Notes on Sankhya history
An accurate reconstruction of Sankhya history is a futile task. This is evidenced by the large number of varying theories put forth by modern scholars. G.J Larson lists over a dozen different views of Sankhya history starting from Garbe to K.C. Bhattacharya, followed by his own version of it. The exercise is still ongoing with other scholars continuing to examine obscure literary references to Sankhya.
Early form The earliest known reference to Sankhya as a distinct philosophy is the Arthashastra (4th century BCE) where it is enumerated as Anvikshiki – along with Yoga and Lokayata. Ashvaghosha, in his Buddha Charita, writes about a teacher named Aradha who preached a certain Dharma to the Buddha during his quest. This Dharma as described by Ashvaghosha (which has not been named) is delivered in two forms of a single set of basic principles and clearly maps to Sankhya and Yoga. This unnamed dharma of Aradha is similar to Sankhya as described by Caraka (1st Century CE) and by Panchashikha in the Mahabharata. If we accept the authenticity of Ashvaghosha’s account of Aradha, then Sankhya can be pushed further back in time, though we cannot make any assumptions on its form and name as Ashvaghosha does not use the name of Sankhya. Tradition has it that Kapila was the founder of Sankhya who was followed by Asuri, Panchashikha, et al., and therefore if we were to factor in all of the above, the origins of Sankhya can be pushed back to remote antiquity – a time which we cannot pretend to know more about. Gunarathna (14th century CE) writes of two different versions of Sankhya, which appear to be the pre-classical Sankhya of Panchashikha and the classical Sankhya of Ishvara Krishna.
Early Texts The earliest extant text is the Sankhya Karika by Ishvara Krishna (5th century CE or earlier). Ishvara Krishna’s version of Sankhya is known as classic Sankhya and is different from the earlier Caraka/Panchashikha/Aradha version of Sankhya. Ishvara Krishna claims his work is faithful to Panchashikha and Shastitantra an earlier text on Sankhya which is not available. The Shasti tantra finds a mention in Ahirbudhnya samhita (early Christian era) – a Pancharata text – where it is categorized as a Vaishnava text. This has led to some speculation that Sankhya was originally theistic and later became atheistic in the hands of Panchashikha. As late as in the 15th century CE, commentaries were written on a “Sankhya sutra”, a text of unknown authorship, which is generally believed to be of very late origin as it has not been referenced by early writers.
Atheistic or theistic Early Sankhya as described by Panchashikha (also Aradha and Caraka) is not theistic. Classical Sankhya as described by Ishvara Krishna is not theistic either. The Mahabharata states that the difference between Sankhya and Yoga is the former is atheistic and the latter is theistic. The Padma Purana criticizes Kapila for creating a Godless doctrine. The Ahirbudhnya samhita describes the Shashti tantra as a Vaishnava text (and hence, theistic). Vijnana Bhikshu claims Sankhya was theistic and he explains the atheistic flavors exist only to prove the point that Sankhya metaphysics can be explained in wholly rational terms. Obviously, this topic has drawn mixed reactions since ancient times. In general, Sankhya unlike Yoga, does not require an Ishvara, which makes a strong case for its non-theistic nature.
Relationship with Yoga Sankhya and Yoga have been associated with each other since ancient times. Aradha’s unnamed Dharma is delivered in two forms which can be identified as Sankhya and Yoga. Upanishads like Katha, Shvetashvatara, Maitrayani, etc., that talk of Sankhya, also talk of Yoga. The Arthashastra lists both Sankhya and Yoga as Anvikshiki. The Mahabharata says Sankhya and Yoga are the same, except the former is atheistic and the latter is theistic. The Gita claims the two are the same. Historically, Sankhya and Yoga have been viewed as two faces of the same coin – the former providing metaphysical theory, while the latter is more the practical side of things. Some authors have collapsed the two into a single school of philosophy when enumerating leading philosophies.
General 