Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

“360 Degrees in a Circle” – A Load of Hooey

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 31 December, 2014

Copyright © Dr. Seshadri Kumar.  All Rights Reserved.

For other articles by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, please visit

Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.


There is a video circulating on facebook that is titled “Why there are 360 degrees in a circle” that owes its origin to a facebook page calling itself “Architecture and Design Magazine.”

It tries to take perfectly normal mathematics and try to make it “divine.” There is even a claim that some unspecified “vortex mathematics” is the explanation for the stuff in the video.

This is a masterful attempt at woo, with statements punctuating the video like:

“Is there  a divine code embedded in our number system?”

“Vortex-based mathematics says, yes.”

“Meaningless numerology? Or divine symmetry?”

Just High School Math and Trig

This is high school math, not “Vortex Mathematics” as the video says. There is also no “divine code embedded in our number system.”

A couple of my friends, who are engineers by training to boot, have circulated this video on facebook and seem to be terribly impressed with it. The video shows some geometric facts and then talks about “vortex mathematics” and “divinity in numbers.” The strange thing is that these engineer friends of mine do not even use their high school geometry to see that there is nothing “divine,” “cosmic,” or “supernatural” about this. It is mundane trigonometry.

Here’s the deal that explains the two “divine” phenomena in the video:

  1. Someone a few thousand years ago arbitrarily decided that a circle should be divided into 360 “degrees” for convenience. This was not purely accidental - this derived from the fact that the Babylonian mathematicians used a sexagesimal system - a base 60 system, unlike our present base 10 system. They found certain calculation advantages in the base 60 system (see here for details.) Because of this, we have 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 360 degrees in a circle. Nowadays the mathematical/engineering unit is radians, which is nothing similar. It so turns out that
    1. 360 is a multiple of 9, and
    2. The sum of the digits of any multiple of 9 is divisible by 9
    3. This basic fact (elementary arithmetic) is the reason for the “ooooh” in the video.
  2. If you bisect 360 degrees again and again, you will get numbers that are multiples of 9. There is no mystery in this. It happens simply because, for any number x, x/2 = x*5/10. So if x is a multiple of 9, its digits sum to a multiple of 9, and so x multiplied by 5 is also a multiple of 9, and so its digits add to 9 eventually. And the division by 10? That just moves the decimal point, so it doesn’t affect the sum of the digits. That’s why, when you keep bisecting a circle, you will keep getting multiples of 9 in the angles: 360, 180, 90, 45, 22.5, 11.25, 5.625, and so on. No woo stuff here.
  3. As for the angles in a polygon summing to multiples of 9, again this is basic geometry. The reason for this is that the sum of the internal angles of a polygon is always 180*(n-2), where n is the number of sides of the polygon. You can prove that this HAS to be the case, because you can decompose the polygon into triangles, and the sum of internal angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. And that’s because…you guessed it, because the number of degrees in a circle is (arbitrarily taken to be) 360. And since 180 is a multiple of 9, you find that the sum of internal angles of any polygon is (n-2)*180 = a multiple of 9. Again, no “divine” explanation is needed, merely a refresh of your high school trigonometry.
  4. And, BTW, the sum of digits of multiples of 9 being a multiple of 9 is nothing magical. It is a result of the fact that we are using a digital system (a system to the base 10). So, 9x2 = 18 = 9+9 = 10+8. (8 = 10 - 2 removed for multiplying by 2). The zero doesn’t add anything, so 1+8=9. Similarly, 9x3=27 = 9+9+9 = 2*10+7. (7 = 10 - 3 removed for multiplying by 3). Again, the zero doesn’t add anything, so 2+7=9. BTW, there are repeating sequences for ALL numbers, not just 9; just that they are not so obvious. See here for those sequences.

So, all of the “mystery” in the video is because of two things: 1. The sum of the digits of any multiple of 9 is a multiple of 9, and 2. The total number of degrees in a circle was arbitrarily taken to be 360 long ago, a multiple of 9, because the Babylonians found it convenient to work in a base 60 system.

So, for 9’s sake stop forwarding this video! I don’t mind the “isn’t that cool?” aspect of it, but the video claiming that there is some “divinity” here or that there is some “vortex mathematics” is offensive to me (especially as I am a fluid dynamics expert and know a fair amount about vortices – and 9 has nothing to do with them!)

Of late, there has been a lot of stuff being circulated on the internet claiming that there are supernatural phenomena. I can safely ignore most of them, but when religion tries to hijack mathematics or science itself to propagate superstition, someone has to raise their voice to debunk it.

Tuesday, 11 November 2014

My Sampler of Indian Classical Music Pieces for Non-Indians

My Sampler of Indian Classical Music Pieces for Non-Indians

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 11 November, 2014

Copyright © Dr. Seshadri Kumar.  All Rights Reserved.

For other articles by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, please visit

Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

Some time back, one of my cousins, an American, who was planning an Indian-themed function in California for a mostly non-Indian guest list, wanted me to suggest a list of Indian classical tracks that she could play for an hour during the function as an introduction to Indian classical music, and which she could then gift to all the guests as a CD when they left. She also requested me to give some introductions for the pieces to be read out before the pieces were played, so that the audience knew something about what they were hearing. The idea was to include the introductions along with the CD as liner notes. One stipulation was that all the tracks should be available on iTunes.

I thought this was an interesting endeavor, and once I finished the recommendations and the write-ups on the different pieces and sent it off to my cousin, thought they were worth sharing with a larger audience. Today, I finally found time to convert that list into an article. I hope you will enjoy reading this list and listening to these pieces, if you haven’t already done so. Keep in mind that the numbering only denotes the play order, reflecting my preference as to how to gradually expose the audience to different pieces, and does not imply that any of these recordings (or artists) is superior to any other in the list. The introductions also ended up being a bit long to read before the recordings were played, so I suggested that an abbreviated version be used in the announcement and that this full version be included in the liner notes.

Keep in mind, as you read this list, that these are not always the “best” possible selections that I could give for all the artists, if I were free to choose the source. I was constrained by what iTunes had in its collection. For example, if I had to give an absolute recommendation for Vilayat Khan, I would always go with his 1960 recording with Samta Prasad of raga Yaman; however, unfortunately, iTunes does not have this recording.


Hindustani = North Indian classical music
Carnatic = South Indian classical music
Format of the List:

Play Order (Number)
Artist: Genre
Track duration
Youtube link

Note 1: I have tried to match the track and album names exactly with how iTunes lists them, even though the latter are sometimes slightly wrong.

Note 2: The youtube links are a later addition. After I posted this article, some friends said they would find it useful if I also gave them youtube links in addition to iTunes references. This proved to be much more difficult than it would seem, because whatever is available on iTunes is not necessarily available on youtube, and vice versa. In fact, if I had been told at the start to give youtube links, I would probably come up with a different list, simply because you can only make a list of what is available. So, in some cases, the iTunes track was simply not available on youtube, and so I gave a different song by the same artist as a replacement on youtube.

M S Subbulakshmi: Carnatic, vocal
Raga: Hamir

Track: Baso more man mein nandlal 
Album: Meera

MS Subbulakshmi was one of the legends of Carnatic music, and no representative sampler of Indian music is complete without her. Born in 1916 into a musical family in the south Indian temple town of Madurai, MS (as she was popularly known) was a child prodigy, giving her first concert at the Mecca of Carnatic music, Madras, in the most esteemed music society, the Music Academy, at the age of 13. But MS shot to national fame when she sang the songs in the musical on the life of the 16th century saint, Meera, the princess who was a devotee of the god Krishna and spent her life composing songs in praise of Krishna and singing them. MS also acted as Meera in the movie. The movie was made both in Tamil and Hindi, with the Tamil songs being set to Carnatic music ragas and the Hindi songs being set to Hindustani music ragas. MSS delivered brilliantly on the songs in both movies, which became superhits because of her songs. 

As a result of the popularity of Meera, MS became a nationally-renowned figure. She was also a great follower of Gandhi, and she and her husband devoted their lives to social causes. Despite being the most sought-after Carnatic musician all her life, MS lived a very simple life and donated a large portion of her earnings to charitable causes. She was Gandhi's favorite singer. Once, Gandhi expressed a desire to hear his favorite devotional song, "Vaishnava jana to tene kahiye" (liberal translation: "who can be called a person of God" – a composition by the saint Narsinh Mehta) sung by MS at a function. To this, MS telegrammed back that her throat was not in perfect shape and so maybe Gandhiji should perhaps ask someone else to sing the song. Gandhi's reply: "I would prefer to hear it spoken by Subbulakshmi rather than sung by someone else."

MS is most famous for her rendition of devotional songs, even though she could sing Carnatic and Hindustani songs of any sub-genre impressively and with elan. She was the first woman to be awarded the Music Academy's highest title, the "Sangeetha Kalanidhi," and the first musician to receive India's highest civilian honor, the "Bharat Ratna." Most temples all over South India, including the famous temple at Tirupati, even today, play her devotional "suprabhatams" (morning wake-up hymns to the gods) on their PA systems every day.

I have chosen this selection from the movie Meera because

  1. It is an exquisite rendition which showcases both the technical brilliance of MS (as witnessed in how she sings the phrase "nandalaala") as well her ability to convey emotion, and
  2. It showcases how MS, although coming from a Carnatic background, is able to sing this Hindustani raga, Hamir, in which this song is set, as well as or better than the best of the Hindustani musicians. This is my first reference when I want to explain raga Hameer to anyone, even before such classic renditions as DV Paluskar's. This is why great contemporary Hindustani musicians like Pandit Jasraj bow their heads in reverence when talking about MS even today.

Bhimsen Joshi: Hindustani, vocal
Raga: Puriya Kalyan
Track: Raga Puriya Kalyan Dhrut Khyal in Teentaal Bahut Dina Beete 
Album: Tapasya
Bhimsen Joshi was one of the giants of Hindustani music. He ran away from home at the age of nine to pursue a career in music after hearing an extended play record of the great Abdul Karim Khan, founder of the Kirana school of singing in Hindustani music.

Bhimsen learned from Abdul Karim Khan's most prominent student, Sawai Gandharva, and after his training quickly shot to fame as the greatest Hindustani singer of his time. The name "Bhimsen" comes from Hindu mythology, from a hero in the epic Mahabharata, who was supposed to have "the strength of ten thousand elephants." While the name Bhimsen might have a poor choice for this short and small-built musician in a physical sense, it was certainly highly appropriate for his voice, which is probably the most powerful yet expressive voice ever seen in the world of Hindustani music.

The school of music from which Bhimsen graduated was famous for its treatment of the major, "great," ragas of Hindustani music such as Lalit, Todi, Bhairav, Yaman, and so on. The sheer emotional content and note-perfection that Bhimsen brought to his music, accompanied by his inimitable power of voice production and his brilliant technique, was what made him a perennial crowd favorite. Bhimsen organized an annual three-day music festival in Pune in memory of his guru, Sawai Gandharva, in which he would perform as the last musician - the Sawai Gandharva music festival. In 2010, he was too ill to perform, and died shortly after. But I do recall an incident from that year's festival, which I attended, which testifies to his immense popularity. On the last day of the function, between some music performances, there was a dance performance scheduled, and the organizers needed some time to set the stage. To keep the audience entertained, they played a RECORDING of a performance of Bhimsen at the festival from 30 years back for about 15 minutes. That 30-year old recording got more applause than any musician had gotten for the past three days!!

The selection I have recommended is another "great" raga, Puriya Kalyan, and this is Bhimsen at his very best.

Youtube: (different performance of same raga)

Ravi Shankar: Hindustani, sitar
Raga: Bairagi Todi
Track: Raga Bairag Todi: jod, jhala
Album: Spirit of India
Ravi Shankar is probably the best-known Indian musician in the world. It is probably no exaggeration to say that if people in the west know about Indian classical music, it is largely because of Ravi Shankar.

Born in a family of talented people - his elder brother Uday Shankar was a world-renowned dancer - Ravi Shankar picked up the basics of music touring with his brother's music and dance troupe. But what made him one of the greatest Hindustani sitarists was his seven-year tutelage under Allauddin Khan, probably the most influential instrumental Hindustani musician of the 20th century.

Because of his experience touring all over the world with his brother, Ravi Shankar understood the west better than any other musician in India and, after establishing himself as a sitar player of repute in India, set his sights on conquering the west, which he proceeded to do remarkably well, because of his ability to connect with his audience. Not only did he give a lot of concerts in the west, he also took the trouble to conduct innumerable lecture-demonstrations in which he explained the basis of the Indian musical system to his audience. He also took on westerners as his students and started teaching them how to play the sitar. But probably what made him a superstar in the west was the fact that the Beatles were enamoured of him and one of them, George Harrison, actually became his disciple. And then there was no turning back.

Ravi Shankar also started the trend of giving importance to the accompanying tabla player. Before Shankar, the only role of the tabla player was to stay in the background and keep time. Shankar started the tradition of a "sawal-jawab" (question-answer) as a routine feature in instrumental concert, in which the main instrumentalist would play a phrase and the accompanist would try to imitate it on the tabla. Shankar also, probably inspired by the Carnatic tradition, gave the tabla player an occasion to play the tabla by himself during his performance, without having to accompany the main instrumentalist, so that he, too, had a chance to showcase his virtuousity.

This selection showcases what was special about Shankar's music. The raga chosen, Bairagi Todi, is a very austere and serious raga, and Shankar brings this mood alive with his "dhrupad-like" treatment of the raga (more on this later in the discussion on the Dagar brothers). The bass notes of the sitar are highlighted in this treatment, which is deep and meditative in spite of the fact that the tempo increases.


TR Mahalingam: Carnatic, flute
Raga: Kathanakuthoohalam
Track: Raga: Kathanakuthoohalam in Adi Raghuvamsa Sudhambudhi
Album: TR Mahalingam
TR Mahalingam (popularly known as Mali) was the greatest player ever of the South Indian bamboo flute, and probably the most creative Carnatic musician ever. He was also a child prodigy who gave his first concert at the age of 7 and stunned the musical world with his absolute command of the flute at that tender age. Not only was it remarkable that he could play the flute so well at that age, but also that a young child like him was capable of opening up new vistas with the instrument. Before Mali arrived on the scene, the flute was not considered capable of rendering the melodic richness of Carnatic music. Specifically, characteristic "bends" known as "gamakas" were considered impossible of production with the flute. Mali changed all that by innovating, untutored, a new style, in which the flute was capable of rendering all the nuances of Carnatic vocal music.
Mali also managed to give concerts which delighted a hugely diverse cross-section of listeners. He was capable of extraordinary technical feats, such as maintaining his control of rhythm in exceedingly complex patterns and in very slow tempo; and, at the same time, he would always include crowd favorites in his concerts, which both the lay listener and the connoisseur could appreciate.
The selection I have included here is one such example of a crowd favorite. "Raghuvamsa sudhambudhi" is a very popular composition that is often rendered in high speed; yet Mali plays this in a slow tempo, thus bringing out the beauty of the raga. One of the highlights of Mali's music was his originality; he rarely played the same phrase twice in different performances of the same composition.

Vilayat Khan: Hindustani, sitar
Zakir Hussain: Hindustani, Tabla
Raga: Bhairav Bahar
Track: Raga Bhairav Bahar: Gat in fast teen tal (excerpt)
Album: Dawn to dusk: Aftaab-e-Sitar Vilayat Khan
Vilayat Khan was born to a family of hereditary musicians. His father and grandfather were both musicians at royal courts, and were both recognized masters of the sitar as well as innovators.
Along with Ravi Shankar, the other man who also dominated the world of Hindustani sitar for the second half of the twentieth century was undoubtedly Vilayat Khan. The two were considered rivals. Playing in a style totally different from that of Shankar, Vilayat Khan dazzled listeners with his matchless technical mastery of the sitar. This mastery manifested itself in two ways: an ability to play breathtakingly fast passages without the slightest flaw; and an ability to coax so much melody and beauty from the strings of the sitar that it sounded like a human voice's inflections. In fact, one of the things that Vilayat Khan routinely did in concerts was to sing a phrase (he could sing very well, too) and then reproduce the same phrase on the sitar perfectly, upon which the audience would burst into applause. For this reason, his style is often referred to as the "gayaki" ang - "gayaki" means "like singing."
Zakir Hussain, who accompanies Vilayat Khan here on the tabla, is India's most famous tabla player, and is usually capable of astonishing pyrotechnic displays, but usually plays in a more subtle and understated way when accompanying Vilayat Khan. This is actually one of Hussain's strengths as an accompanist: to change his playing style to suit the main artist.
This selection showcases a fast piece which allows us to understand why Vilayat Khan was considered such a phenomenon for his control of his instrument and his skill in extracting such nuances from it.

MS Gopalakrishnan: Carnatic, violin
Raga: Nata
Track: Raga Nata: Mahaganapathim manasa smarami
Album: Masterworks from the NCPA archives: MS Gopalakrishnan (remastered)
One of the most interesting cross-cultural observations in Indian music is how the violin, an instrument totally alien to India before the arrival of western influence, has become an integral part of Carnatic music. Among the many extraordinary practitioners of Carnatic music on the violin, if one must limit oneself to discussing one person, as I am forced to by time constraints, then that person has to be undoubtedly MS Gopalakrishnan, popularly referred to as MSG, in the usual fashion of referring to Carnatic artists by their initials.
MSG learned Carnatic music from his father before going on to learn Hindustani music from the famous Hindustani vocalist Omkarnath Thakur at Benares and then going on to improve upon his father's style with innovations of his own to create a new style of violin-playing now often referred to as the "Parur" style, Parur being the name of his ancestral town. This style is characterized by a very light touch on the violin; extraordinary control and fidelity of playing; astounding displays of skill and speed; and a generous use of staccato.
This selection is a popular introductory composition played often at the beginning of a concert, and has considerable scope for the violinist to play purely improvised note-passages (known as "swara-prasthara"). The full range of the MSG repertoire is in abundant display here.
Owing to his training in both styles of Indian classical music, MSG has recorded several albums in Hindustani music as well. This is extremely rare - for a musician to be in the top echelon in both Carnatic and Hindustani music.


I could not find this Nata recording on youtube. A different recording of the same piece was too short to appreciate the beauty and skill of MSG's violin-playing. So I found a different piece – quite a rarity, in fact – in another raga. This is a recording of raga Nalinakanti, the piece being the famous “Manaviyalakincharadatay” of Tyagaraja, and what makes it so rare is that it is a recording of MSG playing with his father, Parur Sundaram Iyer).
Hariprasad Chaurasia: Hindustani, flute
Shivkumar Sharma: Hindustani, santoor
Brijbhushan Kabra: Hindustani, Hawaiian guitar
Raga: Nat Bhairav
Track: Raga Nat Bhairav - Call of the Valley
Album: Kohinoor single
Hariprasad Chaurasia is one of the most popular Indian musicians today. His skill in playing the north Indian bamboo flute, the Bansuri, is legendary. He was a student of Annapurna Devi, daughter and disciple of Allauddin Khan, Ravi Shankar's guru.
In India, the bansuri is associated with the mythology of the god Krishna, who is said to have charmed all the cowgirls of Vrindavan by the sound of his bansuri. If anyone can bring that story to life, it surely is Hariprasad Chaurasia. Someone closing his eyes and listening to Chaurasia could be forgiven for thinking that he had died and gone to heaven to hear the god Krishna play.
The person who was responsible for taking this cowherd's toy and making this a concert instrument was Pannalal Ghosh, who made several innovations and improvements to this instrument. Ghosh modeled his playing on vocal styles. But Chaurasia changed the way the bansuri was perceived. He started performing on the bansuri the way one would perform on a sitar, a sarode, or a rudra veena: with an alap-jod-jhala structure, a solo extemporization that involves a slow, rhythmless improvisation (alap), a rhythmic improvisation without table in medium speed (jod), and a fast rhythmic improvisation without tabla (jhala). In stringed instruments, the jhala is achieved by fast repeated strumming of the strings. Chaurasia achieved the same effect on the flute by using an innovative combination of fast staccato blowing and flutter-tonguing.
Accompanying Chaurasia on this recording are Shivkumar Sharma on the santoor and Brijbhushan Kabra on Hawaiian guitar. Shivkumar Sharma was singlehandedly responsible for elevating the santoor, a hammered folk instrument of Kashmir, to the status of a classical instrument. This was no mean feat because the santoor is inherently a discontinuous instrument, and so to coax the bends that are an indispensable part of Indian classical music out of the instrument required Sharma to develop innovative techniques such as fine trilling using minute hammering on the strings to approximate the bends (gamakas). In this endeavor he has mightily succeeded, as his immense popularity as a Hindustani instrumentalist has proved.
The album from which this track has been taken, "Call of the Valley," was a landmark album when it was released in 1967. The hallmark of this album is that even though it is based on traditional Hindustani ragas, the melodies presented and their pleasing treatment by Chaurasia, Sharma, and Kabra made this album one of the most accesible to the layperson. "Call of the Valley" has been described as the one Indian classical-based album that a person should listen to if he or she could listen to only one.

Sheik Chinna Moula: Carnatic, nadhaswaram
Raga: Kapi Narayani
Track: Sarasa sama dana 
Album: Paddhati: live in concert 1973
Sheik Chinna Moulana was one of the most eminent performers of the nadhaswaram, an instrument traditionally associated with the temple. Nadhaswaram performances were normally held with no amplification because the nadaswaram is a very loud instrument. This made it ideal for use in street performances with no amplification. For this reason as well, it is not accompanied by the usual drum of Carnatic music, the mridangam, but by a much louder drum, the thavil.
Sheik Chinna Moulana was probably the most skilled nadhaswaram artist of his time. The nadhaswaram is an exceedingly difficult instrument to play flawlessly. Small imperfections in note production are almost inevitable even in the performance of legendary nadhaswaram artists. But I have never personally heard Sheik Chinna Moulana play a false note in any recording of his, regardless of the tempo of the piece being played, which is a staggering achievement. You can hear his astounding technical skill in this recording. This is in addition to his ability to convey the soul of every raga he played with unerring precision.
It is also an interesting social comment to note that this instrument, which is so closely connected with the temple and with Hindu religious practices (no South Indian Hindu wedding is complete without one, for instance), has been embraced so fervently and has been played with such perfection by a Muslim musician.


(Note: I could not get this particular piece on youtube while searching for it. So I have chosen another excellent recording by Sheik sahib, of the great gem in raga Abheri by Tyagaraja, “Nagumomu.” I have given the link from the start of the krithi, but you are of course welcome to hear from the beginning of the alapana. This song showcases Sheik-sahab’s incredible skill – note the passages near “khagaraju.”)
Dagar Brothers: Hindustani, vocal, dhrupad style
Raga: Bhatiyar
Track: Dhrupad in Chautala, raga Bhatyar
Album: Shiva Mahadeva
Hindustani vocal music has two major sub-traditions: khyal, which is the predominant tradition, and which is sung by the majority of vocalists today, (including the late Bhimsen Joshi, mentioned above), and which is characterized by a jazz-like free-form improvisation structure within the framework of a rhtyhmic cycle; and dhrupad, a tradition that is more structured than khyal and does not permit as much creative freedom, but compensates for this by perfection and beauty in melody. Dhrupad was the predominant tradition 400 years ago in the golden days of Hindustani music in the Mughal courts. In the last century and half, dhrupad has gradually given way to khyal in popularity.
There are very few surviving practitioners of dhrupad, and the most prominent practitioners of dhrupad in the last century have been the Dagar family of hereditary musicians, who have preserved an unbroken tradition for 20 generations. The Dagars are the custodians of one of the four major schools ("vani"-s) of Dhrupad singing, known eponymously by their family name, Dagarvani. The other three traditions are the Gauharvani, the Nauharvani, and the Khandarvani. 
This recording is sung by Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar and Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar, also known as the "junior Dagar brothers," as a contrast to their two elder brothers, Nasir Moinuddin Dagar and Nasir Aminuddin Dagar, who also performed as a pair, and who were known as the "senior Dagar brothers." The four Dagar brothers were the most famous dhrupad singers of the second half of the twentieth century.
This particular piece is sung in the highly austere raga Bhatiyar, and is a hymn in praise of the god Shiva (known also as Shankar). The perfection of melody that is seen in any Dagar presentation of any raga is evident when they sing the base note (sa) of the higher octave - the phrase "kailasi" in this song which goes higher than the sa and ends on the sa note at the end of this phrase. 
A dhrupad performance in any raga is generally considered to be the definitive interpretation of the raga, and this recording is no exception. One cannot find a better example of raga Bhatiyar than this - so beautifully have Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar and Nasir Faiyyazuddin Dagar rendered this raga in this piece.


As in other cases, I could not find this exact piece on youtube. So I have a chosen an alternative – raga Malkauns, “poojana chali Mahadeva.”
Bismillah Khan: Hindustani, shehnai
V.G. Jog: Hindustani, violin
Raga: Mishra Khamaj
Track: Raga Mishra Khamaj in Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye
Album: Gandhi: speeches, bhajans, and inspirations
Bismillah Khan was one of the iconic figures of Hindustani music. He was responsible for single-handedly elevating the status of the shehnai, a reed instrument that was only used as an accompaniment to marriages, to a classical concert instrument. 
He did this by applying the techniques of vocal music to the shehnai and by his sheer technical brilliance, which helped him to play the shehnai with the full expression of a sitar, a sarode or the human voice.
Bismillah Khan also took popular "dhuns" (folk songs) and often played them with elaborate improvisations, something that delighted both commoner and connoisseur alike.
In another salute to India's syncretic traditions and to the tremendous respect that all Indians had for Bismillah Khan, he was a regular performer at the Kashi Vishwanath temple in the city of Benares, one of the most sacred temples of Hinduism and a highlight of the city of Benares, where Bismillah Khan lived all his life, even though he was a Muslim. Khan has said on record that the two reasons he would never leave Benares (and indeed, he died there) were the river Ganga and the Kashi Vishwanath temple, which to him was a second home.
VG Jog was one of the most important and distinguished violinists of Hindustani music in the last century, having learned music from Allauddin Khan, who taught many other greats including, as mentioned earlier, Ravi Shankar.
The composition they play here is the same "Vaishnava jana to" alluded to earlier that was so beloved by Gandhi.



Saturday, 13 September 2014

Why I Became an Atheist - My Journey from Orthodox Hinduism to Spirituality to Atheism

Why I Became an Atheist - My Journey from Orthodox Hinduism to Spirituality to Atheism

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 13 September, 2014

Copyright © Dr. Seshadri Kumar.  All Rights Reserved.
For other articles by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, please visit

Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.



In a recent debate on Facebook, the topic of organized religion and its comparison with atheism came up. The discussion was in response to an article that reported on a study done that revealed that, based on many financial indicators over an 84-year period and 63 prior studies, atheists seemed to be more intelligent than religious people.

This generated some debate on the virtues or drawbacks of atheism relative to organized religion, with some participants arguing that they did not believe in organized religion, but held spirituality to be the ideal instead of atheism.

In response, I explained my personal journey from a traditional religious background to atheism, with a considerable stop-over in the land of spirituality, and explained what prompted me, first to abandon formal religion and take up spirituality, and then to abandon spirituality and embrace atheism. I decided to put down those thoughts in a more structured way so that it could be beneficial to more people by publishing it as an article here.

My Orthodox Religious Background

I was raised in a very orthodox religious home, and still live in it. My mother does as many pujas as they would do in a temple. In fact, she never goes to the temple. She has no time, and no need, being busy with her own pujas all the time. She follows all kinds of rules, and we have to follow quite a bit of them to humor her. Having been brought up in such a home, I was invested with the sacred thread at age 11. In the first three years after getting the thread, I used to perform the “Sandhyavandanam” ritual THRICE a day – in the morning, at lunchtime, and in the evening (luckily the school I went to was a 5 minute walk from my home, so I could come home for lunch, at which time I could quickly do the “Madhyanhe,” the afternoon ritual, before eating.) I used to listen religiously to the Vishnu Sahasranamam, the Rudram, and all the Suprabhatams at home. I used to pray every morning at our home altar before leaving for school, and always used to have vibhuti, kumkum, and chandan (sandalwood paste) on my forehead before going to school. When they used to show the Kanchi Shankaracharya on TV, I used to fold my hands in prayer. As a family, we once even hired a car and went from Mumbai to Satara to meet the great Paramacharya (as the senior pontiff of the Kanchi mutt was known) when he ventured that far up north from his base in Kanchipuram, and felt truly blessed when we were able to have a darshan of someone we considered a living embodiment of God.

And yet, today, I call myself an atheist.

So what happened?

When you start at as deeply religious a point as I have outlined above, you don’t become an atheist overnight. It is a gradual process of questioning, asking “why” each time you do something. It takes some time to start questioning, and it takes time to find the answers to your questions. The first step in the journey is the abandonment of formal religion and its attendant rituals – and even this takes time. You give up a few rituals at a time, and eventually, you give up all rituals altogether over a period of years.

Why I Gave Up Religion

There are some problems that are common to all religions, and so I will mention these first, before actually moving on to Hinduism and some of the specific issues which annoyed me about Hinduism. The interesting thing is that the common problems are less noticeable at the beginning of one’s disenchantment with religion; we are generally so used to them that we don’t think much about them. Read on to see this clearly.

I want to highlight one thing very clearly at the outset. Although I have mainly highlighted the flaws of Hinduism here, I DON’T BELIEVE OTHER RELIGIONS ARE ANY BETTER.  All religions have serious problems. I am talking about Hinduism here only because, having been born and raised as a Hindu, I have the most knowledge to talk intelligently about the problems of Hinduism, and I have experienced them firsthand. This does not mean any other religion is better. They are all bad, in my considered opinion.


The fundamental problem with ALL religions is intolerance. All religions are collections of superstitions, and the followers of one religion not only disagree with the superstitions of another, they insist that followers of all religions follow their superstitions. 

Thus, for example, when you go to Saudi Arabia, an Islamic country, you cannot eat during the day in the month of Ramadan even if you are not Muslim. Even the consumption of water is forbidden during the day in the month of Ramadan, and non-Muslims have to drink water secretly. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam for Muslims, but it is not available to non-Muslims either, unless you happen to live in a foreigner enclave. So Islam forces its beliefs on followers of other religions. 

In India, many people, including many Hindus, eat meat of all kinds, such as chicken and mutton; but Hinduism considers the cow sacred, and hence eating beef is forbidden for Hindus. As a result, orthodox Hindus try to ban the eating of beef. Again, this is an attempt to force the beliefs of one religion on followers of another religion or no religion. Some communities among Hindus, as well as followers of the Jain religion, do not eat any meat at all, as part of their religious observance. In Mumbai, several housing societies will not rent out or sell to people who are not vegetarian – because it offends the religious beliefs of OTHERS who live in that housing society. 

Catholics believe that life begins at conception, and so believe that abortion is killing a life, so they try to force their view on ALL people, including non-Catholics – by trying to ban abortion by anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic alike, in Catholic countries. As if this invasion of a person’s personal space is not bad enough, the Catholic Church also believes that one should not use condoms – and given that people do engage in pre-marital and extra-marital sex in real world, with multiple partners as well, this means that deadly sexually-transmitted diseases like AIDS spread more rapidly without condom use. 

Even Buddhists, who people generally mistakenly regard as peaceful people, have indulged in violence and persecuted Hindus and Muslims in Sri Lanka for the simple reason that these communities practice a different faith. Large-scale riots took place in Sri Lanka because Buddhist monks objected to Sri Lankan Muslims eating Halal meat according to the dictates of Islam.

Of course, even though this intolerance is present in all religions, people who live in places where their religion is a majority never notice it, and so their own rebellion against their religion is usually not on these philosophical grounds. For instance, as a Tamizh Brahmin, I was raised a vegetarian – and so a ban on beef-eating did not affect me, nor did any stipulation against eating meat. In fact, I lived in a housing society where only South Indian Brahmins and Jains lived, and since both communities were vegetarians, we never had any problems on this score. You realize these are problems only when you become a minority.

Organized Religion Means Organized Killing

More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause. So many conflicts, from the medieval Crusades to conflicts between Muslims and Hindus in India to the ongoing conflict in Israel-Palestine to the Bosnian conflict of 1992-95 to the Holocaust of WWII, have been based on religious intolerance. It is hard to see anything in religion to like. Even though all religions usually talk of mercy or charity, it is usually limited to those who are within the fold of that religion. Sometimes it is even more specific. In Hinduism, for example, charity is encouraged, but only to the highest caste, that of the Brahmins.

Again, as in the case of intolerance, you don’t notice these problems if you aren’t directly affected by them. For example, being a Brahmin myself, I never saw the problem of charity being limited to Brahmins. My family hardly moved with anyone else anyway. When we did give, I never noticed that the recipients were always Brahmins. And, as for inter-religious conflicts, I happened to live in an area in Mumbai – Matunga - where there were only two dominant communities – Tamizh Brahmins and Jains. The two communities were well-suited; and diet compatibility was a big reason. Even today, South Indians enjoy Jain food and Jains enjoy eating in Udupi Restaurants. On the street that I live in Matunga, there is a “Jain-Iyer” idli/dosa batter shop that makes the best idli/dosa batter. I did not know a single Muslim family growing up, because there wasn’t any in the neighborhood. When riots happened in Mumbai, it never happened in our area. So I happily lived in la-la land. Riots happened to others.

Superstitions and Rituals

No, what led me to rebel against Hinduism were not these (very important) factors, which I grew to appreciate only later, as my study of religions deepened. My initial rebellion against Hinduism was because of the idiotic rituals, rules, and blind faith that I saw all around me and that I had to follow. Whether or not atheists are more intelligent than believers, as the article that provoked this post asserted, it is clear that RELIGIOUS BELIEF ITSELF IS A VERY UN-INTELLIGENT ACTIVITY, as you can see below. (Every religion will have its set of irrational rules and rituals; what I describe is based on what I saw, and is by no means unique to either Hinduism or our community – seek and you will find flavors in every religious denomination.)

The supreme irony is that people who will question anything and everything in all other aspects of life: “all cricket matches are fixed”; “all vegetable sellers try to cheat you on the weight”; “all politicians are corrupt”; etc., will not hesitate to bow down low before ANYONE WHO SIMPLY CLAIMS TO BE DIVINE. They will not hesitate to embrace religious doctrines that are in conflict with every principle of life they know to be true, and which are full of internal contradictions. Simply put, religion requires a suspension of skepticism and logic. 

The man who, in his daily job, works as an auditor and will not accept a single paisa as legitimate unless a bill is shown for it, and thus employs logic in its severest form, will nevertheless prostrate himself before the man who claims to be divine but has no proof of it – who only has to manifest himself in saffron robes and no questions are asked. This cannot be said in any frame of reference to be an intelligent act. The person who will not invest a single rupee in a mutual fund unless he is sure he will get the best yield and ROI on his money will nevertheless blindly believe a friend when that friend tells him that if you go and pray in this temple (and donate money, of course), your wife will conceive a child – without any proof, and based solely on rumor.

So, the willing suspension of disbelief, of skepticism, and logic that is the hallmark of religious activity cannot be said by any reasonable person to be intelligent. Essentially, RELIGION MAKES INTELLIGENT PEOPLE STUPID. They may not be intrinsically stupid, but their adoption of religion makes them temporarily so.

It is like a Ferrari being driven in Bangalore. A car that is capable of speeds of 300 km/hr can only be driven at an average speed of 30 km/hr in Bangalore because of the bad roads and traffic density. If you asked a person in Bangalore who had no idea about the glory of Ferrari and asked him what the speed of a Ferrari was, he would tell you it is 30 km/hr, not 300 km/hr, because in that environment that is all he can see. Similarly, a normally intelligent person in the presence of religion becomes stupid.

The Caste System

In addition, the evil of the caste system, which flows through Hinduism's veins, also did not make any sense to me. The caste system forces endogamy within Hinduism – Brahmins only marry Brahmins; Kshatriyas only marry Kshatriyas; and so on. But the madness does not stop with that. Tamizh Brahmins are split into the sub-castes Iyers (those who worship Shiva and Vishnu) and Iyengars (those who only worship Vishnu). We are Iyers. Among Iyers, there are the Vadama, Vaathima, Brahacharanam, and Ashtasahasram sub-sub-castes. The Vadamas (of whom I am one) considered themselves the best of the lot. Among the Vadamas, the “Vadanaattu Vadamas” were considered even better. Now the Vadamas preferred to marry only within Vadamas, but in a pinch, might condescend to marry into other sub-sects – and only in desperate situations would want to marry among the Iyengars. Never in your dreams would you marry a non-Brahmin.

Imagine the conflict in any educated mind that goes to school and reads about Martin Luther King’s great speech where he says that he hopes to see a world one day where people are judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” and then come home to see that marriages are arranged with character as a last consideration, only after all caste matches are first sorted out. Sure, King talked about color, and caste is not the same as race, but essentially, it amounts to the same thing – a form of discrimination based on birth and not character.

One of the earliest experiences with caste discrimination that I experienced was when I used to go for haircuts. In those days, barbers came from a special low caste in Hinduism that exclusively used to conduct this “lowly” profession, as it was seen then. So, when I used to visit a barber for a haircut (and my father would be waiting for me OUTSIDE the barber shop), I’d have to go straight to the bathroom for a shower as soon as I got home. Not only that, my clothes would have to be washed immediately as well because all of these had been fouled by contact with the barber. People will try to present arguments of hygiene on this – how this is done so that hair doesn’t come in your food, etc. – but if you saw the level of paranoia – “don’t touch anything as you come inside the house!!!” – you’d know this was way more than concerns about hygiene.

Similarly, I was told to be careful when leaving the home for school in the morning not to accidentally brush the sweeper who was sweeping the compound – and again, I am sure hygiene was only part of the problem. The fact is that most sweepers came from the low castes.

It was weird indeed to go to school and read in my textbooks about the evil of the caste system, and yet to see it manifested daily in my life.


In addition to caste restrictions, Hindu marriages are complicated by the use of this absurd pseudo-science called astrology. People look at the arrangement of stars in the sky at the time someone was born and decide that they can predict his or her future. There are countless charlatans (astrologers) all over India who claim to be able to tell whether a boy and a girl will have a good life together after marriage simply by looking at the positions of the stars in the sky at the time the boy and the girl at the time of their birth. 

In addition, some people are considered unlucky without reference to the birth constellations (also known as “horoscope”) of their prospective partner. One common problem for Hindus all over India is the “Manglik” problem. If a person is born with the planet Mars (“Mangal” in Hindi) in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, or 12th “house” of the “ascendant chart” of that person’s horoscope, he or she is considered unfortunate and will have a hard time finding a mate, unless the other person is also manglik. So a person might be brilliant, witty, beautiful, smart, and educated – but she will not be able to find a husband in the arranged marriage route if she is Manglik (known in Tamizh as “Chevvai dosham.”) 

There are other idiotic astrology-based problems too – a girl born in the Moola nakshatra (constellation) is considered unlucky, as well as a girl born in the Pooradam nakshatra – there is a saying that “Pooraadatthukku nool aadaathu” – which translates to “The girl born in Pooradam won’t have a thread for long” – the thread, of course, referring to the “Mangalsutra” that the husband ties around the wife’s neck as a symbol of their union during the marriage rituals. The implication is that the girl born in Pooradam is unlucky for her husband and he will die soon afterwards if he marries the girl. Similarly, a girl born in Ashlesha nakshatra is considered dangerous for the life of the mother-in-law – so boys whose mothers are still alive will not marry girls who are born in the Ashlesha nakshatra. This is just a superficial description of the idiocy accompanying astrology – the rot goes several layers deep.

Auspicious and Inauspicious Times for Doing Things

If you want to go out of the home for some important business, you can’t just leave the house when you please; you have to note the time and make sure you do not leave during “Rahu kalam” or “Yama gandam” – “inauspicious periods” that can be at different times on different days of the week. When there is an eclipse, you are not supposed to cook food because it is considered impure. Pregnant women are not supposed to go outdoors during eclipses because it is supposed to be able to cause miscarriages. You cannot cut nails except on Thursdays and Sundays. If someone dies, you cannot call them to express your condolences except on a Thursday or a Sunday, unless it happens to be during the first 10 days after the death. And on and on and on like this.

One particular event helped a lot in my shaking off absurd and superstitious beliefs that I had learned as a Hindu. I remember that when I first went to the US, I had picked a date that would be very convenient for me to join the University of Utah that had admitted me to an MS program. That date would have given me plenty of time to find an apartment and also enjoy the University’s new student orientation program. However, this was vetoed by my mother, who told me that the almanac (“panchangam”) told her that my choice of date was inauspicious, and so she picked a date one week later, which left me with very little time to do what I needed to do before school started – find an apartment, etc. Furthermore, the supposedly “auspicious” date ended up being extremely inauspicious:

1.       TWA, the airline that got me from London to Chicago, was delayed getting in.
2.      I missed my connecting flight to Salt Lake City – the last flight of the evening.
3.      TWA palmed me off to a United Airlines flight, which I had no hope of making and which I subsequently missed.
4.      As a result, neither airline considered itself responsible for my being stranded.
5.      Not knowing anything about Chicago, and not wanting to spend $100 out of my limited $800 that I had brought from India for a hotel room – the $800 had to last me my first month before my scholarship money kicked in - I spent the night in the airport lounge at O’Hare.
6.      It was extremely uncomfortable, though I tried to sleep on three chairs.
7.      I was worried about crime, since I had heard a lot about Chicago, and could only sleep after a police officer assured me I had nothing to worry about inside the airport.
8.     The airline lost my luggage in this mess, and I only got it a day later.
9.      The two friends from IIT, who had urged me to join them a week earlier, had found an apartment and resented me for not helping with the effort of finding one, and refused to accept me as a roommate, told me I was on my own in finding a roommate and a place to live. They summarily kicked me out and refused to even entertain me for a night. I had to go knocking on other people’s homes to find a place to stay the night.
10.  Consequently, I missed most of the fun orientation program that the International Students Association had organized for new students.

Oh, but I did leave on an “auspicious” day!!!

The Idiocy of Prayer

One of the enduring aspects of religion is prayer. As a child, I was taught to pray at the family altar before an exam, so that God would help me get good marks in the exam. Every time there was adversity, we were told, pray to God, he will help you with your problems. 

There was never any clarity on the logic behind this guidance. We used to pray for the Indian cricket team to win its match. No one asked the question of what happens if the supporters of the opposite team also pray to their God. Who wins then? Whose God is stronger? What if I am rooting for the Mumbai Indians in the IPL, who are playing the Chennai Super Kings in the final? Given that the majority of Indians are Hindu, you can imagine that a lot of Hindus will pray to Hindu Gods to help the Mumbai team win, while a lot of Hindus will pray to the same Hindu Gods to help the Chennai team win. So who wins? Can you out-pray the other? Is it a number game? IS GOD SO CHEAP???

Prayer also takes away the motivation for a person to take responsibility for things. You spend the whole week playing carrom with your friends in the hostel, and then pray before the exam that God will help you pass? What kind of logic is this? And why do parents teach these kinds of corrosive morals to their children? I was very disillusioned with the concept of prayer.

Exploitation by the Clergy

Exploitation by the clergy occurs in every religion, and Hinduism is no exception. In fact, according to the caste system, the clergy belongs to the highest caste of the Brahmins, which means that, according to Hindu scriptures, the best treatment is supposed to be reserved for the Brahmins. Anyone who reads Hindu scriptures will immediately realize that these have been written by Brahmins for the benefit of Brahmins. It is mentioned that the greatest sin in life is to kill a Brahmin; that one acquires great merit in the afterlife by donating generously to Brahmins. Donations of gold, land, and cows are particularly encouraged. It is considered a sin to turn away any Brahmin who comes to your home and asks for food (though it is not a sin to turn away people of any other caste). The priests have learned to exploit this fully. Consider the example of funerary rites.

When my father died, I had to perform his last rites. But I quickly realized they were not “last” rites. The priests have created an elaborate cock-and-bull story about what happens to the soul after death that is designed to maximize profits for the clergy. Here is how that works.

They explain that after death, the soul starts on its journey to the netherworld, the abode of Yama. This is a long journey and so the soul needs to be properly prepared for it. It needs slippers for the journey, an umbrella in case of rain, food for the journey, etc., and so you have to give gifts of these things to Brahmins, who are the proxy for the soul. In addition, there is supposed to be a scary river that the soul has to cross to reach Yama’s abode – the river Vaitarani. This river is populated by wild beasts which will tear up the soul and cause great pain to it. But, not to worry, there are boats to cross the river with. BUT – these boats are ONLY AVAILABLE to those who have made the gift of a cow to a Brahmin. In cities, we don’t have cows to give, so the Brahmin priest will kindly agree to the monetary equivalent of a cow in gold.

But once you have made all these gifts for the well-being of the soul, don’t think it is over. Every month you have to perform a ceremony for the benefit of the soul, and every month you have to give gifts to the Brahmins – otherwise your father’s soul may be damned. And, at the end of one year after his death, I again had to do a major ceremony, and again give lots of gifts to the priest and other Brahmins. When asked, they gave the same cock-and-bull story of the river Vaitarani. I told them that I thought he crossed it last year? They had no answer. I went along for my mother’s satisfaction.

What is even more ridiculous is that you have to keep performing ceremonies every month at amavasya (new moon) and then every year to make sure your father’s soul is at peace. And it is not just my father’s soul. I offer prayers for the benefit of my grandfather’s soul, and my great-grandfather’s soul as well. The whole system is geared to maximize profits for priests and have a steady source of income for them.

What I could not understand is how illogical the whole system is. The idea that a person’s soul needs his son to do rituals for him in order to be saved from hell is idiotic. What this implies is that even if a person was an outstanding person during his life, even if he was a devout Hindu, followed all the rituals and paid his respects and dues to every priest and temple, and followed all the rules of Hinduism faithfully, and if he was a genuinely nice and kind person to boot, he could not be guaranteed safety in the afterlife. His plight in the afterlife depended on what his children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren did for them. Now, I can probably influence my son to be a good Hindu and follow traditions; my ability to influence my grandson is even more limited; and my great-grandson I might never even see. How can I ensure safety for my soul in the afterlife?

It seemed completely illogical and unfair that a person should be penalized for the faults of others, but that is the system that the priests have created in Hinduism, and hundreds of millions follow these rules without any second thought. If that is not stupidity, I don’t know what is. It is like saying that even if you did an excellent job in your office, others in another office did not, so you will get a pay cut instead of a raise. Utterly idiotic, and clearly designed by Brahmin priests to exploit people. Yet, Hindus, all over India, continue to perform rituals for the souls of their forefathers every amavasya and every year, all through their lives, without once wondering if it makes any sense or not. Such is the hold of the clergy on the masses.


After pondering all these problems for a long time, I decided that organized religion had no basis in reality and had to be discarded. The question facing me then was: given that organized religion is wrong and evil, is God also an illusion or does a God exist?

Even though I was disillusioned with Hinduism, and could not find anything to commend themselves in other religions of the world, such as Christianity or Islam, I could not completely let go of the idea that there was a supreme force in the world, a God, in the universe.

This is when, in my mind, you enter the halfway home between religiousness and atheism known as spirituality. Having rejected all the rituals and superstitions of religion, I reached a phase where I acknowledged the existence of a superior power, a unifying force if you will, in the universe, that I would regard as a God. This made me a member of the group of people in this world who are known as “spiritual, but not religious.”

This God, I felt, was not a vindictive or a demanding God, was not a God who needed stupid rituals to make Him happy, but a kind, just, and loving God, who loved everyone without discrimination. I drew sustenance from the idea that this God would take care of me, would be someone I could talk to privately in times of trouble and ask for help during trying times. He or She was a friend at all times. It was a comforting illusion, but a necessary one. You cannot abandon everything in one go.

I was in this halfway house for a few years, until I again picked up the courage to question things. Some things became clearer in this interim period. Chiefly, I grew to have a greater sense of responsibility. No more coconuts to break to pass an exam. I started believing that this fair, just God above would watch me, help me along as I did good things ("God helps those who help themselves"), and would obviously hold me to account for bad things. It was an honor system, and I was expected to be fair and good by my buddy above.

But then I went through another transformation that caused me to abandon spirituality and become an atheist. Two main questions contributed to the end even of this faith:

1. Is there a point to prayer? (and if there isn’t, that ends the personal relationship)
2. Why do bad things happen to good people?

The Pointlessness of Prayer for a Spiritual Person

During my years in the halfway house called spirituality, I realized that my ideal of God had to be a great being – greater than the noblest person on earth, and someone who would not be partial among His/Her creations. Thus, I realized that there is no point in asking for anything from God; that prayer is pointless. If God is a fair being, then He/She will give you good things if you deserve them, and will punish you if you have been bad. No point in praying at all. (After all, "He knows if you've been naughty or nice.")

Some people say that they don’t pray for things, only for courage to face the world, but even that is something. If God feels you need and deserve to have courage to face things, He will give it to you without asking. If He thinks you need a job, he will give you one. If He thinks you need a child, He will bless you with one. It’s like parents with children. Do you, as a parent, ever wait for a baby to ask what she wants? No, you try to figure out what the baby needs and give it to her. If God is the Great Father or Mother above, surely He will have a better and stronger feeling of affection towards His children than human parents will have? So why pray?

Secondly, on the issue of this personal relationship, does it even matter if I acknowledge God? If I am God’s child, I expect God to be the ideal father or mother. An ideal father does not care that his child grows up “respecting” him. I know I don’t give a damn about that with my baby. All I want is for her to be successful in life and to have all the tools to face life. I don’t expect her to take care of me in my old age, and I don’t expect her to show me respect if I am in the wrong. She needs to learn to respect people for what they are worth, not their age alone.

If I, as a mere human, can think in this way, I thought, why should I think God, whom I consider the wisest and most mature being in the Universe, wants me to acknowledge His existence and honor Him or Her with prayer or worship, especially when I cannot see Him or Her at all? Why should an omnipotent person even care? Human parents often care because they are insecure. God has no insecurities! So I concluded that there is no point in praying to God. Being a good person was enough.

Why do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

The second point is why bad things happen to good people, and this leads to a negative conclusion on the existence of God. If God is a fair and just supreme being, why does He punish good people with suffering? This has been argued very eloquently by Arun Shourie in his book “Does he know a mother’s heart?” in which he talks touchingly of his son’s cerebral palsy. This is a great book, and I highly recommend it. Shourie talks of struggling to understand how to reconcile belief in a God who could inflict so much suffering on a baby, a person who has done nothing wrong in life at all…after all, this affected his son as a newborn baby.

Now, the only major religion that attempts to answer this question in any meaningful way is Hinduism, because the other major religions do not believe in reincarnation. If the baby has no past, no previous birth, it cannot have done anything bad for which it is being punished in this way. So other religions have no explanation for a baby’s suffering. However, Hinduism will tell you that the child suffers because in a previous birth he has done bad things.

But I have a fundamental problem with the reincarnation theory and the idea of karma that I cannot resolve.

Punishment works only when you understand why you are being punished. The whole system of criminal justice operates in this way. You steal, and are jailed for it. In jail, the idea is that you realize your mistake and you repent, and vow not to do it again so that you are not jailed again and don't have to suffer again.

But what if, when you leave jail, they erase your memory of jail? How will the jail experience reform you? So the theory of karma through reincarnation is meaningless to me because unless I have a memory of what I did wrong in the past life, I cannot do things better. If I did bad things in birth 1, then got punished in birth 2, then got a third chance in birth 3, and was able to remember births 1 and 2, that makes sense, because now I know cause and effect, and I can become a better person by not repeating the bad things I did in birth 1. But without that knowledge, I am no better. It is like tossing a coin a 1000 times – each time you toss it, the possibility of getting a heads is only 50%, regardless of how many times you have seen tails in the past, because the coin has no memory.

In addition, when you look at the magnitude of evil in the world, with mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin (who alone was responsible for the deaths of some 50 million people), Mao, Pol Pot, Suharto, and Pinochet, just to name a few – and most of their victims were innocent, many of them women and children – you have to ask: if there is a God up there, what’s He doing? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why did he create evil men like this, who had the capacity to do so much harm to others? He could have created a better world with better people! Why did He make so many people suffer mindlessly? Is God a sadist? What kind of Heavenly Father watches on as Hutu or Tutsi tribesmen take babies from their mothers’ arms and smash their heads and watch them die? What kind of God watches on as thugs enter a home and rip apart a woman’s womb, tear out the baby within, spear it and parade it around? What harm did those babies ever do to anyone? When one looks at the scale of evil in this world, it is impossible to believe that a God could exist.

So I discarded the concept of a God because bad things happen to good people for no reason - and a just and fair God, if He existed, would never allow this to happen. And that is when I became an atheist.

Of course, there still is the possibility that there is a God and he deliberately allows bad things to happen to good people. That God is not benevolent but malevolent. It would not be the first time if I were to postulate such a theory. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were very much like that – petty, lecherous, jealous, easy to anger, vengeful, and capricious. It is possible that the reason that bad things happen to good people is that God simply is malevolent. And I have decided that if God, indeed, is malevolent, contrary to all expectation, and this Universe is a miserable place run by a malevolent tyrant up there, then I do not care to acknowledge him/her. For me, the only God worth acknowledging is a fair, just, God, and if a horrible God does run the Universe, then I'm willing to burn in oil in an afterlife as a "conscientious objector" for refusing to acknowledge him (lower case intentional.)

In India, I often used to hear people (I’m sure such arguments are used worldwide) saying, when bad things happen to good people, that “God is just testing their faith.” WHY??? Why does this omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Heavenly Father/Mother up there need to test his devotees all the time? Is he so insecure??

I spent a lot of time (years) as a spiritual person before eventually rejecting spirituality as well. I thought, read, discussed, and argued all those years. I know that cutting that last link with the idea of a supreme force that pervades the Universe is not easy – it was not easy for me, but I saw no way out - so I don’t judge those who cannot do it. I am happy enough if they treat everyone well and without prejudice, and I respect their choices. I would apply the same logic to the religious nuts as well, but unfortunately their choices affect me. They do not believe in living and letting others live.

During those long years in the halfway house, I often asked people why they believed in God. One of the most influential people in my life, who I admire and respect tremendously, and who is still a good friend, told me that he believes in a God because of how miraculously things work together. I told him he had a point. For a long time I had no answer to that. But then it struck me – we only praise a God for how wonderful things are in this world; we don’t blame him for all the ills in the world! This kind of selective praise is not right. It is like those footballers who look up to the sky and perform the cross sign on their hearts after they score a goal; but they don’t look at the sky and curse the Lord when the goalie parries their attempt. When those Tutsi babies’ heads are smashed against rocks by laughing pathological tribesmen, nobody curses God above. It is very selective – and illogical.

I think people who are involved with organized religion suspend their intelligence and are therefore temporarily stupid. Spiritual people, I think, are on a continuum, and perhaps they have not thought deeply about certain things. I don’t think they are stupid, because the distinction that separates spiritual people from atheists is actually thin, and I believe that if spiritualists think through things long enough (using the same logical process that led them to reject rituals) they will become atheists.

What I Believe Today – The Atheist Code of Life

I thought a bit about writing this last section because it will appear to some that I am talking like a guru, which I did not want to do. However, I felt it necessary to outline the philosophy of an atheist, because many people cannot believe that it is possible to have a structure to life without religion or spirituality. I am writing this section to show how, being an atheist, one can live a strong, reasoned, balanced, and highly satisfying life.

Life has become much simpler and less contradictory for me since I became an atheist. The core belief that I have is very simple: I am an organic, sentient, thinking life form who has somehow been born in this world – just like ants, birds, crocodiles, pigs, and cats. Having been born, I have two choices: I can either live until I die naturally, or commit suicide. I reject suicide because I know, from personal experience, that life has much to offer. I enjoy a lot of things that I can experience in this world – food, music, literature, the company of loved ones, intellectual conversation, the beauty of nature, and many more things. So the question is: how do I live the limited period that I have left to live? And the answer is: by being as happy as possible.

But, to understand this, one must understand what happiness is. Only experience – and it is a great teacher – can teach someone how to be happy. To understand this, however, maybe one first needs to understand how happiness is NOT obtained.

Happiness is not obtained by the accumulation of material things – and one does not need a religious guru to tell you this. It comes from sheer experience. Anyone who has spent enough time accumulating things knows naturally that it is not the key to happiness. Money is one of those things people love to accumulate. Money is important to have, but it is not the most important thing in life. It is important to have enough money for your daily needs, for a comfortable roof over your head, for all your medical needs, for the education of your children, for some luxuries, such as travel, and for a secure retirement so that you won’t be begging on the street. Beyond that, money doesn’t help a lot.

Happiness is not obtained by great achievement. Achievement happens by chance when one is deeply engaged with all his or her heart and mind in something. One cannot go seeking achievement –  for, if one does that, he will be like the proverbial cat who was trying to catch his own tail because he had heard that a tail was a cat’s most important possession. Needless to say, he never caught it; but he realized that as soon as he left the tail well alone, it quietly followed him wherever he went. Still, as in the case of money, a reasonable level of achievement is necessary for both giving a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment in one’s chosen profession, and the resultant feeling of positive self-worth, as well as in the attainment of financial independence.

Happiness is not obtained by indulgence. This is not necessarily a separate point from the accumulation of material goods, because it shares the same basis – that indulgence never satisfies - but I am stating it separately for clarity. Just as having a billion dollars is not going to make someone happier than having a million dollars, indulging oneself excessively does not satisfy either. Some people go to excesses of alcohol, drugs, or sex in order to feel satiated; and the truth is, they never satiate. Again, you don’t need a religious teacher to tell you this; plain real-life experience will tell you. Try getting drunk three days in a row and then the fourth day you will ask: “why on earth am I doing this? Is it worth it? Is it really giving me anything in return?” All it requires is a capacity to introspect.

What does yield happiness is the balanced exploration of life and all it has to offer, in the fullest sense. Food and drink can make a person happy, in moderation; sufficient money can keep a person comfortable and able to experience more of what life has to offer (say, a vacation in Hawaii; a trip to the Lord’s Cricket stadium in England to watch a cricket match; watching the World Cup football final; attending an opera at La Scala in Milan or the Royal Opera House in London; or a trek to the Everest base camp, as examples); a feeling that one has done justice to his or her job can make one feel happy about going to work every day; intellectual and physical exploration of the infinite diversity and richness in this world, from art to music to literature to sports to technology, can fill one with wonder and satisfaction; and meaningful relationships with family and friends make one feel valued and loved in life. For, ultimately, man is a social animal, and so the feeling of being loved and respected by his fellow-humans is one of the most satisfying and enriching experiences in life. Note that in none of these statements did I need to invoke a God. I have learned all of these purely from analyzing my own life.

The bottom line is that one does not need religion to understand the truths of life and of the human condition. If one is willing to logically analyze one’s own personality and experiences and understand what worked and what did not work, one can be happy.

In life, things go wrong many a time too. People suffer from problems that they have no solution to. I find it much more liberating to say that I have simply been unlucky when bad things happen to me when that happens, rather than imagine that this is due to a God punishing me for something that I have done at some other time or some other birth. It is much like Occam’s razor – the theory with the fewest assumptions that can explain an event comprehensively is the best theory.

This is assuming, of course, that other causes, such as bad personal behavior or negligence is ruled out. For example, if you have been smoking and drinking all your life, having cardiac problems is neither bad luck nor providence. It is to be expected as the body’s natural reaction to abuse. Or, if you have always ignored your spouse’s feelings, yearnings, and desires, and one day she decides to leave you, this is neither the work of a God nor is it bad luck – it is the result of your being stupid enough to ignore a loved one. One of the strengths of being an atheist is that one takes personal responsibility for one’s actions.

What one also needs is a code of morality to live by. I discuss this under a separate heading because morality is the one aspect for which atheism has received the most criticism by proponents of religion.

Atheism and Morality

Everyone needs a moral code to live by. Without a moral code, we are adrift in the world; we do not know what to do at any point of time. Is it okay to steal? To kill? To swindle? To lie? To harm? Should I tell the truth in a given situation or should I lie? Should I protect a friend who committed a crime or should I expose him? Life offers so many moral dilemmas that one can never find suitable answers to unless he or she has a code to live by.

One of the criticisms that religion has made on atheism is that religious people feel an urge to be “good” because of the fear of a God, whereas atheists fear no such supernatural power, and so are not bound by any moral code.

There are two counters to this – one that talks of the hollowness of the position of religion and another that talks of what an atheist’s moral code should be.

Firstly, on the presumed hold of religion on people’s morals and its constraint on them to be good, keep in mind that the majority of the people in this world are still religious or spiritual. Atheists are a small minority. Yet so many serious crimes are being committed daily – by fairly religious or spiritual people. Also, as I mentioned earlier, so many conflicts throughout history that have been the cause of so much bloodshed have been attributed to religion. Sometimes, it is the people who commit the gravest crimes who donate the most money to temples and churches. That debunks the idea that religion somehow preserves morality.

Secondly, as an atheist, I have only one moral rule in life, and that is the golden rule. Every good principle of life reduces to that rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It does not require any complicated understanding of supernatural beings, and is something every child can relate to - fairness. If you wouldn't like someone to steal your toy, you don't do the same to them. If you wouldn't want someone to be mean to you and exclude you from a group, you don't do the same thing to others. If you would not like someone to murder your loved ones, you don’t do the same thing to others. If you wouldn’t want others to cheat you of something, then you don’t cheat others of what is due to them – and that includes money, credit, or work (as in the work you owe your organization for the salary they pay you – cheating at work is also a violation of the golden rule.)

If everyone believed in this rule, everyone would be a good person and we would need nothing else. This rule is one of the fundamental, early discoveries of humankind, and has been shown to be extant as far back as 2000 BC, well before the advent of any of the world’s modern religions. (It was NOT originally developed by Christianity even though it finds a mention in the bible; it existed long before Jesus.) It is central to the idea of human existence and social interaction – without it, there can be no trust, and hence no meaningful interaction between humans.

A religious follower may ask how I propose to teach people to adopt the golden rule as a principle of life and thus preserve morality in life. He may argue that religious scriptures, such as the Bible or the Bhagawad Gita, tell followers of religion what moral codes to obey; how do I propose to have atheists adopt this code? Well, consider that people do not read religious scripture automatically. Often, parents take their children to a church and someone preaches these lessons to young, impressionable children; or they tell stories to children to illustrate the importance of morals in life. In the same way, each person who is an atheist, can teach his children about the golden rule. It should be much easier for people to learn – when you go to a hotel and open the bedside drawer, instead of finding a bulky Gideon bible to read, all you will see is one line that says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Children learn morals from their parents and teachers; and if parents and teachers exemplify the behavior outlined in the golden rule, one need not worry about the morality of a future atheist society.

The golden rule as a moral code for all humanity will be at least as successful, if not much more so, than any of the religious morals that have caused so much death, suffering, and destruction in the millennia of human history. The golden rule is the only true moral code to live life by, because not living by it will break the fabric of society.

It is important to note that the golden rule operates at a higher plane of morality than any religious moral code, for most religions have violated the golden rule. For example, when Islam was founded, it exhorted its followers to convert people to Islam by the sword. Millions converted under the threat of being executed; those who resisted were killed. Would Muslims have liked to be converted to another religion by the sword? Decidedly not. Similarly, Christianity, during the Inquisition, forcibly converted many people from their religions to Christianity on the penalty of death. Would Christians liked to have had the same happen to them? Decidedly not. Today we recognize that the Inquisition was immoral and wrong; but this immorality would not have happened if they had followed the golden rule of morality.

Concluding Thoughts

I have shared with you my journey from a highly religious, suffocating background, through the halfway house known as spirituality, to the liberated world of atheism.

I hope this will help those who are themselves wondering what it is like to be free of superstition, dogma, and darkness, and how one can live a more fulfilled life with fewer moral dilemmas. I hope it will help people understand how one can be an atheist and still live a highly moral, fulfilling, meaningful, and happy life.

Experience has shown that the majority of humankind feels a need for organized religion. A major reason for this is that most people in the world do not think critically about anything. I do not entertain, therefore, any foolish hope that the majority of humankind will reject religion and adopt atheism as a way of life any time soon.

However, for those who do so, I hope my experience can serve as a resource and perhaps answer some questions those seekers of a better life may have.

Religion started as an infantile reaction to natural phenomena by primitive humans who did not understand how the universe worked. To explain phenomena that frightened them, they needed to invent a supernatural being, a God, as responsible for the world and what happened inside it. In the millennia since humans first started thinking, science has swept away many of the superstitions that were invented to explain nature. For a long time, humans believed that a God was needed to explain creation and life. Science has obviated all of these attributes of such a God, and today the only real question is whether God makes sense from a moral viewpoint. The impact of modern physics and the theory of evolution on the foundations of religious belief is well-known and so I have not spent any time discussing this aspect in this document.

I have focused on the moral arguments on why some people feel a God is needed, and shown that one does not need a God; indeed, that the existence of a God, with the attributes that are traditionally ascribed to such an entity, is contradicted by what we observe in life. I have shown that if indeed there exists a God, then He or She must be an immoral and malevolent being. That being unacceptable to most people, it can only be concluded that there is no God.