________________
( 132 )
darsana. According to the Praj flapana Sutra also both upayoga and paśyatta can be sakara as well as anakaya.
Icārya Kundakunda mentions the view of his predecessors that vision reveals the self ( ditthi ap papayasayaceva ). Hence, he considers the problem from the empirical as well as the transcendental standpoint37 and concludes that the soul and its knowledge and vision are identical and hence each can reveal the self as well as non-self.
Virasena considers reality as a complex of, universal-cumparticular and says in his commentary called Dhavalā on the satkhaņdāgama of Puspadanta that jñāna comprehends external meaning of the nature of reality, while darsana is the comprehension of the true form of that nature.39 That means. jñana reveals the external reality while darśana intuits its internal characteristics. Siddhasena Divākara defines vision ( darśana ) as an apprehension of sämānya and knowledge
fiana) as an apprehension of visesa jam sāmannaggahanam damsanameyam visesiyanniņa). 40 By this time the defination of darsana had been developed to mean the apprehension of sāmānya of an entity.
It is clear that vision or darsana was originally considered to be the revealer of self (ätma-prūkäsaka ). That is the reason why malipāna, śrutajñāna and the avadhijñānā, which reveal external nature of reality, can be wrong if they are viewed from the wrong angle, whereas cakşudarśana, acakşudarsana and avadhidarsana, which come prior to them, are not so. It Visesa (particular) had been considered as having a meaning of general observation of an entity, the Samsaya { doubt, viparayaya (perversion ), and the anadhyava sāva (indecision) would have existed in its perception made earlier, and darśana would have been divided, like jñāna, into darśana-adarsana etc. This defect would not arise if we define vision as a revealer of self. For, it always exists prior to, as well as at the time of knowledge. 41
This idea was expressed in logical terms by Pujyapada.
