Are Samkhya Yoga and Karma Yoga inter-dependent?

Lord Krishna in chapter 5 of the Bhagavada Gita explains the importance of devotional work over renunciation of work in shloka 2 as follows:

२

श्री-भगवान उवाचा
संन्यासः करमा-योगस का
निह्स्रेयासा-करव उभौ
तयोस तू करमा-संन्यसत
करमा-योगो विसिस्यते ।

"The Personality of Godhead replied: The renunciation of work and work in devotion are both good for liberation. But, of the two, work in devotional service is better than renunciation of work."

And then comes the piece which is our topic for today in the 4th shloka of the chapter.

४
संख्या-योगौ प्रिथाग ब्लाह
प्रवदन्ति न पण्डितः
एकं अप्य अस्थितः संयाग
उभयोर विन्दते फलं।

"Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sankhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both."

So, this gives the impression that Sankhya yoga and Karma yoga are tied to each other. But is it? What if somebody decides to do only an analytical study of the world, with material lusts as a guiding factor? The results of that would be utterly different from a person who dedicates himself to a devotional service to the Lord. We can see that from the difference in outcome of a person who is dedicated to the material sciences, who is duly rewarded for his work in money and in fame and all through does not develop any devotion towards anything, while a person who is dedicated to devotional service might live a life of penury without acquiring any analytical knowledge of the material world. Then how can it be said, that an analytical study of the material world -- Sankhya Yoga can lead to realization of results of devotional service -- Karma Yoga, and Karma Yoga can lead to the results of Sankya Yoga?

Or is this an indication of how corrupted our society has become, that we give importance only to the material world and not the physical or spiritual. Perhaps a union of the results of the two was possible in earlier times and not now? Is thus the Gita an indicator of a pristine, pure age? If that is the case, we ought to correct our approach to life to restore the old ways, or if it has always been like this for ages, we can continue along our current path of rewarding endeavours in the material world over those in the spiritual world.

Need citations/links from followers and readers on this topic.

Is there anything like "absolute dharma"?

Some basic questions people following dharmic rules, rooting for a dharmic state and having problems with our present state of affairs should engage in are:

Q 1.: How do we define dharma?

Q 2.: Is Dharma something that is radically different from the natural state of the world?

Q 3.: If that is the case, why do we strive for it, when we know that things have a tendency to revert to their natural state sooner or later?

My concept of dharma, perhaps still in its infancy, is something called righteousness. For me, among other things, it should prompt the powerful to not only let the meek survive, but to also assist them in their survival.

A system in which the powerful allow a way for the weak? Is that feasible? Because, nature does not allow such a system. It is vicious competition in nature, one species besting another. The weak have no place out there. Ours seems meant to be a place where the bigger fish eats the medium fish, the medium fish eats the smaller fish and so on.

So, is a system feasible, which staples the ability of the strong, while allows the weak to grow? Isn't it natural for the strong to gobble the weak? For how long can man made to resist his natural animal instincts? Perhaps just as long as the nation has a powerful triumvirate of legislative, executive and judiciary forces. With the absence of these three, how long can people remain dharmic?

The one argument that is laid against the above question is that in nature, one species always supports its own kind. There is never violence in one species, which is what we see in Homo Sapiens. But on a closer look, we might be proved wrong.

If this is a temporary endeavour, why should we put so much of effort into it as writing miles and miles of scriptures and spending more time teaching and even more time spreading it? Why not let the rules of nature prevail?

And say, even if we achieve such a system, how far should we go? Do the forces of dharma have to be on a constant vigil for adharma in the society? Finally:

Q 4.:Is there anything like "absolute dharma"? When can we sit down and relax, that we have created the best society? Is life a constant war?

I would appreciate your reply to the above questions.

The Science of Gayatri Mantra

Since we are in the process of discovering Hindu philosophies rationally, I advise viewing of the following video.

Mantra

ॐ भुर्भावास्वः तत्सवितुर्वर्नियम ।
भर्गोदेवस्य धीमहि धियोयोनः प्रचोदयात ।

Transliteration:

Aum Bhurbhavasvaha Tatsaviturvaraniyam,
Bhargodevasya Dhimahi Dhiyoyonaha prachodayat.

Translation:

We meditate on the glory of the Creator, who has created the Universe, who is worthy of worship, who is the embodiment of knowledge and light, who is remover of all sin and ignorance. May he enlighten our intellect.

Along with several uses of sound in warfare and use in Raaga Dipak and Raaga Malhar, there is a lot of explanation on how the sounds of the Gayatri Mantra activate our endocrine glands. A must watch not only for people who are already into things like accupressure/accupuncture but for the general populace as well.

Yaksha Prashna

From episode 55 of Mahabharat by B.R. Chopra

Buffer up to 24:00 and watch till 30:00

Only in Hindi for now, so my apologies. Some of the questions are as follows:

Question No. 1:Yaksha questioned: Who makesthe sun to rise and ascend in the skies? Who moves around the Sun? Who makes the sun set in the horizons? What is the true nature of the Sun and where is the sun established?

Yudhisthira answered: Brahma makes the sun rise and ascend. The Gods perambulate about the Sun. The Dharm sets the Sun. Truth is the actual Sun and the Sun is established in truth only.

Question No. 2: How can one become a 'Shrotriya'? How can one attain greatness? What is man's second companion? How does one become become intelligent?

Yudhisthira replied: The study (Adhyana) of the Vedas makes one a 'Shrotriya'. One can achieve greatness by penance and perseverance. Patience is one's second companion. Service to old and wise men renders one intelligent.

Question No. 3: Yaksha enquired: What instills 'divinity' in Brahmins? What is the quality of virtuousity in a Brahmin? What is the humanlike quality of a Brahmin? What is the conduct akin to a non-virtuous person in a Brahmin?

Yudhisthira replied: The self-study (Swadhyana) of the Vedas is divinity in a Brahmin. Penance is the quality like a virtuous person in a Brahhmin. Death is human-like quality in a Brahmin. Criticising others is conduct in a Brahmin like a non-virtuous person.

Question No. 4: Yaksha asked: What instills 'divinity' in Kshatriyas? What is the quality of virtuousity in a Kshatriya? What is the humanlike quality of a Kshatriya? What is the conduct akin to a non-virtuous person in a Kshatriya?

Yudhisthira replied: The art of archery is the divinity in a Kshatriya. Oblation is Kshatriya's quality of virtuousity in Kshatriya. Fear is his humanly quality. Abandoning people are under protection of Kshatriya is his conduct like a non-virtuous person in Kshatriya.

Question No. 5 the Yaksha asked: What is that thing which is like a Mantra in the performance of oblations (Yajnya)? Who is the performer of rites and ceremonies during Yajnya? Who accepts the offerings and oblations of a Yajnya? What is that which even a Yajnya can not transgress?

Yudhisthira replied: 'Breath' is like a Mantra in the performance of rites. 'Mind' is the performer of all rites in the course of Yajnya. Only Shlokas of the Vedas rucha or the richa accept oblation. The Yajnya can not surpass nor transgress the richas.

Question No. 6 the Yaksha asked: What is the most wonderful thing?

Yudhisthir replied: The most amazing thing is that even though every day one sees countless living entities dying, he still acts and thinks as if he will live forever.

Although some of the questions are now obsolete, most of them are worth considering for spiritual enlightenment.

Is Maya polytheistic or monotheistic?

Somebody asked this question on www.ask.com. I wonder what he/she meant by it.

Theism by definition is a belief in God.

The prefix poly or mono depends on how many Gods you believe in.

Maya means illusions or ignorance.

So, is there any relation between theism and maya? I do not see any but if there is any, I am open to answers and opinion. Let's flag off a discussion on this topic.

Polytheism is The way.

Many people may draw parallels with other political ideologies (1 and 2) and Hinduism when they read the Gita. Perhaps verses as these may fill them with glee that theirs is the right way of worship.

Chapter 7
७
मत्तः परताराम नान्यत
किन्सिद अस्ति धनञ्जय
मई सर्वं इदम प्रोतं
सूत्र मणि-गाना इव।

"O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread."

But then, there is this:

२०
कमैस तीस तैर हरता-ज्नानाह
प्रपद्यन्ते ’नया-देवातः
तम तम नियमम अस्थाया
प्रकृत्या नियतः स्वया।

"Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures."

२१
यो यो यम् यम् तनम भक्तः
श्रद्धायार्सितुम इच्चाती
तस्य तस्याकालम श्रद्धाम
तम एव विदाधामी अहम्।

"I am in everyone’s heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity."

२२
सा तय श्रद्धया युक्तास
तस्याराधानाम इते
लभते का ततः कमान
मयेवा विहितन ही तन।

"Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone."

Thus, while worship onto Shri Krishna/Vishnu is to be the ideal case, the Gita mentions that worship of the demigods is also allowable.

What is wrong if we are polytheistic? In fact, I would say polytheism is the right way. Now consider an atheist person. He has no God to worship. So, he would look onto humans who have lived within recorded history as his heroes. Now does he regard only one human as a hero, and disregards all of them? Quite unlikely, because most people have a pantheon of heroes they derive their inspiration from. This is because we never see all the qualities we desire imbibed in the True human.

Replace heroic humans as Gods (deities to be specific) and we get polytheism. So what is wrong with polytheism? Why is it absurd?

In fact, I find Monotheism absurd to think of. That there is one God, and only one name. Doesn't it smack of dictatorship and autocracy? Humans would never submit to one king, one prime minister or whatever. So, why should he submit to one God? Have monotheists ever thought of, that since they ascribe to God the attributes of ultimate power, what would happen if God, like man would get corrupt? What if absolute power corrupts God absolutely? Don't they smell anything fishy in this construct?

It is thus only feasible that a polytheist/henotheist approach be taken and dictatorship of any kind, even of God should be abhorred.

Epilogue: A post intended to act as a suggestion to pagans to counter the brain washing of the missionaries. Hope you agree.