The present paper tries to gauge the theoretical difference between Utpaladeva’s and Abhinavagupta’s “aesthetic” speculations. However, I will argue that only the postulation of a conceptual divide between aesthetics proper, i.e. a discourse on sensory perception, and art theory, i.e. a discourse on art per se, can plausibly account for the ratio of the textual material under scrutiny. Such a speculative differentiation will allow for a contrast between Utpaladeva’s ecstatic aesthetics, a discourse on sensory perception recognized as the preferential path to rapturous identification with the consciousness of Śiva, and Abhinavagupta’s art theory, a discourse on art per se acknowledged as a viable way to temporarily overcome the inherent painfulness of everyday sensory perceptions. The premises that nourish Abhinavagupta’s art theory, that somewhat differ from his and Utpaladeva’s Śaiva Weltanschauung, will be tentatively interpreted in light of the hypothesis of an implicit ecumenical agenda. The two different paths, here postulated and identified, might be idiomatically epitomized by means of their respective attitude towards desire, namely, their respective methods for its detonation and its defusal.