Asuri, Larson is not at all supporting your viewpoint. You are dissecting what he is saying, removing the context and reinterpreting what he is saying so that it fits in neatly with what you believe, and it is clear to anybody who read the passage earlier that is exactly what you are doing. The fact that you have to do this is really disturbing. Simply accept Larson does not support your viewpoint, rather than mutilate what he is saying to give it another meaning.
At first glance this may appear to contradict what I have said, but looking a little more closely you will see that Dr. Larson uses the word compiled, meaning that the text was put together using previously existing sources.
It does in fact contradict what you are saying. You are taking one single word, “compiled” out of context to give it an alternative meaning. However, Larson repeats throughout the passage that the Samkhya sutras is a late text. He admits the possibility that it may contain material that is from classical times, but he does not say this conclusively. What he does say conclusively, a point I have already made several times to you, that the Samkhya sutras are a late text.
If you agree they are a late text, we can end this debate here 
My sense of the text is that it is not only possible but very likely that most of it predates the both the Samkhya Karika and the Yoga Sutras.
Your sense is not based on evidence, but on your personal speculations. You may continue to repeat that most of the Samkhya sutras predates the Karika and the Yoga Sutras until the cows come home, but until you do not produce any evidence to validate your assertion it will remain only your personal fantasy.
Difficult but not impossible. I do acknowledge that there appear to be some later additions to the text.
How can you acknowledge that there appears to be addition to the text, when you don’t have the original at hand? Unless of course you have been looking at the manuscripts in the Akashic records? This is why Larson says it is difficult to determine. When we don’t have a copy of an original to compare and contrast, it becomes difficult to say which parts are old and which parts are new. What we can say, with confidence, is that the Samkhya sutras as we have them today is a new composition.
In any case your admission itself that the Samkhya Sutras does in fact contain new additions validates my point that the Samkhya Sutras are not an accurate and reliable representation of classical Samkhya. Thank you for finally conceding
The juxtaposition of these two sentences shows that Vijnana Bhiksu’s translation and commentary are exactly what Larson is referring to when he talks about the influence of Vedanta.
Again, you are taking Larson’s sentences out of context. It is clear Larson is referring to the sutras himself, because he actually says it clearly many times later. He says, “Generally these late texts are influenced by Vedanta”, “In view of the Vedanta influence and new emphasis in the sutras” etc. He is clearly not talking about just the commentaries to the sutras having Vedanta influence, but the sutras themselves having Vedanta influence, and he clearly marks them out. It is clear to me as an English speaking person what he is saying, and I would hope clear to the rest on this forum.
Of course some of these things are not present in the Karika. The Karika acknowledges that the ‘controversies’ among other things were left out of it.
Again, you are taking what he is saying out of context and adding something he did not say. He never said a word about ‘missing controversies’ What he did say was that the Samkhya Sutras pays a lot more emphasis on the cosmic side of the doctrine, spending a lot of detail on the periodic acts of creation and destruction. This emphasis is not present in the Karika, but this emphasis is indeed characteristic of later Vedanta thought. Hence why he concludes that the sutras are influenced by Vedanta. Read again, he is not saying Vijnana Bhikshu is influenced by Vedanta, he is saying the sutras themselves are influenced by Vedanta.
Dr. Larson makes it very clear that the Vedanta influence is the reason one should be cautious in using these texts. As far as emphasis is concerned, Dr. Larson mentions the articulation of the creation and destruction of the world, which would include the theory of the emergent Isvara. This can be easily explained as one of the controversies that was left out of the Karika. The fact that the same concept of Isvara appears in the yoga sutras proves that it is not of late origin.
Yep, the theory of emergent Ishvara is a late Samkhya addition in reaction to Vedanta influence. As is the the theory of spontaneous generation of prakriti. You have absolutely no evidence to show that these are the “missing controversies” that got left out in the Karika. Again, your personal fantasies only belong to you. You may continue to insist that these were part of the original until the cows come home, but the fact remains; you have zilch, zero, nada evidence.
It has already been proven to you in the thread, “Emergent vs Eternal Ishvara” that the Ishvara in the Yoga Sutras is not the same Ishvara in the Samkhya sutras. The Ishvara in the Yoga sutras is a special purusha that never enters the cycle of rebirth, is always pure and unconditioned. This is contrast to the normal purushas who do enter the cycle. The Ishvara in the Samkhya sutras is a normal purusha that becomes ishvara after transcending the cycle, and then begins the next creation. Thus it is clear to see that the Yoga Sutras eternal Ishvara is not the same as the Samkhya sutras emergent Ishvara.
I must say you are the most dishonest debater I have had the misfortune of ever debating with.
