MY second argument stems from the position that the Kamasutra, in fact, attempts a rationalising of sexuality, its cold and objective tone being the very antithesis of sensuality where the surge of the body can overpower the dictates of the mind. In this, the Kamasutra is on par with several classical texts of the half millennium between the first and sixth century AD, which saw the growth and flowering of a whole range of cognitive systems in India, which set about processing knowledge—codifying, naming, defining, illustrating. Despite all the disputed datings, the Kamasutra is of a piece with Bharata's Natyashastra, Patanjali's Yogasutra, Kautilya's Arthashastra, Panini's Vyakaranashastra or Vyachrapada's treatise on martial arts. It is the simultaneous emergence of disciplines and theory of disciplines. Though many of the above-mentioned disciplines deal with the body, this period of history chose to apply mind to it. It was like a broad social stocktaking of practices, methods, processes. All these completely bypassed the chemistry and alchemy of change—the relentless assault of the irrational on the rational; the periodic capture of our senses by subliminal forces beyond our control or comprehension. By sticking close to the Kamasutra's attempt to rationalise the sex drive, Kakar creates a Vatsyayana who sounds more like "the loin in winter". While the fiction is there, what is absent is the fantasy. As he himself has quoted Vatsyayana, "the fantasies invented by man in grip of sexual excitement are unimaginable even in dreams".