What is the ontological status of māyā? Is it in brahman? Or is it a second vastu? If it is anirvacanīya (i.e. sad-asad-vilakṣaṇa) then it is different from sad (brahman). Does that make it a second vastu?

From āvarta 332 onwards, the nature of deśa & kāla are discussed. They are the cause of creation, but is the cause inherent to them? These arguments apply to māyā as well.

brahma is the kāraṇa of all creation, and this kāraṇatva is seen in deśa and kāla. They do not exist independently in deśa and kāla.

But why is this important? The siddhānta accepts anirvacanīya khyāti. The pūrvapakṣī levels an ākṣepa at the siddhānta, since the kāraṇatvam in deśa and kāla can result in a second entity apart from brahman. If instead, the siddhānta accepts kāraṇatvam in brahman and not in deśa, kāla etc, then they will have to accept anyathā khyāti. Thus there will be a contradiction in the khyāti vāda of the siddhānta. But there is no contradiction, and we accept both khyātis, as appropriate, for different dharmas in the same mithyā vastu.

The satyatā in all mithyāpadārthas is through anyathā khyāti. Otherwise, how can any mithyā padārtha have any kind of satyatā? The sentence itself would be a contradiction. In the same way, even the dharma of kāraṇatā belongs to brahman alone and not to deśa or kāla. But this too will be said to be anirvacanīya as well from the pāramārthika dr̥ṣṭi …

In an earlier avarta on māyā svarūpa, it’s āśraya was explicitly said to be śuddha caitanya. And māyā is no different from ajñāna – both are names for the same vastu.

What is the relationship between ajñāna / māyā and adhyāsa? This is described in avarta 97 – ajñāna itself is the cause of ajñāna-adhyāsa, and prapañca-adhyāsa. How can ajñāna be the cause of it’s own adhyāsa as well as the adhyāsa of it’s effects? Through sva-para-nirvāhakatva, i.e. just as a lamp illumines itself and objects around it.