149. ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 169

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 169

because experience is never objective; it is essentially subjective. And how can this be known but through identi- fication, as stated before? Hence there is fundamental difference between the point of view of the school of Indian dramaturgy, that we are presenting here, and that of some of the European dramatic theories. We can bring out the difference by stressing the spectator's point of view according to each of these. To the European spectator the whole of the presented, including the hero, is an object of perception from the point of view of an unprejudiced and impartial spectator ; and so there arise feelings of pity and sympathy for the hero in his trials and sufferings. The Indian spectator identifies himself with the focus of the situation, on and around which everything else revolves, and sees the rest of the presented as does the hero and has the same experience as the latter. The feelings, therefore, which characterise) Leslonys the European dramatic experience, are different from those aroused by an Indian drama. ÆSTHETIC EXPERIENCE NOT TRULY EMOTIVE It is a little misleading to call æsthetic experience at the Kathartic level, with which we are dealing here, an emotive experience. For, in what is understood as "emotion" the physical aspect is very much emphasised; in any case, much more than the psychological. The organic changes are more intense in it. But in the æsthetic experience at the Kathartic level, it is the mental aspect which is more emphasised. Further, in the emotive experi- ence it is the directly perceived, which serves as the stimulus; but in the æsthetic, the directly perceived is simply a medium, through which the real object of experience is conveyed, much in the same manner as that in which the object of mystic experience of a devotee is 22