Samkhya-Yoga Philosophy and Practice

This article presents convincing evidence concerning the authenticity of the the primary Samkhya text, which has been disputed in some academic circles.

The Controversy

In their introductions to the text, both major commentators, Aniruddha and Vijnana-Bhiksu, explicitly stated that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram or Samkhya-Sastra (Lessons on Samkhya) is the work of Kapila.  Some academic textbooks accept this without discussing any doubt regarding the authenticity of the claim. But a survey of academic sources currently available on the internet reveals a general consensus of opinion that the document could not have been written earlier than the fourteenth century. Since the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is the primary authoritative text on the Samkhya philosophy, it is important to put this matter to rest.

The claim appears to be based almost entirely on the dates of the commentaries, which were written during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and the lack of any commentaries on the Samkhya-Sutra prior to that time. Since the Samkhya-Karika was the source for all prior commentaries, those who question the authenticity of the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram generally accept the Samkhya-Karika as the older work. But even a casual comparison of the texts will show that conclusion to be false.

The Samkhya Karika

The Samkhya-Karika itself contains two verses that clearly refer to the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram as its source. One reference is contained in verse LXXII, the last verse of the Karika, and reads as follows:

“The subjects of the Saptati are the subjects of the entire Sasti-Tantra exclusive of the illustrative stories, and omitting demolition of opposite doctrines.”

In this verse, “Saptati” (seventy) refers to the Karika itself, which consists of around seventy verses. That the Sasti-Tantra (sixty topics) refers to the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram can be shown by what is omitted from the Karika. 

The Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is divided into six books. In verse LXXII, “Illustrative stories” refers to book four, which is titled OF FABLES; “demolition of opposite doctrines” refers to book five, titled DEMOLITION OF COUNTER-THEORIES.  This appears to be a clear reference to the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram. There are many instances outside of book five where the Samkhya-Sastra presents arguments and reasoning to support its positions and refute the theories of opposing philosophies, which are also omitted from the Karika. 

Another reference is contained in verse LXXI, which reads:

“And this doctrine, descended by tradition of disciples, to the holy-minded Isvarakrisna, having been thoroughly understood by him, has been summarized by means of these Aryas.”

By comparing the two texts, it will immediately become clear that the Samkhya-Karika summarizes the Samkhya-Sastra. The Karika tends to combine several verses of the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram into a single verse. In other cases, where the Samkhya-Sastra is more cryptic, the Karika provides more explanation. Together these two verses provide convincing evidence that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is the older work.

The Samkhya Karika, although technically not a commentary, is based on the the earlier work in the same way that a commentary is based on an earlier work. This renders the argument that there were no commentaries prior to the fifteenth century untrue.

An Alternative Theory

Swami Hariharananda Aranya, a well known Samkhya-Yoga guru, put forward another theory. In the introduction to his commentary on Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, he stated:

"Rsi Panchasikha was the first to formulate the teachings of Paramarsi Kapila into a number of aphorisms. Unfortunately, the Samkhya-Sutra, as his work is called, is no longer available in its entirety, but the little that is available is sufficient to give us a coherent picture of the entire Samkhya philosophy."

According to the Samkhya-Karika the third Samkhya guru, Panchasikha, elaborated the Samkhya philosophy in many ways, but at present there are only roughly twenty aphorisms available that can be attributed to him. These were gleaned from various sources and contain only fragments of the Samkhya philosophy, so it is hard to understand why the Swami would say that these fragments provide a coherent picture of the entire Samkhya philosophy. Swami Hariharananda may have been contending that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram was written by Panchasikha and not by Kapila himself. This is more plausible than the theory previously mentioned, but unfortunately the Swami did not provide any evidence to justify this claim.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence given, it is reasonable to conclude that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is the most ancient text of the Samkhya darsana.  If it was not actually written by Kapila himself, then the author could have been Panchasikha, which would still date the work long before the Samkhya Karika.  It seems clear that the Karika was based upon it.  The assertion that Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram was the work of a later author may be only the most recent attempt of the dominant Vedanta thinkers to discredit the Samkhya philosophy.