An anAtma pot AND anAtma antaHkaraNa

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji directed me to refer KleshaapahAriNi ( a Sanskrit commentary by Sri SSS on Sri SureshwarachArya’s Naishkarmya siddhi) to prove that avidyA is AtmAshrita not anAtmaashrita.  Only yesterday I could able to see and read the reference in this work ( I have the kleshaapahaarini in Kannada as well translated by Sri Kaivalyaananda Saraswati and apart from this Sri SSS himself written in Kannada about NS apart from his Sanskrit commentary).  Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji was saying Sri SSS admitted that avidyA is AtmAshrita and Vishaya is also Atman only as per this work and it is NOT anAtma/ antaHkaraNa dOsha.  The main problem in saying that avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha is, as per him and the NS, since anAtma/antaHkaraNa itself is avidyAkruta it cannot give the Ashraya to its kAraNa etc.  Yes, indeed this is the argument in the 3rd chapter 1^st verse introduction of NS and it has been argued that it is NOT anAtma but it is Atma which is the ashraya and Vishaya of the avidyA.  But unlike NS-kAra, Sri bhAshyakAra in geeta and taittireeya argues that avidyA is mere antaHkaraNa dOsha (by giving the examples of cataract etc.) and it has NOTHING to do with chaitanya!! 

 

From the above it appears that Sri Sureshwara & Sri Shankara might be contradicting one another by posing the different locus to avidyA!!  Na!!  that is not the case when we contextually differentiate the role of antaHkaraNa in brahma jignAsa and mere jada vastu (inert things) like pot, jar, pitcher etc.  Sri SSS and NS-kAra gives the examples like anAtma ghata (pot etc.) and how it cannot be the Ashraya and vishaya to the avidyA and it is very important that when both of them talking about anAtma they hardly give the examples of antaHkaraNa!!  This force us to, as said above, though both are anAtma in general we have to contextually understand the fundamental difference between these two i.e. a pot, which is entirely physical matter without any intrinsic awareness AND inert antaHkaraNa which is a subtle internal tool (inner instrument) that reflects the consciousness and with the close proximity to the Chaitanya can act/function differently unlike completely inert chair / pot etc.  So, with this we can validly infer that the fundamental difference lies in their nature and function according to vedAnta in general and brahma jignAsa in particular.  An inert pot/chair is entirely physical matter with no intrinsic awareness nor life force (prANa) it cannot reveal itself or anything else, it is simply a Vishaya (an object) perceived by a conscious entity whereas the inert antahkarana is NOT entirely a physical matter like chair or pot because of its capability to reflect the consciousness.  So in Advaita vedAnta unlike mere inert pot etc. the antaHkaraNa is a tool (karaNa) comprising the manObuddhiahaMkAra and chitta.  Though it is in itself inert, it is pervaded and activated by the prANa and it is close to the Chaitanya/pure consciousness to reflect its light. 

 

So, the Atma as the parama Chaitanya is ever pure (nitya Shuddha) and there is no mundane vyavahAra like vidyAvidya in Atman as Atman itself svayaM jnAna svarUpa.  neither anAtma like ghata etc. is the Ashraya for the avidyA.  So when NS argues about AtmAshrita avidyA and avidyA Vishaya etc. it is to be inferred that upAdhiyukta Chaitanya that is jeevaatma is the custodian of this avidyA through antaHkaraNa.  And through this antaHkaraNa only we are able to do the jignAsa, we are able to get the brahma jnAna, it is this antaHkaraNa that needs to be purified through the shama damAdi sAdhana then only this mana gets the eligibility and become the instrument to have Atma darshana.  Advaita jnAnam manOvrutti mAtraM saying goes in Advaita.  Mana eva manushyANAM kAraNaM bandha mOkshayOh, manasaivedam Aptavya neha nAnAsti kiMchana. Hence shruti gives abhimAni devata-s for karmendriya-s and jnAnedriya-s as well.  So in this context of NS, though it is argued Atman is the both Ashraya and Vishaya for the avidyA, it is shAreeri ( jeevaatma) is what it is meant. 

 

Moreover in his NS commentary Sri SSS very clearly mentioned this AtmAshrita avidyA and any talks about it possible ONLY within the sphere of avidyA (adhyAsa) by quoting the pUrvapaxi objection like the Sun cannot be the Ashraya to the darkness and clarifies that the avidyA talked here is about jnAnAbhAva type of avidyA.  He quotes saMbandha vArtika etc. to substantiate his claim. 

 

Perhaps the following observation from Sri SSS in one of his English works, after quoting the sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3, would help us to understand his stand about avidyA Ashraya and Vishaya : 

 

// quote //

 

It is obvious that according to this view, the question about a locus for avidyA can arise only at the level of the empirical life, where there is duality.  One who raises the question, is himself ignorant of the truth, and so, the question is superfluous at that stage.  But when it is known that brahman or Ishwara is the only reality, there can be neither any question nor reply concerning anything whatever. 

 

// unquote//

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Yes, indeed this is the argument in the 3rd chapter 1^st verse introduction of NS and it has been argued that it is NOT anAtma but it is Atma which is the ashraya and Vishaya of the avidyA. 

True.

But unlike NS-kAra, Sri bhAshyakAra in geeta and taittireeya argues that avidyA is mere antaHkaraNa dOsha (by giving the examples of cataract etc.) and it has NOTHING to do with chaitanya!! 

The ajnAna-kArya such as jnAna-abhAva and mithyA-jnAna are in buddhi. kArya can be referred by using kAraNa. For e.g. a pot can be referred as clay. Just as only when there is an AvaraNa in the form of blindfold over eyes, there is non-perception of objects or mis-perception of objects, similarly with ajnAna as the AvaraNa, there is jnAna-abhAva and mithyA-jnAna in buddhi. These two are located in buddhi.

Entire anAtmA is ajnAna-kArya.

From the above it appears that Sri Sureshwara & Sri Shankara might be contradicting one another by posing the different locus to avidyA!!  Na!!

The above is the manner of reconciliation.

 

that is not the case when we contextually differentiate the role of antaHkaraNa in brahma jignAsa and mere jada vastu (inert things) like pot, jar, pitcher etc.  Sri SSS and NS-kAra gives the examples like anAtma ghata (pot etc.) and how it cannot be the Ashraya and vishaya to the avidyA and it is very important that when both of them talking about anAtma they hardly give the examples of antaHkaraNa!!  This force us to, as said above, though both are anAtma in general we have to contextually understand the fundamental difference between these two i.e. a pot, which is entirely physical matter without any intrinsic awareness AND inert antaHkaraNa which is a subtle internal tool (inner instrument) that reflects the consciousness and with the close proximity to the Chaitanya can act/function differently unlike completely inert chair / pot etc.  So, with this we can validly infer that the fundamental difference lies in their nature and function according to vedAnta in general and brahma jignAsa in particular.  An inert pot/chair is entirely physical matter with no intrinsic awareness nor life force (prANa) it cannot reveal itself or anything else, it is simply a Vishaya (an object) perceived by a conscious entity whereas the inert antahkarana is NOT entirely a physical matter like chair or pot because of its capability to reflect the consciousness.  So in Advaita vedAnta unlike mere inert pot etc. the antaHkaraNa is a tool (karaNa) comprising the manObuddhiahaMkAra and chitta.  Though it is in itself inert, it is pervaded and activated by the prANa and it is close to the Chaitanya/pure consciousness to reflect its light. 

 

So, the Atma as the parama Chaitanya is ever pure (nitya Shuddha) and there is no mundane vyavahAra like vidyAvidya in Atman as Atman itself svayaM jnAna svarUpa.  neither anAtma like ghata etc. is the Ashraya for the avidyA.  So when NS argues about AtmAshrita avidyA and avidyA Vishaya etc. it is to be inferred that upAdhiyukta Chaitanya that is jeevaatma is the custodian of this avidyA through antaHkaraNa.  And through this antaHkaraNa only we are able to do the jignAsa, we are able to get the brahma jnAna, it is this antaHkaraNa that needs to be purified through the shama damAdi sAdhana then only this mana gets the eligibility and become the instrument to have Atma darshana.  Advaita jnAnam manOvrutti mAtraM saying goes in Advaita.  Mana eva manushyANAM kAraNaM bandha mOkshayOh, manasaivedam Aptavya neha nAnAsti kiMchana. Hence shruti gives abhimAni devata-s for karmendriya-s and jnAnedriya-s as well.  So in this context of NS, though it is argued Atman is the both Ashraya and Vishaya for the avidyA, it is shAreeri ( jeevaatma) is what it is meant. 

Your take is that when Naishkarmya Siddhi states AtmA as Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna, then it is jIva-AtmA which is meant. This is incorrect. 

When NS explains as to how anAtmA cannot be the Ashraya of ajnAna owing to it being ajnAna-prasUta, it says subsequently that owing to very same reason, anAtmA cannot be the vishaya of ajnAna.   एतेभ्य एव हेतुभ्यः, नाऽनात्मविषयमज्ञानं संभवतीति ग्राह्यम् । एवं तावत् नाऽनात्मनोऽज्ञानित्वम्, नापि तद्विषयमज्ञानम्।.... किंविषयं पुनस्तदात्मनोऽज्ञानम् ? आत्मविषयमिति ब्रूमः ।

It is clear that that very AtmA is stated to be the vishaya which has just been proved to be the Ashraya.

Now, it is clear in the whole of advaita vedAnta that only shuddha-nirupAdhika-chaitanya-AtmA is ajnAna-vishaya and not the jIva-AtmA. How? Because it is only by the jnAna of shuddha-AtmA that ajnAna is removed. Hence Brahman/shuddha-chaitanya/nirupAdhika-AtmA is ajnAna-vishaya. That is the accepted position. (Please clarify if SSSS ji holds otherwise). 

Now since same AtmA is stated as Ashraya and vishaya, it is clear that shuddha-nirupAdhika-AtmA alone is Ashraya also. To posit that jIvAtmA is Ashraya but shuddha-AtmA is vishaya, in the very same passage of NS, is contradictory. Had it been so, it would have been mentioned by NS-kAra or the commentator, SSSS ji. Neither have done so. So, whatever AtmA is ajnAna-vishaya, that very same AtmA is ajnAna-Ashraya also. Since ajnAna-vishaya is unquestionably shuddha-AtmA, ajnAna-Ashraya has to be shuddha-AtmA alone. 

Moreover, the NS starts 3rd chapter like this - "सर्वोऽयं प्रमितिप्रमाणप्रमेयप्रमातृलक्षणः, आब्रह्मस्तम्बपर्यन्तो मिथ्याध्यास एव-इति बहुश उपपत्तिभिरतिष्ठिपम् । आत्मा च जन्मादिषड्भावविकारवर्जितः कूटस्थबोध एवेति स्फुटीकृतम्। तयोश्च मिथ्याध्यासकूटस्थात्मनोर्नान्तरेणाज्ञानं संबन्धः"

Here, pramANa-prameya-pramiti-pramAtA have been stated as mithyA-adhyAsa (anAtmA). AtmA is stated as kUTastha-chaitanya.

The connection between such mithyA-adhyAsa (anAtmA) and AtmA is stated to be imopossible through any means other than ajnAna. An analysis of this shows the following:

(1) PramAtA i.e. jIva-AtmA is included in mithyA-adhyAsa/anAtmA (jIva being AbhAsa is mithyA in VArtika). So, your claim of jIva-AtmA as AtmA in NS is rejected by the very first line.

(2) mithyA-adhyAsa and ajnAna are distinguished.  

(3) AtmA is stated to be nitya-kUTastha which is shuddha-chaitanya. And hence, the possibility of jIva-AtmA being the meaning of AtmA is rejected.  

 

Moreover in his NS commentary Sri SSS very clearly mentioned this AtmAshrita avidyA and any talks about it possible ONLY within the sphere of avidyA (adhyAsa) by quoting the pUrvapaxi objection like the Sun cannot be the Ashraya to the darkness and clarifies that the avidyA talked here is about jnAnAbhAva type of avidyA.  He quotes saMbandha vArtika etc. to substantiate his claim. 

We can focus on the present issue. Everyone agrees that ajnAna-Ashrayatva and ajnAna-vishayatva are mithyA-dharma. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Is this jeevaatma is different from kUtastha Chaitanya??  If yes then it is duality swayed by avidyA.  If it is same then there is no avidyA whatsoever to anyone…is that not clarified by bhAshyakAra in 4-1-3??  Attributing avidyA to kUtastha Chaitanya and vidya-avidyA to jeevaatma cannot serve any purpose in advaita sAdhana…coz. through this sAdhana jeeva can get rid of his avidyA through vidyA and he cannot do anything to pUrva siddha ( even before the notion of jeeva) brahmAshrita avidyA.  Hence it is to be understood that jeeva is brahman but brahman is NOT jeeva and any talks about avidyA and vidyA that eradicates avidyA is within the sphere of duality where avidyA / adhyAsa holds sway.  Vishaya-Ashraya ‘ghatata eva’ this insistence is only in vyavahAra where we erroneously see the snake in place of rope.  How this Ashraya and vishaya is NOT practical (vAstavika) Sri SSS himself clarifies in this very commentary by giving different examples.  ajnAna mAtra nimittatvAt tad vibhAgasya sarpAtmateva rajjvAH.  It is jeeva who is having avidyA not brahman though jeeva is nothing but brahman.  I will try to explain my understanding in more detail if time permits tomorrow. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar 

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 4:14 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] An anAtma pot AND anAtma antaHkaraNa

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBDzJoNmTNzyJwTDFGJvbJOKREr48GrDjVJk02EQGC8UA%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji and Sudhanshu Ji,

I had no doubt concluded that I may not be in a position to participate seriously in long discussions on Advaita. However I felt compelled to bringout  the factual position, in my understanding, of the stand by Sri SSS on the current topic.

Sudhanshu Ji , while quoting from KleshApahAriNi of Sri SSS, had addressed Bhaskar Ji  as under

//  Now, it is up to you to sit down and reconcile as to how SSSS ji does not contradict himself if he elsewhere holds that AtmA is not the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna //.

Bhaskar Ji has now responded as under

//  Yes, indeed this is the argument in the 3rd chapter 1^st verse introduction of NS and it has been argued that it is NOT anAtma but it is Atma which is the ashraya and Vishaya of the avidyA //.

In my understanding, this is not so. Nor is it necessary to refer to elsewhere to conclude that Sri SSS holds  that AtmA is not the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna . Reference could be made to Page 268 of KleshApahAriNi (Sanskrit ) , the same text and portion from which Sudhanshu Ji is quoting, last two lines on the page

//  आत्मनोऽपि नैवाज्ञानम् आश्रयित्वेन विषयित्वेन वा घटते । कुतः ? …..…. //

//  Atmano.api naivAj~nAnam Ashrayitvena viShayitvena vA ghaTate | kutaH ? …. //

Translation (From the kannada translation  of the same text )  //  Atman also cannot be the Ashraya or the Vishaya for ajnAnam. How? …. //.

The elaboration on the topic continues in the text.

This is my understanding of the text quoted by Sudhanshu Ji. I did not respond earlier as I thought Bhaskar Ji would anyway do so. But I was surprised by the current response by Bhaskar Ji. I hope the discussion between then would now proceed on the basis of facts concerning the views of Sri SSS on the topic. I regret I may not be able to participate in any significant way.

If I am not mistaken, the same issue with the same citations by Sudhanshu Ji from KleshApahAriNi had come up in an earlier thread in this Group. I had participated.

Regards.

--

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Chandramouli ji.

In my understanding, this is not so. Nor is it necessary to refer to elsewhere to conclude that Sri SSS holds  that AtmA is not the Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna . Reference could be made to Page 268 of KleshApahAriNi (Sanskrit ) , the same text and portion from which Sudhanshu Ji is quoting, last two lines on the page

//  आत्मनोऽपि नैवाज्ञानम् आश्रयित्वेन विषयित्वेन वा घटते । कुतः ? …..…. //

//  Atmano.api naivAj~nAnam Ashrayitvena viShayitvena vA ghaTate | kutaH ? …. //

That is the objection of opponent. SSSS ji explains later on page 269 - अथ समाधत्ते - घटत एव।

See, there are two viewpoints. From the ajnAna-drishTi and from Atma-drishTi.

From ajnAna-drishTi, AtmA alone can be Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna. anAtmA cannot be either the Ashraya or the vishaya as has been explained in NS on account of anAtmA being ajnAna-prasUta.

Now, from Atma-drishTi, there is neither existence of ajnAna nor its appearance. So, there is no question of its Ashraya or vishaya either. So, these ajnAna-Ashrayatva or ajnAna-vishayatva are merely mithyA dharma.

So, it is clear that SSSS ji has no qualms in accepting here that shuddha-AtmA is Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna. Elsewhere what he says is not a matter of discussion. JIva-AtmA being the meaning of AtmA here, as suggested by Bhaskar ji, is completely out-of-place and is incorrect understanding of even what SSSS ji is saying.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // That is the objection of opponent. SSSS ji explains later on page 269 - अथ समाधत्ते - घटत एव। //,

No. Not in my understanding. Objection of the opponent is ** कुतः ? ** in the previous sentence. The response is  ** अथ समाधत्ते - घटत एव। **.

Reg  //  So, it is clear that SSSS ji has no qualms in accepting here that shuddha-AtmA is Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna. Elsewhere what he says is not a matter of discussion //,

My understanding  of the text clarified as above. I am not referencing anything from elsewhere. 

Reg rest of your post, no comments from my side. I am confining myself to clarifying the position of Sri SSS here on the current topic as I understand it. Sri SSS has himself elaborated on his stand in the succeeding part of the same text.

Regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA-Ne%2BYnnGJOeRUQDPyU6W2Y6A5jjY1Lik1i06q5V8%2BbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

To clarify, I am not by any means suggesting that my understanding  of  the issue is the same as that advocated by Sri SSS here. I am only presenting the factual position, as understood by me,  concerning the stand of Sri SSS in this part of KleshApahAriNi.

Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Chandramouli prabhuji

Hare Krishna

No. Not in my understanding. Objection of the opponent is ** कुतः ? ** in the previous sentence. The response is  ** अथ समाधत्ते - घटत एव। **.

• I don’t think how Atma cannot be the Ashraya and Vishaya for the avidyA is Sri SSS’s clarification, it is pUrvapaxi expressing his views / justification how kUtastha nitya Atman can not give Ashraya to avidyA as Atman itself is jnAna svarUpa.  For this NS-kAra says : yes it is indeed possible (ghatata eva)..for that again pUrvapaxi asks : how can it be possible (kathaM??) for that clarification is ajnAnamAtra nimittatvAt…Further Sri SSS clarifies if Atman is practically  / really the ashraya then only your objections holds good but when we say AjnAna Ashrayatva / vishayatva, separation of AtmAnAtma etc. are within the domain of ajnAna it does not holds its ground.  So IMO what Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji saying is correct.  It is just pUrvapaxi’s objection about brahmAshrita avidyA and Sri SSS agrees / accepts these objections are valid ONLY this stand of brahmAshrita avidyA is vAstavika.  But that is NOT the case is his subsequent clarification.  Perhaps it would be clear for you when you read the Kannada version of kleshApahAriNi. 

[Bhaskar YR]

So, it is clear that SSSS ji has no qualms in accepting here that shuddha-AtmA is Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna. Elsewhere what he says is not a matter of discussion. JIva-AtmA being the meaning of AtmA here, as suggested by Bhaskar ji, is completely out-of-place and is incorrect understanding of even what SSSS ji is saying.

 

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I reckon I have every valid reason to infer like that based on Sri SSS’s own clarification in this very commentary and his clarification in his various other works as well.  By quoting saMbandha vArtika 175 Sri SSS very clearly substantiating his stand : if we say brahman is having avidyA then it is a blunder, but if there is no avidyA why there is vidyA injunction, does it not go waste??  (niravidye cha vidyayA anarthakhyaM prasajyate) and subsequently he quotes SV 176 & 177.  Based on this vidyAvidyA vyavahAra which is possible ONLY in dvaita /avidyA, it is only sAdhaka jeeva who is having avidyA who wants to eradicate this avidyA through vidyA using his antaHkaraNa, I inferred that it is jeevaatma who in reality is kUtastha Chaitanya (jeevo brahmaiva na aparaH).  He sits in avidyA with the view point of avidyA only he determines that there is no avidyA in brahman…is the fate of jeevAtma not paramAtma though jeevaatma in reality paramAtma only.  Do you think kUtastha / nishkriya / nirvishesha brahman is having avidyA and it wants to do sAdhana to efface avidyA to stick to brahmAshrita avidyA?? 

 

Here is one more clarification from Sri SSS’s work after quoting bruhad bhAshya 1-4-10 and geeta bhAshya 13-2 :

 

// quote //

It becomes quite evident from the above mentioned sentences that all these matters like avidyA the object for avidyA and the substratum for avidyA are, in truth, conjured up or projected by avidyA itself.  If we observe properly although it is the absolute truth that there is no Ashraya whatsoever for avidyA, for the purpose of carrying out AtmAnAtmaviveka (intuitive deliberation between Atman and anatman)Shri shankara has expressed that : Because it is a pratyaya (mental concept) AVIDYA IS ANTAHKARANA DHARMA – A QUALITY, ATTRIBUTE OF THE INNER INSTRUMENT OF MIND (emphasis is mine)  This statement should be understood to have been made adopting the view point of deliberation, discrimination of the work-aday transactions.

//UNQUOTE//

 

Case closed from Sri SSS’s perspective with regard to brahmAshrita avidyA.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Based on this vidyAvidyA vyavahAra which is possible ONLY in dvaita /avidyA, it is only sAdhaka jeeva who is having avidyA who wants to eradicate this avidyA through vidyA using his antaHkaraNa, I inferred that it is jeevaatma who in reality is kUtastha Chaitanya (jeevo brahmaiva na aparaH).  He sits in avidyA with the view point of avidyA only he determines that there is no avidyA in brahman…is the fate of jeevAtma not paramAtma though jeevaatma in reality paramAtma only.  Do you think kUtastha / nishkriya / nirvishesha brahman is having avidyA and it wants to do sAdhana to efface avidyA to stick to brahmAshrita avidyA??

Finalize your take. 

If you agree with SSSS Ji's commentary on NS, buddhi, which is anAtmA, cannot be Ashraya of ajnAna on account of being ajnAna-prasUta. Period.

AtmA is stated to be Ashraya and vishaya of ajnAna by NS and SSSS ji.

As per you, jIva-AtmA is Ashraya of avidyA. So, as per you, SSSS ji means jIva-AtmA by the word AtmA in आत्मनोऽज्ञानाश्रयत्वोपपत्तिः।

As per you, ------- is vishaya of avidyA. 

Please fill in the gaps. 

I will respond accordingly.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

P.S. You have not responded to the statement that pramAtA is included by NS within the ambit of mithyA-adhyAs. "सर्वोऽयं प्रमितिप्रमाणप्रमेयप्रमातृलक्षण आब्रह्मस्तम्बपर्यन्तो मिथ्याध्यास एवेति बहुश उपपत्तिभिरतिष्ठिपम्"