177. ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 199

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 199

through senses at the empirical level. This point is dis- cussed in his commentary on "Matrasparsastu" etc. (Bh. G. Ch. 2, V. 15). The word Tattvajnana, therefore, according to him, means nothing but the Self itself as pure knowledge and pure bliss and free from all determinate experiences. Such Self is the Sthayin of Santa. He replies to an anticipated objection that it will mean going against the authority of Bharata, who does not mention the Self in the list of Sthayins as follows :- It should not be mentioned as Sthayin like Rati etc. For, the latter are spoken of as Sthayins, because they are comparatively more permanent than the transient emotions, inasmuch as they affect the self so long as the situations responsible for their rise persist. They are to the Self what a picture is to a picture-board. The Self as such is the most permanent of all the Sthayins. This relegates all the basic mental states such as Rati to the position of the Vyabhicarins. Its permanence is natural and real but not comparative. It is, therefore, unnecessary to mention it separately in the list of Sthayins. For, nobody includes the genus in counting the parts of a thing which is subsumed under it. The aforesaid argument disposes of the objection that the assumption of a separate Sthayin of Santa will increase the accepted number of forty-nine Bhavas. WHY IS TATTVAJNANA (SAMA) MENTIONED SEPARATELY ? As to the question, "why is Santa and, therefore, Sama counted separately", he replies that because it is æsthetically experienceable in a manner distinct from that in which Rati etc. are experienced. It is separately mentioned for the additional reason that just as Rati etc., in all their purity, are experienceable at the empirical