Surya Deva’s attachment to the Karika seems to be mostly based on an assumption that it is the oldest ‘extant’ text. I think it is not likely that the actual original manuscript is still in existence, and even if it is, being old and ‘extant’ doesn’t really prove much.
It is not really an assumption that the Karika is the oldest extant text, but the consensus of scholars of Samkhya. It is not a controversial issue, it a widely accepted fact the Karika is is oldest extant text on Samkhya. I have already cited Gerald Larson to show this is true, but Asuri is still not satisfied, so I will cite other scholars and academic sources:
(i). The period from the first century C.E. to ca. the tenth presents us with what has been called “classical” Samkhya, and the teaching now becomes differentiated from other yogic traditions. The major text is the Samkhya-karika of Ishvarakrishna (ca. fourth century C.E.); he was probably a contemporary of the Buddhist Vasubandhu (who wrote a refutation of Samkhya) and of the Samkhya teachers Varshaganya and Vindhyavasa, so that his articulation of the tradition took place during the cultural flowering associated with the Gupta dynasty (ca. 320-540 C.E.). Ishvarakrishna’s work was translated into Chinese by Paramartha between 557 and 569 C.E. This important writer also produced a Life of Vasubandhu, and it is from this, as well as from references in the works of the great seventh century Chinese scholar Hsuan-tsang and his pupil Kuei-chi, that we have an idea of the strength of Samkhya at this time. Indeed, it is so influential that the Buddhist logician Dignaga (ca. 480-540 C.E.) vigorously opposes it. A little later the Buddhist Dharmakirti (ca. 610-670 C.E.) also refers to it, and as late as the ninth century Shankara continually argues against it (see under Shankara).
There is a reference in the Samkhya-karika to “sixty topics” (shasti-tantra), and the enumeration into sixty is also found in both later Samkhya texts and in a Pancaratra work (see under “Pancharatra”). However the claim that there was a text of this name is arguable.
Several commentaries on the Samkhya-karika were composed. Paramartha wrote one to accompany his translation; Gaudapada’s Bhashya, a simple and direct commentary, dates possibly from 600-800 C.E, ; in the ninth century C.E., Vachaspati Mishra - a significant figure in the history of Samkhya - wrote his Samkhyatattvakaumudi, and this was in turn glossed by Narayanatirtha (though according to Dasgupta, this gloss was on Gaudapada’s commentary). There are also other commentaries of a most uncertain date - the Mathavritti, the Jayamangala, and the Yuktidipika.
(ii) After this heyday of Samkhya, which lasted for several centuries, the school lost its force and entered a period of decline. This may have been because in place of a vigorous tradition (articulated by several teachers, and creatively pitted against other schools of thought), there came to be an emphasis upon the Samkhya-karika as normative. The eleventh-century Muslim traveller Alberuni, who wrote a work in which he summarizes the teachings of Indian philosophy, bases his summary of Samkhya primarily upon the karika. Similarly, the fourteenth-century Madhava in his summary of sixteen systems of Indian thought (the Sarvadarshanasamgraha) relies solely on the karika.
A final stage is marked by a kind of renaissance. Aniruddha (late fifteenth century) wrote a commentary (bhashya) on the Samkhyapravachanasutra, as did Vijnanabhikshu (late sixteenth century). It is difficult to put a date on these sutras, but because not only Madhava, but also Gunaratna (also fourteenth century) make no reference to them they may well be later than this, a suggestion supported by the late date of the commentary upon them. On the other hand, it may well be that certain ideas or even passages in the sutras derive from the earlier, classical period. Vijnanabhihshu is credited by some scholars with having composed an elementary work on Samkhya, the Samkhyasara. Other late works on Samkhya are the Tattvasamhasutra, Simananda’s Samkhyatattvavivecana, and Bhavaganesha’s Samkhyatattvayatharthyadipana. Generally, according to some scholars, these late works are clearly influenced by Vedanta. Again, there are differences of scholarly emphasis, some using these late works directly as sources for the interpretation of Samkhya, others exercising a greater or lesser degree of caution in so doing.
Source: http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/ascetic/samkhya.html
Although many references to the system are given in earlier texts, Samkhya received its classical form and expression in the Samkhya-karikas (“Stanzas of Samkhya”) by Ishvarakrishna (c. 3rd century ce). Vijnanabhikshu wrote an important treatise on the system in the 16th century.
Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520526/Samkhya
Kapila was the founder of Sankhya philosophy. (8-6th Cent. B.C.E.?) Ishvara Krishna was its most famous writer. (3rd Cent. C.E.)
The main text comes from the Third Century C.E. and the commentary in smaller type comes from about 850 C.E.
Source: http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/g/gier/306/sankhya.htm
Sāṅkhya has a very long history. Its roots go deeper than textual traditions allow us to see. The last major figure in the tradition, Vij?āna Bhikṣu, thrived as late as 1575 CE. Despite its long history, Sāṅkhya is essentially a one-book school: the earliest extant complete text, the Sāṅkhya-Kārikā, is the unquestioned classic of the tradition. Not only are its formal statements accepted by all subsequent representatives, but also its ordering of the topics and its arguments are definitive – very little is added in the course of the centuries.
Source http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H1 (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I will also add add a major academia text book reference used for many undergraduate world philosophy and comparative philosophy courses: A short except on the section on Samkhya:
Although the first extant text we have is the Samkhyakarika of Ishvarakrishna possibly fourth century CE, the structure of thought is undoubtedly old
Source: Smart, Ninian(200.8). ‘World Philosophies: 2nd edition’. Rouledge, New york.
Thus the point has now been clearly established that the academic consensus is that the Karika is the oldest extant text of the Samkhya school and is considered the definitive text of Samkhya. Although, speculations do exist among Samkhya scholars that the later Samkhya sutras may indeed contain ideas or even passages that date back to classical times, this is not considered proven, and there is even doubts about whether there really existed a text called Sastri tantra at all(Most likely it did) However, what there is wide agreement on is that the Samkhya sutras are
- Definitely later, probably composed around the 14th or 16th century.
- It is not considered a core text of formal Samkhya philosophy, but more like a secondary text, as optional or further reading
Thus it certainly is not my religious conviction to constantly maintain that the Karika is the oldest extant text of Samkhya philosophy. I am giving the readers on this forum accurate and reliable information on what scholarship says on Samkhya, and not misleading them by giving my own personal theories, as Asuri is doing. Hence why I maintain the readers on this forum will find that the information I am giving on Samkhya or other areas of Indian philosophy is reliable information. I have formally studied Indian philosophy and have copies of the most major philosophical texts, so I say with utmost modesty, I know what I am talking about. Asuri, on the other hand, has not. This is painfully clear, for he even confused the author of the Karika Ishvarkrishna with Lord Krishna of the Gita(which I am sorry to say is hilarious!). It is obvious he has no scholarship in this area and should not pretend that he does.(He is annoyed by me, because he knows that I am formally qualified in this area, and he is not, but he sees himself as a scholar)
I would also like to bring to the attention of the readers that this is not the first time Asuri has given misleading information about Indian philosophies. A year ago he insisted that the famous definition of Yoga, “Yoga chit vritti nirodha: Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the mind” was actually wrong, though this definition is not controversial with scholarship. He insisted that the Yoga sutras actually says “Yoga is the cessation of only some(negative) modifications of the mind” and everybody else has got it wrong. Yet, it is clear to all Sanskrit scholars that it says cessation of all modifications of the mind. Patanjali even makes it clear by detailing the 5 types of modifications that need to be ceazed ultimately. He does not spare a single modification, because any kind of modification means the mind is still not restored to its original and pure state.
Thus we can see Asuri has a habit of of adding his personal spins and twists to Indian philosophies, and presenting this as factual. Thus I caution readers to be wary of Asuri’s representations of Indian philosophies, whether that be Samkhya, Yoga or Vedanta. I have already caught him out wrongly representing each of these philosophical schools, especially Vedanta which he hates.
However, we know clearly that the Puranas are much later than the Karika. The Karika is the earliest extant text which describes a systematic philosophical system of Samkhya. In other texts like the Mahabharata, Charaka Samhita and Upanishads Samkhya is mentioned in scattered references, but not as a full fledged system.[/QUOTE]Jaina literature mentions the Bhagavata together with the Bharata and the Shashti Tantra as false (i.e. non-Jaina) scriptures around 500CE, without mentioning the Karikas of Ishvara Krishna, this shows that at time these texts were already considered important works of Hinduism. This isn’t merely a question of dating texts though, the Samkhya present in the puranas shows continuity of thought congruent with the earlier scriptures from the upanishads onwards. The Ahirbudhya Samhita also gives an index of the Shashti Tantra and shows that it described a theistic doctrine as was pointed out by professor Surendranath Dasgupta. On the other hand, the Karikas appear out of nowhere somewhere early in the first millenium claiming to be an adaptation of the Shashti Tantra. It makes sense that Samkhya at that time needed to be reevaluated to stand against the critisism of the nastika doctrines and consequently it was criticised by various schools of vedanta. As you have pointed out yourself, what you call proto-Samkhya was more a vedanta type of Samkhya. The paramartha sara of Adishesha from Kashmir which is the earliest text (pre-Shankaracharya) on advaita vedanta that is still available was also heavily grounded in Samkhya. This clearly shows that for a long time in history Samkhya and Vedanta were closely related.
