ya karika_ is
the oldest Sa@mkhya text on which we have commentaries by
later writers. The _Sa@mkhya sutra_ was not referred to by any
writer until it was commented upon by Aniruddha (fifteenth
century A.D.). Even Gu@naratna of the fourteenth century A D. who
made allusions to a number of Sa@mkhya works, did not make any
reference to the _Sa@mkhya sutra_, and no other writer who is known
to have flourished before Gu@naratna seems to have made any
reference to the _Sa@mkhya sutra_. The natural conclusion therefore
is that these sutras were probably written some time after
the fourteenth century. But there is no positive evidence to
prove that it was so late a work as the fifteenth century. It is
said at the end of the _Sa@mkhya karika_ of Is'varak@r@s@na that the
karikas give an exposition of the Sa@mkhya doctrine excluding
the refutations of the doctrines of other people and excluding the
parables attached to the original Sa@mkhya works--the
_@Sa@s@titantras'astra_. The _Sa@mkhya sutras_ contain refutations
of other doctrines and also a number of parables. It is not improbable
that these were collected from some earlier Sa@mkhya work which is
now lost to us. It may be that it was done from some later edition
of the _@Sa@s@titantras'astra_ (_@Sa@s@titantroddhara_ as mentioned by

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Venka@ta's philosophy will be dealt with in the second volume
of the present work.]

223

Gu@naratna), but this is a mere conjecture. There is no reason to
suppose that the Sa@mkhya doctrine found in the sutras differs in
any important way from the Sa@mkhya doctrine as found in the
_Sa@mkhya karika_. The only point of importance is this, that the
_Sa@mkhya sutras_ hold that when the Upani@sads spoke of one absolute
pure intelligence they meant to speak of unity as involved
in the class of intelligent puru@sas as distinct from the class of
the gu@nas. As all puru@sas were of the nature of pure intelligence,
they were spoken of in the Upani@sads as one, for they all form
the category or class of pure intelligence, and hence may in some
sense be regarded as one. This compromise cannot be found in
the _Sa@mkhya karika_. This is, however, a case of omission and not
of difference. Vijnana Bhik@su, the commentator of the _Sa@mkhya
sutra_, was more inclined to theistic Sa@mkhya or Yoga than
to atheistic Sa@mkhya. This is proved by his own remarks in
his _Samkhyaprav