2012-01-01

A critical review of Ambedkar's Riddles of Rama

The Supreme Vedas advocates a form of spiritual communism that makes a person to realise the nature of God through rational thinking(tarka) and logical discussions.
While the Vedas promote spiritual communism for the betterment of soul by gaining knowledge, a new form of communalism  and social prejudice has become firm in the present India, which is supported by most of the groups and organisations inside and outside the country. This is called anti-brahminism, the idea that brahmins are villians and the religion invented by them comprising of Gods like Shiva, Krishna, Rama etc all depict the brahmanic villy propaganda and the oppressions and destruction made by them to the lower castes.


Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the member of the drafting committee of our Indian Constitution is often portrated as the modern Manu who made the constitution in such a way that it gives each and every human being equal rights.
But the funny fact in India is that often whenever any book or article is written
 against Hinduism and any Hindu Organisations wants a ban on it, it is often termed as Hindu chauvinism and many leftists,neo-buddhists backed by jihadis and missionaries claim that If such book is banned its an insult to the freedom of speech/expression. While when a similar kind of book is written against other religions, those book are asked to be banned terming it as hurting one's religious sentiments. Similar thing happened when some Hindus wanted a ban on Ambedkar's "Riddles in Hinduism", for its pathetic allegations against Rama and Krishna, and this was termed Hindu chauvinism. Even the protest against the republication of the book with state funds was to no avail, and the book has been ceremoniously presented(even today) to foreign visitors in the Ambedkar centenary year including Nelson Mandela. So,its a rule in India that any Hindu demands for a ban are always to be ignored.

Ambedkar’s most direct attack on Hindu sensibilities was his merciless pamphlet Riddles in Hinduism. Its central thesis is the absolute reduction of Hindu culture to a mere cover for caste and untouchability.  That part was largely ignored by the public, because it was the type of thing which so many westernized writers and Christian missionaries had been saying for some time.  The part which really caused offence was the chapter Riddles of Rama and Krishna, which contains a lot of ordinary scandal-mongering.
Though we respect Dr. Ambedkar for his cause of Dalit upliftment, we oppose him for his attack on Hindu sentiments through his literatures. Uplifting anyone doesn't mean that we must do religious bashing.  Following Ambedkar and Phule many authors of similar norms like Periyar, etc kept on writing baseless theories with some evidences taken out of context from the literatures to demean Hindu culture. The irony is that the person who played a role in drafting our constitution of Hindustan(though we prefer to call it Bharatavarsha and its religion Sanatana Dharma) himself was a staunch opposer of Hinduism and tried all his level best to destroy Hinduism(which for him was a Brahmanic oppressive religion).


In modern times many neo-buddhist,pro-dalit groups along with jihadis and Christians use the works of Ambedkar to gullible the Hindus and use it as a weapon for conversion. These people who call themselves as Dalit/Dravidian feel proud about their anti-brahmanism innovation and say that Ambedkar, Periyar etc all defeated and destroyed Brahmanic dubios religion of Hinduism and their gods like Rama, Krishna etc. For this let me quote from Sri Sita Ram Goel's book "Islam vis-via-Hindu Temples" which quotes poet Amir Khusru describing the Mohammedans killing of satanic follower Brahmins(Kufr's): --
"Amir Khusru describes with great glee how the heads of brahmins danced from their necks and fell to ground at their feets whom Malik Kafur had slaughtered during the sack of the temples at Chidambaram.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq got bags filled with cow's flesh, tied them to Brahmins neck and had them paraded through his army camp at Kangra.
Muhammed Shah II Bahamani bestowed on himself of being a ghazi by killing the helpless brahmin priests(Kufr who worship Gods other than Quranic Allah) at kondapalli.
In many other places local villagers were asked to keep away Brahmins and make the Brahmins vacate their places to avoid attacks on those places by Islamic conquerors.
THE PRESENT DAY PROGRESSIVE LEFTISTS AND DALITS whose main plank is anti-brahmanism have no reason to feel innovative about their ideology. Anti-brahmanism in India is as old as the advent of Islam. Our present day leftists have to be told that they are no more than the ideological descendants of the Islamic invaders."
King Rama, one of the noble person admired for his noble character by many is often portrayed as a villian by the leftists.In this article let us critically examine the arguments put forth by Ambedkar in his "Riddles of Rama and Krishna" against King Rama and refute it wherever necessary and try to arrive at a conclusion.
Before starting what we have to understand is that the present day Ramayana by Valmiki has undergone many interpolations and adulterations. So keeping that in mind we must critically examine the  Ramayana and reject the adulterations.


Next onwards , Dr Ambedkars arguments in Blue Italics and the our comment/reply in Bold.



Rama is the hero of the Ramayana whose author is Valmiki. The story of the Ramayana is a very short one. Besides it is simple and in itself there is nothing sensational about it.
This analogy can work for anyone's story, like for even the story of Buddha. Thus it can also be said that the story of Buddha is very short one and besides there nothing sensational about it. Buddha saw 3 men suffering and left his home and wife and ran away!!


Rama is the son of Dasharatha the king of Ayodhya the modern Benares. Dasharatha had three wives, Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra besides several hundred concubines. Kaikeyi had married Dasharatha on terms which were at the time of marriage unspecified and which Dasharatha was bound to fulfil whenever he was called upon by Kaikeyi to do so. Dasharatha was childless for a long time. An heir to the throne was ardently desired by him. Seeing that there was no hope of his begetting a son on any of his three wives he decided to perform a Putreshti Yajna and called the sage Shrung at the sacrifice who prepared pindas and gave the three wives of Dasharatha to eat them.


 Probably Ambedkar has not read Ramayana properly. In Putra Kameshti Yagna pindas were not given. The word "Pinda" used by Dr. BRA mbedkar itself shows the biasedness and the hatred Ambedkar had towards Hinduism and its hero Rama.



 After they ate the pindas three wives became pregnant and gave birth to sons. Kausalya gave birth to Rama, Kaikeyi gave birth to Bharata and Sumitra gave birth to two sons Laxman and Satrughana. In due course Rama was married to Sita. When Rama came of age, Dasharatha thought of resigning the throne in favour of Rama and retiring from kingship. While this was being settled Kaikeyi raised the question of rendering her satisfaction of the terms on which she had married Dasharatha. On being asked to state her terms she demanded that her son Bharata should be installed on the throne in preference to I Rama and Rama should live in forest for 12 years. Dasharatha with great reluctance agreed. Bharata became king of Ayodhya and Rama  accompanied by his wife Sita and his step brother Laxman went to live in the forest. While the three living in the forest Ravana the king of Lanka kidnapped Sita and took her away and kept her in his palace intending to make her one of his wives. Rama and Laxman then started search of Sita. On the way they meet Sugriva and Hanuman two leading personages of the Vanara (monkey) race and form friendship with them. With their help the place of the abduction was located and with their help they marched on Lanka, defeated Ravana in the battle and rescued Sita. Rama returns with Laxman and Sita to Ayodhya. By that time twelve years had elapsed and the term prescribed by Kaikeyi was fulfilled with the result that Bharata gave up the throne and in his place Rama became the king of Ayodhya.
Such is in brief the outline of the story of the Ramayana as told by Valmiki.


There is a need for correction. Vanaras doesn't mean monkey race(The term race used by Ambedkar also shows how much he was influenced by theWestern indologists Racial theories, which the Britishers used as a weapon to divide India through there writings, which inturn was blindly accepted by many Indian Historians and thinkers). Vanara is a tribe to which Hanuman belonged and Hanuman himself was a great scholar of Vedas and also a Vyakarana Pandita.(Can any monkey read and write??)



There is nothing in this story to make Rama the object of worship. He is only a dutiful son. But Valmiki saw something extraordinary in Rama and that is why he undertook to compose the Ramayana. Valmiki asked Narada the following question :
"Tell me Oh! Narada, who is the most accomplished man on earth at the present time?"
and then goes on to elaborate what he means by accomplished man. He defines his accomplished man as:
" Powerful, one who knows the secret of religion, one who knows gratitude, truthful, one who is ready to sacrifice his self interest even when in distress to fulfil a religious vow, virtuous in his conduct, eager to safeguard the interests of all, strong pleasing in appearance with power of self-control, able to subdue anger, illustrious, with no jealousy for the prosperity of others, and in war able to strike terror in the hearts of Gods."
Narada then asks for time to consider and after mature deliberation tells him that the only person who can be said to possess these virtues is Rama, the son of Dasharatha.


King Rama was a noble King and we will discuss about his virtues it in another separate article.
To know the greatness of King Rama, we would also request the readers to purchase the Book "Bhagavan Shree RamaChandra" by Sri Sudhakar Chaturvedi available at VV Puram Arya Samaj, Bangalore so that it encourages the publishers to bring books of similar kinds to the market which upheld our dharma.




It is because of his virtues that Rama has come to be deified. But is Rama a worthy personality of deification? Let those who accept him an object worthy of worship as a God consider the following facts.
Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical glass to cover the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife. In any case his birth if not disreputable in its origin is certainly unnatural.




Our Comment : 1> This is the hatredness at its best. Look how Ambedkar says that if Sage Shrunga performed Yagna to appease Gods for granting children to Dasharatha, does it mean he himself had illicit relationship with Dasharatha's wife?? Thank God he didnt write "Gandhi who was a devotee of Rama(though in reality he was not) is called the Father Of Nation because he had illegetemate relation with all Indians " .
2> Probably Ambedkar had read Abrahamic teachings and birth of jesus Christ etc might have created a doubt in his minds making him to think how could this happen? Even we oppose such baseless ideas which are present in same fairy tale books like Torah,Bible, Quran + Hadiths etc.
3> Thanks to Ambedkar that he didnt say that the God who was pleased by Shrunga, that God himself had illicit relation with Dasharatha's wives. By such logic tomorrow if any guy goes to a temple and prays God to grant him good marks in exam. And after that if that guy gets good marks he may claim that the priest in the temple himself wrote exam on behalf of him.
4> If at all in any home, if 14 children are born and if 12 dies  out and 2 sustains, can we claim that those 12 or the existing 2 are from different parental relations??? That would be a foolishness.

By applying Ambedkar's logic, we can also claim the illegetemate nature of birth in Buddha. It is said that before Buddha's birth Buddha's mother was visited by White elephant in the night. Since Buddha's ears are depicted as large and his mother was visited by white elephant(which accidentally has large ears) can we imagine the illegetamate relation between Buddha's mother and the white elephant!!!??!!


There are other incidents connected with the birth of Rama the unsavory character of which it will be difficult to deny.
 Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha. The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu be a complete success arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him. There were none such existing then.
The Gods agreed to carry out the command of Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against Apsaras who were prostitutes not only against the unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras and produced the Vanaras who became the associates of Rama.



There is nothing like avatar of God etc. Also these stories of kinnaras,yakshas etc have been added by vaama margis. Even many Buddhist texts details about nagas, yakshas etc and many neo-buddhists claim the authorship of Tantras as buddhistic origin. If that be true then all the credit of making such illogical stories on yakshas, kinnaras etc goes to Buddhists.
The very fact that Buddha who is often depicted as the creator of Atheism(while in reality there were many atheists prior to him like Jabali, Charvakas who drew inspiration from Kapila Maharshi's Saankhya philosophy) by his disciples and he himself is being worshipped itself shows the double-standards maintained by the Buddhists. One more example being Dalai Lama, who preaches Ahimsa and at the same time consumes non-vegeterian diet just like Buddha who died by eating pork.



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 Ramayana of Valmiki does not agree with the relationship mentioned in Buddha Ramayana. According to Valmiki Sita was the daughter of the king Janaka of Videha and therefore not a sister of Rama. This is not convincing for even according to Valmiki she is not the natural born daughter of Janaka but a child found by a farmer in his field while ploughing it and presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janaka. It was therefore in a superficial sense that Sita could be said to be the daughter of Janaka.

 It is not understood why Ambedkar brings Buddhist version of Ramayana when talking about Hinduism. Buddha being a pessimistic fraud who after seeing 3 people suffering left his wife and family and ran away. It was after that incident that women's status in the society fell down.(We even doubt that when many such people followed Buddha by leaving their wives, these wives might have become Apsaras,Kinnaris etc which were incorporated in Hindu stories in later stages while in reality these things have not happened).
The followers of Buddha(who left his wife and ran away and who thought that marriage and wife is an obstacle in spiritual upliftment.. Though it would had been better if he had thinked about these before marriage as it would have avoided Buddha's wife from facing agony for husband), thought that marriage is a bondage(who knows by applying Ambedkar's logic we can also think that they(buddhists) might have started the process of illegal relationships without marriage since according to them marriage was a obstacle in path of nirvana!!) have edited the original Ramayan story and made Rama and Sita brother and Sister.


 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. In another sense Rama's marriage was not an ideal marriage which could be copied. One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common. For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers  to the many wives of Rama. These were of course in addition to his many concubines. In this he was the true son of his nominal father Dasharatha who had not only the three wives referred to above but many others.


1>The Buddha who left his Raja Dharma and ran away fearing to face sufferings was a role model of his disciples and these disciples have even removed the verses which talks about war between Rama and Ravan in their version of Ramayan. By considering all these we can judge that the Buddha Ramayan is a edited version of Valmiki Ramayan with adding some features of Buddha's life story.
2>Again another baseless argument posed by Ambedkar. He compares Valmiki Ramayan and Buddha Ramayan and says that Rama and Sita were brother and sister and the marriage between them is not to be copied. If at all Buddha Ramayan is true then why Ambedkar is considering Valmiki Ramayan and mixing both stories? This itself is a Riddle :D
3> He later says that Rama had many concubines without any reference to authentic verse.(Note: Uttara Ramayana is completely a fiction added by Buddhists(who later converted to hinduism) who were engaged in all kind of illegal activities in their institutions and since there was no rules and regulations to join Buddhist institutions[as such in Gurukula system where in each disciple is tested for his virtue and knowledge before making them disciples], many frauds, vaama margis crept into those institutions and these same people after being converted back to Hinduism by Shankaracharya added obscure stories into Hindu Scriptures.By the similar logic as used by Ambedkar anyone can claim that Probably inspired by Buddhists institutions which lacked merit based teaching , Ambedkar might have made certain rules in constitution which is somewhat against Merit Based Education).
4>Even to this day Rama is called eka-patni vratasta and he is admired for it, since he didnt follow his father who was polygamous.


Let us next consider his character as an individual and as a king. In speaking of him as an individual I will refer to only two incidents one relating to his treatment of Vali and other relating to his treatment of his own wife Sita. First let us consider the incident of Vali.
Vali and Sugriva were two brothers. They belonged to the Vanar race and came from a ruling family which had its own kingdom the capital of which was Kishkindha. At the time when Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Vali was reigning at Kishkindha. While Vali was on the throne he was engaged in a war with a Rakshasa by name Mayavi. In the personal combat between the two Mayavi ran for his life. Both Vali and Sugriva pursued him. Mayavi entered into a deep cavity in the earth. Vali asked Sugriva to wait at the mouth of the cavity and himself went inside. After sometime a flood of blood came from inside the cavity. Sugriva concluded that Vali must have been killed by Mayavi and came to Kishkindha and got himself declared king in place of Vali and made Hanuman his Prime Minister
As a matter of fact, Vali was not killed. It was Mayavi who was killed by Vali. Vali came out of the cavity but did not find Sugriva there. He proceeded to Kishkindha and to his great surprise he found that Sugriva had proclaimed himself king. Vali naturally became enraged at this act of treachery on the part of his brother Sugriva and he had good ground to be. Sugriva should have ascertained, should not merely have assumed that Vali was dead. Secondly Vali had a son by name Angad whom Sugriva should have made the king as the legitimate heir of Vali. He did neither of the two things. His was a clear case of usurpation. Vali drove out Sugriva and took back the throne. The two brothers became mortal enemies.
This occurred just after Ravana had kidnapped Sita. Rama and Laxman were wandering in search of her. Sugriva and Hanuman were wandering in search of friends who could help them to regain the throne from Vali. The two parties met quite accidentally. After informing each other of their difficulties a compact was arrived at between the two. It was agreed that Rama should help Sugriva to kill Vali and to establish him on the throne of Kishkindha. On the part of Sugriva and Hanuman it was agreed that they should help Rama to regain Sita. To enable Rama to fulfil his part of the compact it was planned that Sugriva should wear a garland in his neck as to be easily distinguishable to Rama from Vali and that while the dual was going on Rama should conceal himself behind a tree and then shoot an arrow at Vali and kill him. Accordingly a dual was arranged, Sugriva with a garland in his neck and while the daul was on, Rama standing behind a tree shot Vali with his arrow and opened the way to Sugriva to be the king of Kishkindha. 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 most cowardly act for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.



Comments : 1> Ambedkar intentionally hides the fact that King Rama agreed to kill Vali, since Vali had illegally made Sugriva's wife as captive.
2>  If we go by Valmiki Ramayan's story there is also a story which says that Vali had a boon which made him to acquire half of his opposer's strength by which he always remained undefeated. The above arguments by Ambedkar itself shows how biased are his thinkings and how he selectively takes many story out of context and interpret in his own way.




Consider his treatment of his own wife Sita. With the army collected for him by Sugriva and Hanuman, Rama invades Lanka. There too he plays the same mean part as he did as between the two brothers Vali and Sugriva. He takes the help of Bibhishana the brother of Ravana promising him to kill Ravana and his son and place him on the vacant throne. Rama kills Ravana and also his son lndrajit. The first thing Rama does after the close of the fight is to give a decent burial to the dead body of Ravana. Thereafter he interests himself in the coronation of Bibhishana and it is after the coronation is over that he sends Hanuman to Sita and that took to inform her that he, Laxman and Sugriva are hale and hearty and that they have killed Ravana.
The first thing he should have done after disposing of Ravana was to have gone to Sita. He does not do so. He finds more interest in the coronation than in Sita. Even when the coronation is over he does not go himself but sends Hanuman. And what is the message he sends? He does not ask Hanuman to bring her. He asks him to inform her that he is hale and hearty. It is Sita who expresses to Hanuman her desire to see Rama. Rama does not go to Sita his own wife who was kidnapped and confined by Ravana for more than 10 months. Sita is brought to him and what does Rama say to Sita when he sees her? It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could  address to his wife in such dire distress as Rama did to Sita when he met her in Lanka if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki. This is how Rama addressed her :  

I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy your captor. I have recovered my honour and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military prowess and I am glad my abours have been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour. I did not take this trouble for your sake." Could there be anything more cruel than this conduct of Rama towards Sita? He does not stop there. He proceeded to tell her:
" I suspect your conduct. You must have been spoiled by Ravana. Your very sight is revolting to me. On you daughter of Janaka, I allow you to go anywhere you like. I have nothing to do with you. I conquerred you back and I am content for that was my object. I cannot think that Ravana would have failed to enjoy a woman as beautiful as you are."

Though King Rama says the above words he is said to have said these words with sorrow and tears in his eyes.

naturally Sita calls Rama low and mean and tells him quite that she would have committed suicide and saved him all this if when Hanuman first came he had sent her a message that he abandoned her on the ground that she was kidnapped. To give him no excuse Sita undertakes to prove her purity. She enters the fire and comes out unscathed. The Gods satisfied with this evidence proclaim that she is pure. It is then that Rama agrees to take her back to Ayodhya.


Comments : 1> This Agni Pariksha is a later day interpolation.
2> During marriage customs in some traditions symbolically it is believed that the bride is purified with Agni and then given to groom. Probably idiots who have not understood these symbolic nature might have re-interpreted King Rama's Remarriage with Sita as Agni Pariksha etc.
3> Also I would like to add one more thing here, if at all this Agni Pariksha wouldn't have happened the same Ambedkar or people of his norms would have attacked on the character of Sita, just like they are attacking on Rama's character. Many followers of certain religious sects who themself dont respect women and say that 4 women is equal to 1 men etc attack Rama as being harsh towards his wife and at the same time even say Sita's character is doubtfull. What else can we expect from those religious fanatics who themself follow and believe in psychophants as their Prophets?


And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya. Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be a queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama. It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she must have conceived from Ravana while she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife. This malicious gossip in the town was reported by Bhadra, the Court joker to Rama. Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means—namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice in a most treacherous manner. There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to Rama on the spur of the moment. The genesis of the idea the developing of it and the plan of executing are worth some detailed mention. When Bhadra reports to him the gossip about Sita which had spread in the town Rama calls his brothers and tells them his feelings. He tells them Sita's purity and chastity was proved in Lanka, that Gods had vouched lor it and that he absolutely believed in her innocence, purity and chastity. "All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset, Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it in tact. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita."

This story has been added by pauraniks just to make Rama and Sita as God's incarnations and to prove that Rama went to Vaikunta and Sita being daughter of Mother earth went back to earth. These baseless stories added by the pauraniks is fully illogical and must be rejected from its core.
This shows that he had made up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without waiting to consider whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame. He of course does not take the manly course of stopping this gossip, which as a king he could do and which as a husband who was convinced of his wife's innocence he was bound to it. He yielded to the public gossip and there are not wanting Hindus who use this as ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king when others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch: Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brothers but not to Sita the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action. Eventually the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Women who are carrying exhibit all sorts of cravings for all sorts of things. Rama knew of this. So one day he asked Sita if there was anything for which she felt a craving. She said yes. Rama said what was it. She replied that she would like to live in the vicinity of the Ashrama of sage on the bank of the river Ganges and live on fruits and roots at least for one night. Rama simply jumped at the suggestion of Sita and said " Be easy my dear I shall see that you are sent there tomorrow ". Sita treats this as an honest promise by a loving husband. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying through his plan of abandoning Sita. Accordingly he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use this desire of Sita as an opportunity to carry out his plan of abandonment of Sita. He tells his brothers not to intercede on behalf of Sita, and warns them that if they came in his way he would look upon them as his enemies. Then he tells Laxman to take Sita in a chariot next day to the Ashram in the jungle on the bank of the river Ganges and to abandon her there. Laxman did not know how he could muster courage to tell Sita what was decided about Sita by Rama. Sensing his difficulty Rama informs Laxman that Sita had already expressed her desire to spend some time in the vicinity of an Ashrama on the bank of the river and eased the mind of Laxman. This confabulation took place at night. Next morning Laxman asked Sumanta to yoke the horses to the chariot. Sumanta informs Laxman of his having done so. Laxman then goes into the palace and meets Sita and reminds her of her having expressed her desire to pass some days in the vicinity of an Ashrama and Rama having promised to fulfil the same and tells her of his having been charged by Rama to do the needful in the matter. He points to her the chariot waiting there and says 'let us go!' Sita jumps into the chariot with her heart full of gratitude to Rama. With Laxman as her companion and Sumanta as coachman the chariot proceeds to its appointed place. At last they were on the bank of the Ganges and were ferried across by the fishermen. Laxman fell at Sita's feet, and with hot tears issuing from his eyes he said ' Pardon me, 0, blameless queen, for what I am doing. My orders are to abandon you here, for the people blame Rama for keeping you in his house."
Sita abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle went for shelter in the Ashrama of Valmiki which was near about. Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava. The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule. Never once in those 12 years this model husband and loving father cared to inquire what had happened to Sita whether she was living or whether she was dead. Twelve years after Rama meets Sita in a strange manner. Rama decided to perform a Yadna and issued invitation to all the Rishis to attend and take part. For reasons best known to Rama himself no invitation was issued to Valmiki although his Ashram was near to Ayodhya. But Valmiki came to the Yadna of his own accord accompanied by the two sons of Sita introducing them as his disciples. While the Yadna was going on the two boys used to perform recitations of Ramayana in the presence of the Assembly. Rama was very pleased and made inquiries when he was informed that they were the sons of Sita. It was then he remembered Sita and what does he do then? He does not send for Sita. He calls these innocent boys who knew nothing about their parents' sin, who were the only victims of a cruel destiny to tell Valmiki that if Sita was pure and chaste she could present herself in the Assembly to take a vow thereby remove the calumny cast against herself and himself. This is a thing she had once done in Lanka. This is a thing she could have been asked to do again before she was sent away. There was no promise that after this vindication of her character Rama was prepared to take her back. Valmiki brings her to the Assembly. When she was in front of Rama, Valmiki said, '0, son of Dasharatha, here is Sita whom you abandoned in consequence of public disapprobation. She will now swear her purity if permitted by you. Here are your twin-born sons bred up by me in my hermitage.' ' I know,' said Rama 'that Sita is pure and that these are my sons. She performed an ordeal in Lanka in proof of her purity and therefore I took her back. But people here have doubts still, and let Sita perform an ordeal here that all these Rishis and people may witness it."
With eyes cast down on the ground and with hands folded Sita swore " As I never thought of any man except Rama even in my mind. let mother Earth open and bury me. As I always loved Rama in words, in thoughts, and in deed, let mother Earth open and bury me! As she uttered the oath, the earth verily opened and Sita was carried away inside seated on a golden simhasana (throne). Heavenly flowers fell on Sita's head while the audience looked on as in a trance.


1> The vaama margis inspired with some teachings of Buddha(just like Buddha left his wife and ran away) have added similar stories just making Rama leave Sita.
2> The Uttara Ramayana is a later date interpolation which projects King Rama as a characterless person is an interpolation and we all must reject it.


Next onwards Ambedkar talks about Shambhuka Vadha incident as follows:
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. Let me throw some search light on Rama the King. Rama is held out as an ideal King. But can that conclusion be said to be founded in fact?
As a matter of fact Rama never functions, as a King. He was a nominal King. The administration as Valmiki states were entrusted to Bharata his brother. He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and his subjects. Valmiki has very minutely described  the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that account the day was divided into two parts. Up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of the Zenana he joined the company of jesters and when he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana . Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama, used to take his meal. The food according to Valmiki consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaller. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts*[f81] . 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 Rama as a 'Prince among women's men '. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.
As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded. The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it: and Finally threatened to end his life there by sitting dharna (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law); for according to it the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the twice-born. Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy. So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practising rigorous austerities of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practising Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And to and behold! that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama which was nearby of the sage +Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital. Such is Rama.


Comments : 1> The fact that drinking wine, eating meat by Rama is added in Uttara Khanda is in itself a proof that it is a later day interpolation done by vaama margis.
2>The Shambhuka vadha incident itself looks like the adulterations done by Pauraniks who say that Vishnu will be born to protect Indra's throne of heaven. This may be used by them to show the greatness of Vishnu who avoided Shambhuka going to heaven in his bodily form.


After Shankaracharya converted many Buddhists to hinduism, these buddhists who were mentally weak and idiots and who believed in Idol Worship might have continued to follow idol worship by replacing Buddha's image with that of Rama's.  These buddhist (converted to) brahmins(by Shankaracharya) have not even made any attempt to study Vedic scripture and at the same time they even avoided/rejected other people from reading Vedas by scaring away them with these interpolated stories of Shambhuka, by telling them chanting Rama Krishna is equal to chanting Vedas etc and keeping them in ignorance.

The Shambhuka Vadha is added by pauraniks to restrict people from studying Vedas(while the Vedas themself says that vedas is given for whole mankind).
Lets all(whole mankind irrespective of caste,class,creed) follow the path of Vedas and study them and follow them.


May Truth Prevail.

To Know more about Buddhism please visit :

http://agniveer.com/4020/buddhism-and-vedas/

http://www.vjsingh.info/buddhism.html

Footnotes:  Shambhuka vadha incident goes like this: -
Ram(as the king of the land) is the enforcer of the law without prejudice and favor. He enforced many unpalatable(by today's standards) laws of the land at that time. So what is your point?---:The Imperial Gazetteer emphasizes the religious influence of the two great epics; in addition, the Imperial Gazetteer provides a summary discussion of the Ramayana's plot. Ralph Griffith's translation (1870-74) of the Valmiki Ramayana is now available online, but it doesn't include the final book that contains the story of the killing of Shambuka. : The killing of Shambuka appears in the Valmiki Ramayana, Book 7, the 'Uttarakanda' [Final Chapter], sargas 73-76. Three scene-setting sargas are paraphrased, and then the crucial one is presented in full: : (73) When Rama is reigning as a virtuous king, a humble aged Brahmin comes to him, weeping, with his dead son in his arms. He says that Rama must have committed some sin, or else his son would not have died. (74) The sage Narada explains to Rama that a Shudra is practicing penances, and this is the cause of the child's death. (75) Rama goes on a tour of inspection in his flying chariot, and finds an ascetic doing austerities, and asks who he is. : "(76) Hearing the [inquiring] words of Rama of imperishable exploits, that ascetic, his head still hanging downwards [as part of his austerities] answered:— 'O Rama, I was born of a Shudra alliance and I am performing this rigorous penance in order to acquire the status of a God in this body. I am not telling a lie, O Rama, I wish to attain the Celestial Region. Know that I am a Shudra and my name is Shambuka.' As he was yet speaking, Raghava [Rama], drawing his brilliant and stainless sword from its scabbard, cut off his head. The Shudra being slain, all the Gods and their leaders with Agni's followers, cried out, 'Well done! Well done!' overwhelming Rama with praise, and a rain of celestial flowers of divine fragrance fell on all sides, scattered by Vayu. In their supreme satisfaction, the Gods said to that hero, Rama:— 'Thou hast protected the interests of the Gods, O Highly Intelligent Prince, now ask a boon, O beloved Offspring of Raghu, Destroyer of Thy Foes. By thy grace, this Shudra will not be able to attain heaven!'" (583-84)


Suggested reading:
1> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27079824/Ramayan-1
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/27232489/Ramayan-2
2> Also many followers of pro-Dravidian movement claim that Ravana was a great person and he did many things to Sita etc etc.
For all those who think Ravana as a greatest person, please refer to this facebook page which uses Valmiki Ramayan itself to prove that Ravan was a terrorist, rapist etc
Ravana Exposed Facebook Page :
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ravan-Exposed/308643205827733?sk=info
Ravana's crimes :
http://noyanika.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/6129513-blind-worship-of-ravan-?page=last
(Note the above links are just for reference. It is not compulsary that I agree with all the contents of those websites)

32 comments:

The frivolous and immature arguments put forth by you, against the writings by Dr BR Ambedkar in 'Riddles of Rama and Krishna,' only shows your complete ignorance about Buddhism and lord Buddha and reveals the burning sensation of forcing everyone to understand and embrace the hypocritical religion Hinduism.

/* The frivolous and immature arguments put forth by you, against the writings by Dr BR Ambedkar in 'Riddles of Rama and Krishna,' only shows your complete ignorance about Buddhism and lord Buddha */

Our aim was not to hurt or disrespect Ambedkar but to refute his allegations on our heros Rama And Krishna.
You say that the arguments were immature and Hinduism is hypocritical .

We are not ignorant of Buddhism. To know more about Buddhism visit :
http://www.vjsingh.info/buddhism.html

Also , kindly visit :

http://agniveer.com/buddhism-and-vedas/

Namaste.

"He said this thing with tears in his eyes". What kind of a criticism is this? What he said was demeaning to women and shows the character of Rama. Why don't you talk about other things in the book, like why is it difficult to explain who a Hindu is? Can you answer the first riddle?

Your views shows how much biased you are biased towards Dalits and especially Dr. Ambedkar, who showed the right path to billions.

I will counter your argument para by as follows:

If you think that Buddha's story is not sensational and just a ordinary one, this shows your narrow level of thinking, as it was his story which has inspired half of the world and people have converted to Buddhism and now half of Asia is Buddhist and still counting and still India seems to be the only place to have Hindus as majority, maybe the people who have propogated Hinduism, there story was not sensational or is it that Hinduism itself is illogical.

While referring to 'pinda', maybe Dr. Ambedkar is trying to say 'rice balls' and not referring to 'pinda' given after death. So, it is baseless to contend that Dr. Ambedkar is biased only on this statement.

For you kind information I would like to say is that even Dr. Ambedkar himself did not support the Aryan invasion theory of west and he was the first person to say that, I quote, "I venture to say that there is no country that can rival the Indian peninsula with respect to the unity of it's culture", while presenting his paper "Caste in India: there mechanism, Genesis and Development". Even in his other book "Who were the Shudras and How they came to be the 4th varna of Indian Aryan society" he attacks the Aryan invasion theory and beautifully explains by giving reason why this theory is still been followed and why Brahmins are not going against the theory, which says they are the outsiders.
I don't understand how can a tribes man, the Hanuman, read Vedas when it was totally banned for them. Even after our Constitution made education as fundamental right still many untouchables are not allowed to study, how can in those period, were caste system was so rigid, they were allowed to study, except for exceptional cases like Valmiki and Vyasa.

How can your king, Ram, be noble who kills a person just because of his praying to gods and how foolish of your king that some praying to god led to death of a Brahmins son. How cruel of your king to abundant his own wife, who waited for him everyday to rescue her. How coward is you king to kill Vali treacherously and not following the Kshtariya Dharma being Dharmasya Parirakshita, the protector of Dharma.

Continued in next comment.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Your points to counter Dr. Ambedkar's reasons for Ram's birth is totally baseless. At one point you say that you are against fairy tales in other religion and does not give reason to Ram's birth, that clearly shows that you are in support of Ram's birth given by Valmiki, which is by 'pinda', which itself is a fairy tale. If you are trying to say that after eating 'pinda', Dasharat was able to have make children, because a person who was not able to have children for so many years cannot suddenly make children, that to all the three women at a time, therefore Dr. Ambedkar's contention seems to be more reasonable and correct, as there are many instances were the Rishis were allowed to sleep with the queens, by the kings, if there was no progeny, please refer to "Riddles in Hinduism" by Dr. Ambedkar were he proves it with the verses. The Buddha's birth of elephant and other stuffs of meeting 3 men are all false and "just made to amuse women and children" as Dr. Ambedkar says in his book "Buddha and His Dhamma". These are all stories made by Brahmins to Hinduise the masses and to cheat them. There is a completely different story for Buddha leaving the house and attaining enlightenment, please refer to "Buddha and His Dhamma" (this is request).

By "Ahimsa" if you mean not eating non-veg., that itself shows how narrow is your concept. By Ahimsa, Buddha meant not to harm others. And even during those primitive period non-veg was eaten by everybody, it is not that with the start of the civilization everybody started to be vegetarian. Brahmins themselves ate beaf and other non-veg item's and non-veg was part of there daily diet, please refer to " Untouchable: Who were they and why they became untouchable", by, again, Dr. Ambedkar. And Buddha didn't die because of pork, it was becuse of eating mashroom, please correct your facts and don't propogate false statement. read this link about "Buddha's death" by a Buddhist researcher

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut006.htm.

It is an art of a researcher to look into all aspects and then come to a conclusion, and that is what has been done by Dr. Ambedkar. In both, Valmiki Ramayan and Buddha Ramayana, the most reasonable facts are been established by Buddha Ramayana, that is why he compares them both.

As you are aware that there many versions of Ramayana, the Buddhist version seems to be the most reasonable, when it comes to the issue of marriage of Rama and Sita and her birth. Am sure you are aware of the fact that in Aryan culture (this does not mean am talking about Aryan's as outsiders), there were marriage prevalent between siblings, so maybe, being from Aryan culture, Ram has married his sister, he has only followed his culture, I don't understand why are you being offended by it. The Buddhist Ramayana talks about Rama because Buddha is supposed to come from Ikshvaku clan, according to Buddhist Ramayana, which relates to Ram too, but that does not mean they have to talk about fight between Rama and Ravana, the author will mainly focus on Buddha.

I have got this strong feeling that mainly of this fact that Rama and Buddha belong to same clan, the Brahmins started saying that Buddha is also Vishnu's avatar.

If say Buddha was a pessimistic fraud who after seeing 3 people suffering left his wife and family and ran away. It was after that incident that women's status in the society fell down ( which story I don't accept and even Dr. Ambedkar himself doesn't) what did your king Ram do to serve the society, the whole Ramayana story is personal life of Ram and nothing of the society. At least Buddha gave a new meaning to the life to billions around the world. You say due to Buddha the women's position lowered in the society, again you are making false statement, but instead during the Buddhist era the women were most respected only after Buddhist era again there position in society lowered (maybe because of Hinduism). Read the below articles.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dewaraja/wheel280.html

http://www.buddhistvihara.com/newsletters/2003-winter/status_of_women.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/position.htm

You say that, again making a false statement, Buddha thought marriage is a bondage and many of his followers left there wives a they felt they are obstacles for there Nirvana. Instead he supported marriage very much, please read the following articles,

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammananda/marriage.html

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/237.htm


Rama did have many concubines please look into Ayodha Kandan 8th chapter, page no. 28, Valmiki Ramayana.

I do not understand what are you trying to do when you are explaining the author of Uttara Ramayana. How can you assume that it was written by Buddhist's who were latter converted to Hidnuism? In that way even I may assume that it was written by Brahmins themselves or I might even assume that it might be written by those Buddhists who were Brahmins before, as these were the people who had connection with Ram's story before and this assumption can go in many ways, but they do not have any evidence. So you, therefore, cannot assume that it was written by Buddhist's who got latter converted to Hinduism, you again made false statement.

I think your whole analysis of Dr. Ambedkar's writing is false. You say the Buddhist engaged in illegal activities and there was no rules in Buddhist institutions. You are wrong again, ( this para I have taken from one of the Buddhist website) "Monks and nuns were expected to fulfill a variety of roles in the Buddhist community. First and foremost, they are expected to preserve the doctrine and discipline now known as Buddhism. They are also expected to provide a living example for the laity, and to serve as a "field of merit" for lay followers, providing laymen and women with the opportunity to earn merit by giving gifts and support to the monks. In return for the support of the laity, monks and nuns are expected to live an austere life focused on the study of Buddhist doctrine, the practice of meditation, and the observance of good moral character. The relative degree of emphasis on meditation or study has often been debated in the Buddhist community. Many continued to keep a relationship with their original families."

Such were the activities of Bikkhus and you say that they were indulging in illegal activities, at least please give us evidence and don't make make statements without evidence.

I am happy that the Bhuddhist institution were not like Gurukul, were in Gurukul education was based on caste and not merit. But instead in Bhuddhist institution they were based on humanitarian grounds were everybody gets equal chance to enlighten. Dr. Ambedkar did not make any provision for not having merit based education in the constitution, please get your facts correct.

When you are trying to say that Vali can have opposer's strength, that is why Ram killed him from behind the tree, do you mean to say that scared of Vali's power Ram hid to kill him, as he knew he would not be able to defeat Vali if faces him directly. If this is the case then what kind of a King he is, who cant face his enemy face to face. And that reason of yours that Ram killed Vali because Vali had Sugriv's wife, this does not justify the act of Ram hiding behind the tree and killing him, a true king is one who faces the enemy no matter how powerful the enemy is, just like Buddhist king Asoka. At least you have given a "not so good reason" but look what your Brahmin websites say, they are worst than your reasons:

http://www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1310349-why-did-rama-hide-behind-a-tree-to-kill-vali/

http://www.namadwaar.org/answers/valianswer.html

You accept your King Ram as good person, when he cries and takes decision too abandon his wife, but you criticize Buddha for leaving his wife in the midnight who also felt sad and cried for leaving his son and wife (though I am not supporting this story as I said before).

Comparing both Buddha and Ram, one abandon's his wife as society criticize Sita having relation with Ravana, while Buddha abandon's his wife to help the society to know the truth and lead in correct path. One abandon' s his wife in a forest, and expecting her to live at her own cost, while Buddha without any fear stays in forest while his wife stays in Palace, as he had respect for women.

Dr. Ambedkar never talked about Agniparikshe as second marriage between Rama and Sita, I don't understand why are you talking about it. But then again you go onto to make another assumption that if there had not been Agniprikshe then we would have doubted Sita's chastity, as I said before making assumptions are bad habit so stop it and we are not concerned with Sita have relation with Ravana or not, we are not even bothered about it, we are just bothered that a normal King with such a bad background as given by Dr. Ambedkar in "Riddles of Rama", how can he be god? that is what we are worried about and not about Sita, so stop making assumptions.

Though you say there are illogical end given to Ram and Sita, but you don't tell who has written these Purana's, of course they are Brahmins, who else can write Puranas, therefore I can help you knowing who wrote Uttara Ramayana, maybe it was Brahmins, themselves, don't you think so?

when you will read the below article , you will know what is idol worship in Buddhism

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/209.htm

You made again wrong allegation that Buddhist converted by Shankracharya started idol worship, I don't understand how can come to this assumption which is baseless. I can give number of evidence showing Brahmins starting idol worship, but it is very vast evidence, I suggest you to read "Untouchables Who were they and why they became untouchable" by again Dr. Ambedkar.

The two links which you have posted, one link talks about against Buddhism, while other talks about how Vedas and Buddhism are same, therefore both are contradictory and I think you need to read those first.

In the end I would like to say is that your article on analysis of Dr. Ambedkar's "Riddles of Rama" are based on complete false assumption and please do not try to mislead the masses.

@Shailesh,
You can visit this website to know more about Vedas :
http://www.aryamantavya.in/2014/angrej/myth-busters/response-dr-ambedkars-difficulty-knowing-one-hindu/

@Basawa ,

Your belief that Buddha was against Caste System is also not true.
You can check this Edmund Weber's Article:

http://hinduismencyclopedia.com/2013/casteism/buddhism-atheistic-anti-caste-religion-edmund-weber

I am really shocked by your argument that Buddha supported the caste system, must say much has been done to spoil the name of Buddha and his teachings, first that he is Vishnu's Avatara and now he suppoted caste system ( I am hearing this from you first time)

In the Vasala Sutta (Suttanipdta I 7.21 of the Khuddakan
ikdya)
the Buddha says:

"na jaccd vasalohoti, na jaccd hoti brahmana
kammuno vasalohoti hammuno hoti brahmana"

Not by birth does one become an outcaste, not by birth does one
become a brahmana; by deeds or karma one becomes an outcaste, by karma alone one becomes a brahmana.

In the Vdse{{hasutta (ibid. I 9.57), the Buddha says:

"na jaccd brahmano hoti; na jaccd hoti abrahmanal
kammana brahmano hoti, kammana hoti abrahmana"

Not by birth does one become a brahmana; not by birth is he a
non-brahmana. It is karmas that make a person brahmana and
non-brahmana.

I don't understand what more proof do you want. These verses clearly shows Buddha treated everybody equally.

In Cullavagga the Vinaya Pitaka (IX I. 4) the Buddha says, " just all great rivers like namely Ganga, Yamuna Aicravati, Sarabhu, Mahi, when they reach the great ocean, loose thier former name and differences and are dominated as the great nation, even so.....these four castes Kashatriya, Brahmana, Vaishya nad shudra, when they go forth from household to houseless life under the doctrine and discipline (Dhamma maraga) loose their former family names and are dominated as samana."

In the Madhura Sutta (Majjhima 84), it is emphasized that whosoever renounces household life and joins the order of monks- be he Brahmin, Kashtriya, Vaisya or shudra - and abstains from stealing, falsehood etc. would be entitled to respect and honor irrespective of his caste prior to renunciation"

Such were the rules to be a Buddhist Bikkhu and to be a Buddhist. I don't see anything said by Buddha in support of caste system, though I accept that he didnt attack the caste system, made by Brahmins, directly, but what he taught was to be equal and to have a society based on Equality, Fraternity and Liberty, and that is why Dr. Ambedkar, a great scholar, converted to Buddhism.

How Dhamma Differs From Religion?

1. What the Buddha calls Dhamma differs fundamentally from what is called Religion.
2. What the Buddha calls Dhamma is analogous to what the European theologians call Religion.
3. But there is no greater affinity between the two. On the other hand, the differences between the two are very great.
4. On this account, some European theologians refuse to recognise the Buddha's Dhamma as Religion.
5. There need be no regrets over this. The loss is theirs. It does no harm to the Buddha's Dhamma. Rather, it shows what is wanting in Religion.
6. Instead of entering into this controversy, it is better to proceed to give an idea of Dhamma, and show how it differs from Religion.
7. Religion, it is said, is personal, and one must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life.
8. Contrary to this, Dhamma is social. It is fundamentally and essentially so.
9. Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all spheres of life.
10. From this it is evident that one man, if he is alone, does not need Dhamma.
11. But when there are two men living in relation to each other, they must find a place for Dhamma whether they like it or not. Neither can escape it.
12. In other words. Society cannot do without Dhamma.
13. Society has to choose one of the three alternatives.
14. Society may choose not to have any Dhamma as an instrument of Government. For Dhamma is nothing if it is not an instrument of Government.
15. This means Society chooses the road to anarchy.
16. Secondly, Society may choose the police--i.e., dictatorship--as an instrument of Government.
17. Thirdly, Society may choose Dhamma, plus the Magistrate wherever people fail to observe the Dhamma.
18. In anarchy and dictatorship liberty is lost.
19. Only in the third [case] liberty survives.
20. Those who want liberty must therefore have Dhamma.
21. Now what is Dhamma? and why is Dhamma necessary? According to the Buddha, Dhamma consists of Prajna and Karuna.
22. What is Prajna? And why Prajna? Prajna is understanding. The Buddha made Prajna one of the two corner-stones of His Dhamma because he did not wish to leave any room for superstition.
23. What is Karuna? And why Karuna? Karuna is love. Because without it, Society can neither live nor grow; that is why the Buddha made it the second corner-stone of His Dhamma.
24. Such is the definition of the Buddha's Dhamma.
25. How different is this definition of Dhamma from that of Religion.
26. So ancient, yet so modern, is the definition of Dhamma given by the Buddha.
27. So aboriginal, yet so original.
28. Not borrowed from anyone, yet so true.
29. A unique amalgam of Pradnya and Karuna is the Dhamma of the Buddha.
30. Such is the difference between Religion and Dhamma.

~ Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Buddha and his Dhamma

This comment has been removed by the author.

You are as ignorant as your scripture trying to prove the nonsense ... Buddhist monks who were converted to hindusim is responsible for downgrade of hindusim... I pity you ... While you were a child you have been filled with the these non sense and like a bonsai your mind has been grown in a pot.... It has lost its capacity to think....
What about kajuraho ? Who did that ..buddhists? ?
ಹಾದರದ ಕಥೆಯ
ಆಧರಿಸಿ ಕೇಳುವನ ಕರೆದು
ಕೆರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಡೆ ಎಂದನಾ ಸರ್ವಙ್ಞ...
ಸರ್ವಙ್ಞನರು ಹೆಳಿದ ಹಾಗೆ ಅದು ಹಾದರದ ಕಥೆಯೇ ಸರಿ....

ಕೆ.ಎಸ್ . ಭಗವಾನ್ ರವರು ಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರ ಹಿರಿಮೆಯನ್ನು ವಾಚಾಮಗೊಚರವಾಗಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ... ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಓದಿ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳಿ... ಇದು open challenge ..ನಿಮಗೂ ನಮ್ಮ ಶೃಂಗೆರಿ ಮಠಾಧಿಪತಿಗಳಿಗು.... ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇದೆ... prove him wrong .. and drag him to court in deal in judicial way ...
ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್ ಅವರ ಮೇಲು ಕೆಸು ಹಾಕಿ... ಯಾರಾದರೆನು ನ್ಯಾಯದ ಮಂದೆ... ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲೇ ತೀರ್ಮಾನವಾಗಲಿ.... ಅದನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಬೊಗಳುವುದರಲ್ಲೇ ನೆಮ್ಮ ಕಲಸವಾಗಬಾರದು...ಸರ್ವಙ್ಞನ ಮೇಲು ಒಂದು ಕೆಸು ಧಾಕಲಾಗಲಿ.... ಆವಾಗ ನೆಮ್ಮ ವಾದವನ್ನು ಮೆಚ್ಚಿ ನಾವುಸಹ ನಿಮ್ಮ ರಾಮನಾಮ ಕೃಷ್ಣನಾಮ ಜಪತಪ ಪೂಜಾಪಠಣವನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಜೊತೆಗೂಡೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇವೆ... ಹೊ ಮರೆತಿದ್ದೆ...ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣೇತರು ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರ ಜೊತೆಗೂಡುವ ಹಾಗು ಇಲ್ಲ ಅಲ್ಲವೆ....

This comment has been removed by the author.

Absolutely Brilliant article ! Actually we now need to write a book "Riddles of Buddha and Ambedkar." I am writing such one to rebute Ambedkar's hateful claims and remarks on Hinduism ! Ambedkar, a so called Intellectual and a Liberal and so called Buddhivadi, never saw Riddles of his own life and that of Buddha ! There are en number of Riddles in BUddha which no BUddhist can solve !

Good article I feel we must write a book named riddles of ambedkar , these people who follow him think that all that he has written is true I mean how can we say that Hinduism is bullshit just because ambedkar says so...... He was prejudiced against Hinduism and his hatred can be seen in those books he has written , but wait did ambedkar have knowledge of Sanskrit? And his translations are pathetic just like how ks bhagwan is that bhagwan doesn't even know to translate simple words in English and we have many people backing him up just because he is against Hinduism that bhagwan should debate any proper Hindu scholar . and coming to ambedkar I don't think we Hindus must waste time on him because he was just a butthurt guy who hated Hinduism because he was discriminated by some idiotic brahmins.
And I have read his books those books are full of interpretations from Buddhist scriptures , he says bhagwad geeta is not at all a religious text instead he says it is a stupid text !!! I mean why should we take him seriously people like Gandhi and Vivekananda were influenced by bhagwad geeta
And our scriptures were wrongly translated by stupid westerners who knew nothing about Sanskrit or any other Indian languages , and ambedkar read that and wrote his own version the British had already polluted our texts by wrong translations and stupid additions and lol Buddha was not a Vishnu avatar he was just a saint its only the foolish Hindus who believe in polluted texts believe all that . and some one is saying Hinduism is illogical so is Buddhism and all religions if you want to find fault ull get some or the other thing to degrade , and speaking about shankaracharya he debated and defetaed Buddhists in debates but according to the hypocrite ks bhagwan he was a castist !!! He never waged warfare against Buddhism first these people need to understand how caste came about and what was actually there in Hindu society these people must come out of ambedkars books and look out in other sources as well of they say only ambedkar is right then well we can't help . I can debate on this with anyone and one more thing adarsh has said we should file a case and win this against ambedkar but my friend these can't be put to the court it comes under freedom of art just like how Salman Rushdie wrote about Islam ambedkar wrote about Hinduism its their personal views it doesn't matter to us we know what we believe in .

You are ignorant like your ambedka r and lol just look at you so butthurt just because he spoke something about your ambedkar you get angry and you come out lashing imagine how angry we must be on ambedkar for writing against us and writing irrelevant things about us .

A Hindu is the one who stays on east of the indus and he is the one who follows sanatana dharma and ram never demeaned women its your ambedkar that wrote shit about Rama and Krishna without knowing anything about them what is the first riddle ? Tell me I'll see . Ambedkars books show his character and we have fanboys like you . you guys follow Buddhism and be happy why are you guys worried about Hinduism . ? Ambedkar is not the only man there are many people who written about Hinduism its all their personal opinions when people take those writings and start attacking a religion it'll be stupid . now tommorow some person may write about ambedkar demeaning him it's all their opinions he was discriminated (don't know if its true) so he was against Hinduism . you people say Vivekananda is over rated we say the same about ambedkar

Butthurt castist getting irritated

nice answer to this article given by prasad. whatever u written has evidences with it but this article havent given any evidence. ur answer is scientific and basefull. this article writter and his supporters are just opposer of low caste and buddhists. so i am totally in ur fever.

both this article and comments are biased and no objectivity. "Rama is great and Ambedkar" is great" shit all around sprayed. Both are bastards who left creed behind them to fight.

Please at least provide one..

I really want to appreciate Prasad for giving such a befitting reply..

Ram as a Character can be have brilliantly summed up by Dr Ambedkar..

One cannot find any fault in Ravana but Rama, he was only defeated because of debauchery of his own brother vibhishan which was rewarded by God Himself
by making him king of Lanka.
If one thinks logically then if someone asks for love can be refuted easily by saying no.. But the God himself endorsed the mutilation of nose of shurpanakha..
His words after setting Sita free gives us more insight in his character - He proclaims that I only fought for you beacuse of Raghukul not for you..
Unduly asking Sita for fire Ordeal agnipariksha -,while not appearing himself..
(Please read a New Approach to Ramayana- Prof Navelekar)
Leaving his pregnant wife in forest even though she was pregnant, himself enjoying bliss of Kingdom
I dont see any folly in ravana.. He kept sita in Ashokvatika best place in his lanka not like rama who left her in Forrest even though she was pregnant to suffer a tragic death in the end

Dastardly killing of Shambhukha cannot be justified by any of Ram Bhakts still they are trying hard to..

Owing to many reasons Ram is not considered Purna Avatar with eight aspects (Indian Philosophy Radhakrishnan)

Disparaging Buddha will be little help to you and India. If India has some life in it, is beacuse of Buddha..
Srimad Bhagwatam says he is incarnation of Vishnu..
Howsoever interesting story stating that since hell was empty on account of moral teaching(like sati, caste system etc..), God reincarnated as Buddha and gave bad teachings ( Like truth, Non Violence, Shila etc) to send people to hell.
Whole of Asia moved on account of Buddha except India, But long before advent of Islam, hindus butchered entire sangha of Buddha..

Whatever respect India earns in the world is only on account Buddha and his teachings..

Buddhist fanatics!:D :D :D

Good to document such articles.

I have questions:

1. The story of Ramayana was much before Buddha. So how come there is a buddhist Ramayana.
2. Some old inscriptions about Mahabharata were dated between 500 to 400 BCE. Ramayana is supposed to be way before Mahabharata.
3. Of-course, it is possible that Valmiki found Rama interesting and wrote Ramayana out of his own imagination. How can we then decide the authenticity of Ramayana in the first place even in Buddhism or Jainism?
5. According to Jainism Rama was non-violent and a gnani. So it was Lakshmana who took the responsibility of killing Ravana.
6. So when there are multiple versions of Ramayana how can one consider one story as more authentic without putting forward proper evidence.

Yes, Hinduism is horrible because it discriminates people and also provides legitimacy to oppress people based on discrimination.

But the concept of discrimination was introduced very very late in Hinduism around 800/1000 BCE by Manu Sashtra. What about the philosophy of hinduism prior to Manu Sashtra?

So why attack entire Hinduism?

Was Buddha successful in abolishing discrimination? Like Mohammed he was not futuristic? So both are equally failures. Of course Rama is a failure.

I think if Babasaheb wanted to attack discrimination in Hinduism he could have done so using the authentic Valmiki Ramayana instead of cross-referencing it with doubtful Ramayanas from Buddhism and Jainism.

We should fundamentally question the authenticity of Ramayana and reject it. Technically Hinduism is not based on Puranas.

Unfortunately, most majority of Hindus believe in Puranas. So one should attack the authenticity of Puranas and reject them instead of taking the tedious route of attacking puranas based incidents as facts.

Manusmriti should be fully attacked and rejected. Its authenticity should be questioned. Like how discrimination of women in Islam is being questioned and rejected.

In the eastern world starting from Japan-China to Iran-Iraq including Indonesia and Thai discrimination is practiced in all Religions including Buddhism. People in all these countries have not given up their cult/family names. One cult thinks they are more entitled than others.

There are multiple versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and Christianity.

Is it really smart to advocate one over another?

Why advocate religion in first place? Attack all of them fully.

Post a Comment

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More