As long as individuality is a word linked with the human lexicon, whenever we draw comparisons, we'll need to strive to simply make the definitions comply. The question is not that we're discussing terms or epics here; the real issue is that we're attempting to compare them. How would commonplace sanity allow the comparison of a chair and a gallon of nuclear waste? How can a person even tend to compare ubiquitous logic and the Pythagoras theorem? Worldly things have a prototype of an accessible station that none can make them defy, and exploiting their accessibility is a diabolical thing to do. It is tantamount to marrying for sex, or buying a car to barely sit in. It is rude, it is inane and mostly, it is unacceptable. If we construct some conduit of comprehension between two epics, nothing can confirm that either we in ours, or the medium itself, are overruled by an inconsistent resolution. The reason to that is not that we dare not brave the occasion, but instead that the occasion simply isn't affected by easy bravery, that the source to the inconsistency is not personal, but the inconsistency is automatic, circumstantial, born of engineered comparisons greater than the one we aspire to. In easier lingo, we cannot bring down a mountain with a hammer and a nail.

Comparing epics is not cumbersome, for we denote something as cumbersome if we believe that it doesn't resist the possibility of being enacted... comparing epics is impossible, or rather, comparison in its conception serves as a non-existent medium, not linking, not involving, not perturbing the ends, rather subtly moving between them. We cannot device a degree that satisfies an ideal comparison, and hence, any designs at comparison will remain vague, insubstantial, callow, crude, unnecessary and shapeless. If it still tasking to let the fact seem credible, then try comparing maps, rivers, tides, men, women, moon, and the sun, and if you near conclusion, test the foundation on which you judge, and you'll perhaps understand how comparison is never more than personal. Since the abomination need be executed, it need be quick and painless, like a heart attack whilst one sleeps. I shall endeavor to compare the beastly epics 'Kamasutra' and 'Ramayana'.

Kamasutra is one of India's oldest epics, and it is also one of the most illustrious. The only form of knowledge about the Kamasutra that is not commonly known is that it was written by Mallangana Vatsyayana, around 250 A.D., was written in sutras in Sanskrit, is an epic about the folks of Nagaraka, and that it is about embracing sexual pleasure. The notable rest of the Kamasutra can be read ideally in serialized forms on the feted graffiti scrawled on the walls of a boy's toilet in any institutional building, or can be surveyed with visual aids in the more popular segregated corners of the same, or if all resorts fail, then the delicate knowledge that the Kamasutra confers can be contrived at a very lucrative rate at the Pallika bazaar. The Kamasutra is the Hindu sex-manual. It is tendentious to adultery, lesbianism, open sex, illicit sex, positions that Olympic gold-medlalists for acrobatics will find arduous to engineer, is controversially in opposition to oral sex, and merrily vilifies and belittles women to nothing but mere fun sexual objects to a degree gross enough to set convulsions up a feminist's back. Conclusively, the Kamasutra is about sex. And hence, in our approach to the ensuing epic, this is the tool we shall need to employ to stab while we woo. Comparison needs to based on the commonality of a facet, so what remains to be done is prove that Ramayana is as immensely foul a sexual epic as the Kamasutra.

Whether we're in a lavatory creating dusky excreta, or slipping off a soap-bar in a bathroom - 'hey ram' is a favorite amongst exclamation marks. Ramayana is not something that one can wash his hands off with a bathetic synopsis or sullied with brevity in a vain attempt at summarizing for the details, the nature of the epic, the enormity of its conception, cannot possibly be synthesized or concentrated into a few words. However, if desperation piques more than reverence then - ram went to a jungle with his wife and not-so-temperate brother, started a war, collated an army of freaky monkeys, one of them having a fetish for arson, and defeated a bloke with ten heads and an earthen pot for where his pancreas should've been. There're rarely individuals reared in India without the self-governing fear of god, i.e., Ram, without the know-how of the Ramayana, and of course, for the joyous ignoramuses, Doordarshan aired an entire series devoted to the epic and still gladly has reruns airing every weekend.

Now, the comparison need be put to effect. And do remember the heartening word 'sex'.

Perception is like a trained dog. You can set it on anything and expect at least a foot to be bitten off. If we begin perceiving immorally and with a tad iniquity, or debatably, with a lesser myopic sense than the archetype ingrained in our sick Indian mentalities, the Ramayana can be viewed, like the Kamasutra, as a practical sex manual. Now, arbitrary qualms need be raised, and arbitrary conclusions need be heralded.

Since, Ram's dad is a man with a stellar flock of wives, so the Ramayana definitely nods upon not only polygamy but also threesomes and foursomes. Laxman's (and even Bharat's) craving to accompany Ram into a forest for the extensive period of the exile illustrates a very filthy homosexual approach. The savamvar needed Ram to break Shiva's bow to 'earn' Sita as his wife, can be mechanized into a very fitting allegory... okay, imagine, Ram needs to 'break' a certain 'something' to ultimately 'deflower' Sita. Next, in the forest, what unambiguous, precise, justified reason do Laxman and Ram possess, instead of the lame one of scanning out food, for leaving behind Sita and heading into the forest, alone, with arrows and other phallic instrument that can be interpreted as 'tools to contrive obscene homosexual pleasure'? Jatayu is a character tangentially consequent to circumstances related to Sita... the word 'Jatayu' is a convoluted etymological contribution of the word 'Jata' which in the layman's Hindi translates into 'hair', and thus, Valmiki, the paragon amongst perverts, was alluding actually to Sita's pubic hair. The invasion of Lanka by Hanuman and the act of

These are only few of the multitudes of connotations scattered in the text. By keen observations and a keener sense for obscurities, one can perhaps garner the consummate acknowledgement of Ramayana as an epic that not only preaches sex, but abstractly advocates a heterodoxical attitude. Thus, much reluctantly, the epics lay compared.