As long as individuality is a word related to the human lexicon, whenever we make comparisons, we will have to strive to make the definitions just fit. The point is not that we are discussing terms or epics here; the real problem is that we are trying to compare them. How would common sanity allow a chair and a gallon of nuclear waste to compare? How can a person even tend to compare ubiquitous logic and the Pythagorean theorem? Mundane things have a prototype of an accessible station that no one can make them challenge, and exploiting their accessibility is diabolical. It amounts to getting married for sex or buying a car to just sit down. It’s rude, it’s stupid, and most of all, it’s unacceptable. If we build some conduit of understanding between two epics, nothing can confirm that neither we in ours, nor the medium itself, are nullified by an inconsistent resolution. The reason for this is not that we do not dare to face the occasion, but that the occasion is simply not affected by easy courage, that the source of the inconsistency is not personal, but the inconsistency is automatic, circumstantial, born of comparisons designed. greater than we aspire to. In simpler jargon, we cannot knock down a mountain with a hammer and nail.

Comparing epics is not cumbersome, because we denote something as cumbersome if we believe that it does not resist the possibility of being represented … comparing epics is impossible, or rather, the comparison in its conception serves as a non-existent means, not linking, without involving, without disturbing the extremes, rather subtly moving between them. We cannot draw a degree that satisfies an ideal comparison, and therefore any design in the comparison will remain vague, insubstantial, inexpressive, crude, unnecessary, and shapeless. If you are still tasked with letting the fact appear credible, try comparing maps, rivers, tides, men, women, the moon and the sun, and if you are close to the conclusion, test the basis on which you judge, and perhaps understand it. how comparison is never more than personal.

Since the abomination must be executed, it must be quick and painless, like a heart attack while one sleeps. I will endeavor to compare the bestial epics “Kamasutra” and “Ramayana”.

Kamasutra is one of the oldest epics in India, 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 AD, it was written in Sanskrit sutras, it is an epic about the Nagaraka people and that it is about embracing sexual pleasure . . The notable remainder of the Kamasutra can ideally be read in serialized forms in the festive graffiti scrawled on the walls of a child’s bathroom in any institutional building, or can be inspected with visual aids in the most popular segregated corners of the same, or yes all Yes As resorts fail, the delicate knowledge that the Kamasutra confers can be achieved at a very lucrative rate at the Pallika Bazaar. The Kamasutra is the Hindu sexual manual. It is prone to adultery, lesbianism, open sex, illicit sex – positions that Olympic gold medalists for acrobatics will find arduous to design, is controversially opposed to oral sex, and gleefully vilifies and belittles women to nothing but Simple fun sex objects to a degree gross enough to get a feminist’s back convulsed. In conclusion, the kamasutra is about sex. And therefore, in our approach to the subsequent epic, this is the tool we will need to employ to stab as we court. The comparison must be based on the similarity of one facet, so what remains to be done is to prove that the Ramayana is as immensely disgusting a sexual epic as the Kamasutra.

Whether we’re in a bathroom creating dark poop or slipping off a bar of soap in a bathroom, ‘hey ram’ is a favorite among exclamation points. The Ramayana is not something one can wash one’s hands of with a tragic or tainted synopsis briefly in a vain attempt to summarize for detail, the nature of the epic, the enormity of its conception, cannot be synthesized or concentrated on a few. few. words. However, if despair awakens more than reverence, Ram went to a jungle with his wife and not-so-tempered brother, started a war, gathered an army of strange monkeys, one of them had a fetish for arson, and defeated a guy. with ten heads and a clay pot where his pancreas should have been. Rarely are there individuals raised in India without the self-governing fear of god, that is, Ram, without the knowledge of the Ramayana and of course for the joyful ignorant, Doordarshan broadcast an entire series dedicated to the epic and still gladly has Replays on the air every weekend.

Now, the comparison must be put into practice. And remember the encouraging word “sex.”

Perception is like a trained dog. You can put it on anything and expect to get at least one foot bitten. If we begin to perceive immorally and with a bit of iniquity, or arguably, with a myopic sense less than the archetype ingrained in our sick Indian mentalities, the Ramayana can be seen, like the Kamasutra, as a practical manual of sex.

Now, it is necessary to raise arbitrary scruples and announce arbitrary conclusions.

Given that Ram’s father is a man with a stellar flock of wives, the Ramayana is definitely not only leaning towards polygamy, but also threesomes and quartets. Laxman’s (and even Bharat’s) desire to accompany Ram to a forest during the extended period of exile illustrates a very dirty homosexual approach. The savamvar needed Ram to break Shiva’s bow to ‘win’ Sita as his wife, it can be machined into a very appropriate allegory … well, imagine Ram needs to ‘break’ certain ‘something’ to finally ‘deflower’ her. Sita. Then, in the forest, what unequivocal, precise, and justified reason do Laxman and Ram have, instead of the lame one to scan food, to leave Sita behind and head into the forest, alone, with arrows and whatever phallic instrument it may be? interpreted as “tools to devise obscene homosexual pleasure”? Jatayu is a character tangentially consequent to circumstances related to Sita … the word ‘Jatayu’ is an intricate etymological contribution of the word ‘Jata’ which in the profane Hindi is translated as ‘hair’, and therefore, Valmiki, the model among perverts. actually alluded to Sita’s pubic hair. Hanuman’s invasion of Lanka and the act of

These are just a few of the multitudes of connotations scattered throughout the text. Through keen observations and a sharper sense of darkness, perhaps one can gain consummate recognition of the Ramayana as an epic that not only preaches sex, but abstractly advocates a heterodoxy attitude.

Thus, with great reluctance, the epics were compared.