Mahima Bhaṭṭa (ca. 1025 CE) does not consider rasa anything more than an emotion which has been stabilized into the object of a particular kind of aesthetic enjoyment. His Analysis of “Manifestation” argues that, since the characters in a poem are unreal, the emotions they are experiencing are also unreal, and must be inferred or imputed to them. All of the talk of “manifesting” rasa is itself a figure of speech, on Mahima Bhaṭṭa’s view. In addition, he argues that any putative “secondary meaning” such as indication (lakṣaṇā) is also inferred. Primary meaning plays an evidentiary role in inference based on rules of pervasion (vyāpti) between the primary meaning and secondary or suggested meaning. This position is criticized by later thinkers, since the relationship between primary meaning and these other meanings does not easily admit of universalizable regularities, and suggested meanings are often defeasible (see the entry on logic in classical Indian philosophy for discussion of inference).