The Website I found the criticism , it says it's in his book , Riddles of Hinduism

Rama’s birth is thus accompanied by general debauchery if not in his case certainly in the case of his associates. His marriage to Sita is not above comment. According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha.

The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules of marriage. If the story is true, then Rama’s marriage to Sita is no ideal to be copied.

This murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was a most cowardly act, for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.

That means that Sita preferred to die rather than return to Rama who had behaved no better than a brute. Such is the tragedy of Sita and the crime of Rama the God.

Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a ‘Prince among women’s men’. This was not a day’s affair. It was a regular course of his life.

  • 2
    Although I am not against Dr. Ambedkar's motives of uplifting the untouchables from their miserable lifestandards, but I must say that his hatred for the Hindu religion was no less than that of Kalapahad. So anything spoken by him on the Hindu religion should be absolutely rejected.
    – অনু
    Commented Dec 6, 2021 at 10:14
  • 1
    Ambedkar suffered caste related discrimination during his lifetime and this is his way of taking revenge.
    – Rickross
    Commented Dec 6, 2021 at 10:33
  • You may want to see the following video (youtu.be/Hjoy0Qrgz-8). Although I haven't gone entirely through it, it's related to the topic you have asked.
    – Rickross
    Commented Dec 6, 2021 at 10:41
  • @Rickross String sometimes feels like Raita Material so I avoid him, but thanks I am watching the video.
    – Rushil
    Commented Dec 6, 2021 at 11:10
  • 3
    Buddha Ramayana is not a Hindu Scripture. So whatever it says does not count. You can not expect Buddhists would say good things about Hindus. What Valmiki Ramayana says is authentic because this is the oldest narrative. Commented Dec 7, 2021 at 2:01

1 Answer 1


It is almost correct, but not. The Buddhist version of the Ramayana does not definitely state Rama and Sita were ever married. See this footnote:

78:1 Edited and translated by V. Fausbøl, The Dasaratha Jātaka, Copenhagen, 1871. The story is like that of the Rāmāyana, except that here Sītā is the hero's sister, not his wife.

The Ramayana happens a bunch of times, so even if both the Valmiki version and the Buddhist versions are true, it would just mean Rama and Sita were married in one life and siblings in another. Marrying siblings from another life is not wrong, otherwise, practically no one would get married for fear of doing it accidentally. Apparently, there is something about Sita being "the queen consort," but that could just be because she was the best person for the position, even if the name did not make sense for her. Even if Rama and Sita were siblings this could be in the first Manvantara, as a date does not seem to be given, when that was common and accepted as literally everyone was close family.

making Sītā the queen consort

Also, Rama's character being bad makes no sense as the master (Buddha I think) is said to have been Rama.

The Master having ended this discourse, declared the Truths, and identified the Birth: (now at the conclusion of the Truths, the land-owner was established in the fruit of the First Path:) "At that time the king Suddhodana 3 was king Dasaratha, Mahāmāyā 3 was the mother, Rāhulā's mother 4 was Sītā, Ānanda was Bharata, and I myself was Rāma-paṇḍita."


  • Thank you for your great answer. Edited : Why is Ambedkar using Buddha Ramayana to criticize Lord Ram character when he could have used Valmiki one. I feel an issue here that since there are so many version of Ramayana and criticizing it is beating a dead horse. It is like criticizing a niche distro of Linux for being bad.
    – Rushil
    Commented Dec 6, 2021 at 23:06
  • @Rushil Ambedkar is a Neo-Buddhist, so obviously he'll use Buddhist Ramayana. Which is quite illogical. Commented Dec 9, 2021 at 11:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .