time at least in the literary-critical context, is visrānti (which will becomes so important for Abhinawagupta). This absorptive experience is an event unique to the aesthetic and completely different from normal experience (anubhava) and memory. It is, as Mammata restated it, "a full repose in the true nature of one's own consciousness", rendered so completely joyful and luminous that it is akin to the ecstasy of religious self-transcendence given that “the self other differentiation has vanished", as Dhanika says.” We should remember, however, what Bhattanāyaka himself tells us in one of the few preserved fragments, that this religious experience is in fact inferior: “Nothing can compare with [aesthetic rasa], not even the rasa spiritual adepts bring forth" (appendix #3).
In above para, Pollock very cleverly appropriates and rejects Parmarthika bliss as inferior by comparing with "spiritual adept"?
In terms of the three-part Mīmāmsā paradigm, these components represent the means (abhidhá), the method (bhāvakatva), and the what (bhogikrttva) of literary “reproduction", and we may synthesize as follows: Aesthetic experience (this is the kim or sādhya) arises thanks to a conceptual transformation of the literary elements (the foundational factor and so on) via "commonalization" (this is the kena, or sadhana or karana), which for its part is made possible by the unique powers of literary language (this is the katham oritikartavyata).” The term of art by...
51. Abhinava tries, quite shamelessly, to reappropriate this triad for his own view (DhAL, p. 189; Ingalls et al., p. 225).
The reference 51 calls Abhinawa Gupta as shamelessly appropriating!! Anyone who has read Prattignya and Trika Shastra understands the importance and use of Triads is much older and a fundamental spiritual approach to understand world