The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s2.63

v2.c40.s2.63

Another possible source of evidence is the date of Īçvarakṛṣṇa, the author of the Sāṁkhya Kārikā. It is perfectly clear that the Sāṁkhya system was substantially older than he in its substance and even in detail, so that a considerable age must be assumed for it, if Īçvarakṛṣṇa is to be assigned to the first century A.D. or even the first half of the second century A.D. Unfortunately the evidence as to Īçvarakṛṣṇa is by no means satisfactory. It seems, however, clear that he was either an older contemporary, if he is identified with Vindhyavāsa, of Vasubandhu, or still older, but this clearly, accepting the earlier date of Vasubandhu, which terminates his existence about A.D. 350, does not lead us further back than about A.D. 300, or half a century earlier.³ A further argument, however, has been adduced by S. K. Belvalkar,⁴ who holds that the commentary on the Kārikā, which was rendered into Chinese by Paramārtha about A.D. 560, was the work of Māṭhara, and is to be dated about A.D. 400. Now as the Māṭhara-Vṛtti frequently calls Īçvarakṛṣṇa Bhagavant, a term which would not readily be applied to a recent author, we may assume the date of the first century A.D. or shortly after for Īçvarakṛṣṇa.