.

25. Srimad Bhagavatam 5.21.8

Scripture speaks of the Sun rising and setting according to ordinary human observation.

srutir api vyavaharato, na tu vastutah

“Even Sruti speaks according to conventional usage, not according to literal reality.”

In Reality
Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakur makes the point that scriptural language itself may sometimes describe a physical phenomenon from the standpoint of ordinary observation. That is, from the viewpoint of a common man. In this regard, it is to be noted that in Srimad Bhagavatam there are verses that are spoken from the viewpoints of many different kinds of observers. Different observers see things differently, and the stated words of an observer who, for example, sees “the sun rise and then set,” is not necessarily providing a factually correct account of the event being observed.

Not every observer is equally capable of properly interpreting an event they witness. The same event or manifestation may be understood differently by:

an uninformed observer,
a worldly observer,
a practitioner of bhakti,
a knower of rasa-vichar,
a participant who relishes rasa.

This list of observers is not an exhaustive list. There are other kinds of observers also, for example animals or even trees that manifested “trembling” when they felt the sudden awareness that Krishna is close by.

It is to be noted that when Krishna entered the wrestling arena of Kamsa, each person there saw Krishna in their own peculiar way.

26. Srimad Bhagavatam 9.10.11

Lord Rama manifests lamentation, fainting and other apparent symptoms of material suffering when feeling separation from Sita.

pratha-matram etan na tu vastuta ity arthah

“This was merely an outward manifestation or public appearance; it was not so in ultimate reality.”

In Reality
The manifestations described in the narrative are not simply denied, but their apparent mundane psychological interpretation is rejected. Rama’s transcendental state must not be reduced to ordinary material suffering.

27. Srimad Bhagavatam 10.20.4

Dense clouds appear to cover the sky.

vastutas tv anacchannatvena

“In reality, it is not covered.”

In Reality
The clouds genuinely obstruct the observer’s view, but they do not literally coat or enclose the sky itself. The appearance is real as an apparent fact; the physical conclusion suggested by ordinary speech is not a real fact.

Uncategorized