261. 290 CHAPTER V

290 CHAPTER V

nature. Mahima Bhatta seems to present an advance on Śrīsankuka in so far as he (I) recognises a distinct subjective condition of the æsthetic experience, which, following Bhatta Nayaka, he calls 'Sahrdayatva' and which alone makes æsthetic experience possible1 and (II) draws a distinction between the inferential experience at the empirical and that at the aesthetic level. The latter is characterised by 'Camatkāra'. He recognises the æsthetic experience to be non-empirical (Alaukika). He seems to follow Bhatța Näyaka in his conception of the ultimate nature of the æs- thetic experience, as is evident from his quoting from the Sahrdaya Darpaņa, wherein Bhatța Nāyaka has clearly defined Rasa. This verse is attributed by Abhinava in his Abhinava Bhāratī to Bhațța Nāyaka2.

HIS CONCEPTION OF CAMATKĀRA.

Suppose a painting, that is put in thick darkness, is illumined by a flash-light. There can be no difference of opinion on this that from the sight of such a painting we experience a peculiar delight, the like of which we do not get if the same be put in the broad day-light. This peculiar delight Mahima Bhatta calls Camatkāra3. A similar delight, he holds, is experienced when we hear of something, that admits of direct linguistic presentation, presented in terms of inference. It may be remembered that the conception of Camatkara, as presented by Abhinava in the Brhati Vimarsinī, is different. (Vide Chapter II).

THE BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY OF MEANING. The theory of Meaning in India was originally developed in the context of the Philosophy of Grammar. The well recognised work on it, is the Vākyapadīyam of Bhartrhari. But Bhartrhari himself declares that what he presents is 1. V. V. 66. 2. A. Bh. 279. 3. V. V. V., 53. 4. V. V. 74.