you're reading...

Sāṁkhya darśan – The Theoretical School of Enumeration

1. Introduction

Sāṁkhya darśan denotes one of the six orthodox[1] āstika[2] philosophical systems of Indian thought. The philosophy aspires the individual to understand the purpose of life, Liberation (mukti), through the medium of ‘removing the three kind’s pains’.[3]

The initial exponent of the Sāṁkhya philosophy is Mahāṛśi Kapila, who had first propouned the philosophy, by authoring the Sāṁkhya sutras. The date given by Klaus K. Klostermaier suggests that the ‘development of early Sāṁkhya’  was between 1500-500 B.C. There is an unclear date as to when the Sāṁkhya sutras were written, but inferences have been made that Sāṁkhya philosophy had very much influenced upaniṣadic thought. References from cāndogya upaniṣad as well as other upaniṣads suggest that the philosophy was pravelent at the time but terminology in regard to the philosophy was different.[4]

It is also interesting to note that the mahābharat recognises and appreciates Sāṁkhya as a well established school of philosophy. If this were to be accepted then the suggestion of Klostermaier that the ‘development of early Sāṁkhya’ was between 1500-500 B.C. would be rejected. Traditionally the mahābharat is accepted to be older than 5000 years, which would then date the mahābharat around 3000 B.C., much more than Klostermaier’s suggested date.

The Sāṁkhya philosophy rests its epistemological, ontological and seteriological foundation on two major works. The Sāṁkhya sutras of Mahāṛśi Kapila and Sāṁkhyakārikā of Iśvara kṛṣṇa. Although a date cannot be confirmed as to when the philosophy was propounded by Mahāṛśi Kapila, it can be concluded that he was the first exponent of this philosophy.

2. Defining Sāṁkhya

To define Sāṁkhya as ‘enumeration’ alone, would be unjust. Various personalities old and new have commented on the interpretation of Sāṁkhya.

The first direct reference to Sāṁkhya as a philosophy is cited in the śvetāśvataropaniṣat. [5]Although the śvetāśvataropaniṣat according to V.J. Roebuck is a rather ‘later development’ to the scriptural texts, you cannot deny the influence of Sāṁkhya existing earlier, as you can find traits in older upaniṣads[6]. There are many other references to the philosophy, the Bhagavad Gita for instance cites the philosophy directly[7] as well as mentions the philosophical aspect in various other places.[8]

śaṁkarācārya, the famous advaitin interprets Sāṁkhya to be derived of two saṁskṛta words. ‘samyak’, correct understanding  and ‘khyāyate’, knowledge of the revealed Vedas, which inturn leads to supreme reality.[9]

Interestingly śaṁkarācārya, gives another explanation of Sāṁkhya in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita ch 18.13, where he interprets Sāṁkhya to mean, ‘that scripture where the subject matter[10] to be known are fully (samyak) stated (khyāyante)’.

Vijñanabhikṣu suggests the definition of Sāṁkhya as ‘setting forth of the puruṣa as distinct from the prakṛti’ in his work, Sāṁkhya pravacana bhaṣya.

Raghunātha Bhaṭṭācārya defines it as the consideration of the twenty five principles.[11]

3. Sāṁkhya sutras of Mahāṛśi Kapila

The Sāṁkhya sutras are divided into six books. The first three  books outline the description, tenets and principles of the philosophy. The fourth book offers some illustrative tales, the fifth, is a refutation of rival views and the sixth book is a summary.

Table 1: Sāṁkhya sutras of Mahāṛśi Kapila[12]

Book Description

Outlines the description, tenets and principles of the philosophy

4 Illustrative tales
5 Refutation of rival schools e.g. buddhism, vedanta etc
6 Summary of the philosophy

Although the Sāṁkhya sutras were the most priliminary treatise on Sāṁkhya, there seems to be over time, a digress away from the sutras. Iśvara kṛṣṇa, a famous Sāṁkhyan became widely known for his treatise on the Sāṁkhya philosophy by producing[13] the  Sāṁkhyakārikā.[14]

3.1 Sāṁkhya sutras controversy

There has been numerous debates as to the authenticity of the Sāṁkhya sutras, as it seems that the sutras may have been edited, revised etc, as certain philosophies that the sutras refute do not really correlate with the time of the compilation of the Sāṁkhya sutras.[15] Another suggestion could be that the Sāṁkhya sutras were compiled at a very later date, but the question then lies , why are the aphorisms attributed to Mahāṛśi Kapila?

Dr. T. G. Mainkar suggests that the sutras were a later addition as it ‘does reveal a knowledge of practically of all the other systems’. He also suggests that the sutras ‘freely uses the kārikā and borrows phrases from śaṁkara’.

If close observation is placed on the variations on the sutras and the kārikā, there seems to be refined definitions and meanings in the sutras rather than the kārikā. Issues such as space, time, process of creation and destruction all appear to be more developed than the kārikā.[16] The sutras also discuss importance of a teacher etc, which the kārikā leave aside as redundant.

This leads to suggest, that if the sutras were compiled by Kapila before 3000 B.C. , the  kārikā of  Iśvara kṛṣṇa would be rendered superfluous! But as this is not the case, we conclude that the sutras were created at a much later date by an unknown author.

There are a few suggestions as to who the author could be. Svapneśvara in his kaumudiprabhā suggests pañcaśikha as the author, who is the disciple of āsuri, who inturn is the direct disciple of Kapila.[17]

Guru Paramparā

Mahāṛśi Kapila    ð Mahāṛśi āsuri      ð Svapneśvara        ð Iśvara kṛṣṇa

However with all the controversy regarding the authenticity in regard to the question ‘Did Mahāṛśi Kapila author the Sāṁkhya sutras?’, Udayavirya Sastri attempted to harmonise the question by his article ‘Antiquity of the Sāṁkhya sutras’ by concluding the sutras were authored by Mahāṛśi Kapila.[18]

With all the information in regard to the history and development of the Sāṁkhya philosophy, we can safely regard Mahāṛśi Kapila as the first exponent of the philosophy but as to the authenticity of the sutras, we can only speculate as to whether Mahāṛśi Kapila was the author of the sutras, but it seems highly unlikely that the statement that Mahāṛśi Kapila as the author, true.

4. Sāṁkhyakārikā of Iśvara kṛṣṇa

The Sāṁkhyakārikā of Iśvara kṛṣṇa is the more pravelent treatise on the philosophy. It is regarded as most authentic and referred to by later Sāṁkhyan scholars in their own works.[19]

Although the treatise is a culimination of 70 verses unchaptered, the yukti-dipikā[20]attempts to harmonise the kārikā into four  prākaraṇas:

Table 2: Summary of Sāṁkhyakārikā of Iśvara kṛṣṇa

prākaraṇa āhnikā kārikā topic
1. 1. 1-2 The contemplation of liberation/heaven
2. 3-8 The means of liberation/heaven
3. 9-14 The contemplation of work
2. 4. 15-16 The important achievment
5. 17-21 The contemplation of puruṣa
3. 6. 22-27 The contemplation of the means
7. 28-34 The means of tendency
8. 35-45 The means on the subject matter
4. 9. 46-51 The contemplation of the effect
10. 52-59 The contemplation on the body
11. 64-71 The nature of liberation/heaven

4.1 Sāṁkhyakārikā controversy

As with all historial works, the dates given are much debated as to when the kārikā was actually composed. Klostermaier and Dr R.K. Lahiri date the kārikā around 250-325 A.D., whereas others date it  around 400 A.D[21].

Another controversy that arises, is the number of verses that the kārikā contains. According to  Gauḍapādacārya, he recognises the kārikā as a saptati.[22] It is interesting to note that though Gauḍapādacārya identifies the work as a  saptati, he only comments on 69 verses but concludes his bhāṣya by saying ‘This is the bhāṣya of Gauḍapāda on Sāṁkhya, expounded by the sage Kapila, as the cause of liberation from transmigration; in which there are seventy verses.[23]

According to a few scholars, verses 70-73 seem to be later additions to the kārikā and do not form the basis of the original work.

The question than arises, was Gauḍapādacārya aware of discrepancies within the kārikā and so dealt with the matter by not commenting on them. Another question also arises as to which 70 verses he is referring to?[24]

If Gauḍapādacārya was aware that the original work had 70 verses, why did he only comment on 69? A suggestion could be that the verse could have been lost over time, ‘but scholars have in this matter expressed widely differing opinions’.[25]

However with all the information, I will present the Sāṁkhya system through the reference of Mahāṛśi Kapila’s Sāṁkhya sutras and Sāṁkhyakārikā of Iśvara kṛṣṇa.

5. Epistemology – The theory of Sāṁkhya knowledge

The Sāṁkhya philosophy recognises and accepts three forms of valid knowledge[26], through these pramāṇas, Sāṁkhyans believe that ‘discrimination’ will be achieved, which will inturn lead to ‘complete cessation of pain’.[27]

A pramāṇa is a form of valid knowledge which cannot be flawed in any sense. Pramāṇas form one of the foundations of Sāṁkhya philosophy. It is the direct means of knowing an object.

In Sāṁkhya philosophy, the formation of pramāṇa, is divided into three categories. It suggests that the first form of knowledge is Pratyakṣa (perception), if this is not possible than anumāna (inference) is accepted, if anumāna is also saṁśayātmaka[28], then Sāṁkhya suggests śabda (word/verbal testimony), is the best source of knowledge.[29]


Pratyakṣa             ð anumāna              ð śabda

5.1 Pratyakṣa

Pratyakṣa is judgement, which, being in association with the object being percieved, portrays the form thereof.

Sāṁkhya sutra 1.89

For Sāṁkhyans, Pratyakṣa is the direct perception of an object. Pratyakṣa is the perception of an object, experienced by the five senses. If one of the senses experiences an object, then according to Sāṁkhya, the object is valid. Iśvara kṛṣṇa in his Sāṁkhyakārikā also states ‘valid knowledge can only depend on the means of valid knowledge’.[30]

5.2 anumāna

Knowledge of a connection [e.g. fire], through perception of the object [fire and smoke], is inference.

Sāṁkhya sutra 1.100

The Sāṁkhyakārikā divides anumāna into three kinds. This is an identical interpretation to the Nyāya philosophy, it seems as if Iśvara kṛṣṇa was giving direct references from Nyāya thought, when interpreting inference.[31]

Purvavat anumāna (subsequent inference) – is that which has an antecedent, a cause, just as, on account of the rising clouds, you infer rain.

śeṣvat anumāna (antecedent inference) – when you taste a drop of ocean water, and it tastes salty, you infer the whole ocean tastes salty.

Sāmānyato dṛṣta (analogous inference) – when the sun moves from one place to another, you infer the time has changed.

Sāṁkhyakārikā bhāṣya of Gauḍapādacārya 5

5.3 śabda

Testimony [of valid knowledge] is a declaration by one worthy [e.g. Guru]

Sāṁkhya sutra 1.101

..and a true testimony is a true revelation (scriptures) and the right assertion (from a Guru)

Sāṁkhyakārikā 5

Although the Sāṁkhya sutras declare right/valid knowledge is imparted by one worthy, we can safely infer that the Vedic scriptures can be inferred to come under this catergory. This again is very similar to the philosophy of Nyāya darśan, in regards to āpta puruṣa and āpta śastra.[32]

6. Ontology – the study of existence

In Sāṁkhya, reality is based into a distinct eternal duality of prakṛti and puruṣa. Prakṛti, is the very nature of this materialistic creation, whereas puruṣa is the untainted reality of our existence.

According to Sāṁkhya, prakṛti is an non-sentient reality, which evolves itself into this materialistic creation and reabsorbs it, at the time of destruction. The Sāṁkhya sutras define prakṛti to be the sole cause of creation.[33]

Although we define puruṣa as a singular notation, in reality we refer to the plurality of puruṣas. In Sāṁkhya there are numerous puruṣas[34], these puruṣas are essential pure and free intelligence[35].

6.1 prakṛti

In Sāṁkhya philosophy, prakṛti plays a number of roles, which are said to be benefical to the puruṣa/soul.

Firstly, prakṛti is defined in the Sāṁkhya philosophy as eternal and rootless.[36] However there is differences within prakṛti itself. Prakṛti can be divided into unmanifest (avyakta) prakṛti/pradhāna (principle) and manifest (vyakta) prakṛti. Only avyakta prakṛti is eternal, while vyakta prakṛti is only a modification and is impermanent.[37]

The unmanifest prakṛti is essentially eternal, and all prakṛti has its cause from avyakta prakṛti.[38]  It is interesting to also note that both prakṛtis are described as non-sentient and has no ability to discriminate.[39]

6.1.1 Guṇa – quality

The concept of Guṇa by Sāṁkhya, is one of the main contributions to Indian philosophy. From the age of the upaniṣads until the development of the later vedāntic schools of thought, all have been influenced by the guṇa theory, be it with different terminology.

To define guṇa as quality alone, would be unjust to the guṇa theory. It could easily mean thread, subordinate component, virtue, rope.[40]

Sāṁkhya divides prakṛti into three qualities/guṇas;[41]

Sattva – is light in weight and brings illumination

Rajas – is weak and restless

Tamas – is heavy and restricting

During the state of avyakta equilibrium, the three guṇas are in equipoise with each other, when this balance is disturbed, the creation from avyakta prakṛti takes place.[42]

6.1.2 Liṁga śarira

The concept of Liṁga śarira by Sāṁkhya, also made an impact in Indian philosophy. Later vedāntins, used the concept of the Liṁga śarira to devise their own philosophy.[43]

The Liṁga śarira in Sāṁkhya which is of atomic size[44], consisted of three main attributes or products, mahat, ahaṁkāra and manas.

6.2 The 25 tattvas

The translating  of Sāṁkhya to mean enumeration, is well fitting, when it comes to describing the 25 elements of the system.

The 25 tattvas formulate the existence of the material world. Sāṁkhyans believe that creation is developed by unmanifested (avyakta) prakṛti, which develops its self into manifest (vyakta) prakṛti. This inturn than creates mahat, or buddhi as we popularly know it, which than formulates ahaṁkāra. From ahaṁkāra the 5 tanmātras, pancabhuta and manas is created. The manas than creates jnānaindriyas and karmendriyas.






(unmanifested matter/nature)



First principle of individuation, intelligence, discrimination












(illumined, lightness)

(stable, solid)



Manas (mind)

5 subtle elements (tanmātrā)



Form, sound, touch, taste, smell





5 cognitive senses – jnānaindriyas hearing, touching, seeing, tasting, smelling

gross element (pancabhuta)


Earth, Fire, Wind, Water and Space



5 Active intruments – karmendriyas speaking, holding, moving, proceating, excreting.

6.3 Puruṣas

The Puruṣa is an eternal entity in the realm of Sāṁkhya, it is devoid of all attributes  and character[45],rootless[46], devoid of motion[47], merit-demerit[48], witness, observer, non-doer, solitary.[49] Liberation befalls on him, who realises himself to be different from prakṛti.

6.3.1 Multiplicity of Puruṣas

Unlike Advaita Vedānta, Sāṁkhya believes in the multiplicity of souls/puruṣas. The sutras provide sound reasons as to why, multiplicity is a fact and in accordance with scriptures. Sutra 3.45 suggests that if the soul was only one, than the reason of the Vedas to suggest ‘who understands this, they are immortal’, would not be in accordance with scriptures. By the use of the word ‘they’, supports the import of multiplicity and not non-duality.

Another refutation by the Sāṁkhyans is if non-duality is supreme, why is then when one attains liberation, others (rest of the souls, who are non-dual) do not attain supreme felicity.

6.4 The theory of God

The concept of God is very much a later addition to the philosophy of Sāṁkhya. Early Sāṁkhya was very much reserved with the idea of God, Iśvara kṛṣṇa, an ardent Sāṁkhyan does not seem to mention the concept of God at all in his Sāṁkhyakārikā. It seems early Sāṁkhya till the time of vijñānabhikśu was mostly atheistic.

It is interesting to note that the Sāṁkhya sutras deny the exist of Iśvara and proclaim that the concept of Iśvara is only glorification of souls who are liberated or homages to the recognised deities of Hinduism.[50]

In various other places of the Sāṁkhya sutras, the concept of an eternal Iśvara is denied, the Sāṁkhyans believe that a Iśvara does exist but not eternally.[51]

In the final chapter of the sutras, verses 2-12 are dedicated in denying the existence of God.

Later Sāṁkhya, however develops into a very much theistic school, where puruṣa and prakṛti are modes of the one brahman. The purāṇas and mahābharat seem to play an influential role in changing the course of Sāṁkhya from non-theistic to theistic.

7. Seteriology – Sāṁkhya Liberation

Sāṁkhyans believe that the only reason of creation of this world is to assist in the puruṣas jouney in reaching liberation/kaivalya. Due to the fact that the individual identifies himself to the materialistic world, he loses his true nature as Puruṣa. This identification with the body is the root cause of all misery and it is the knowledge of the separateness of the spirit from vyakta Prakṛti.When he realises that he is Puruṣa, the untainted eternal reality, he wins salvation.

7.1 Jiva Mukti

Sāṁkhyans believe that even after attaining the true knowledge of Puruṣa, he may remain in the body to exhaust all of his karmas, without adding fresh karma.[52]

Puruṣa + Prakṛti = vyakta Prakṛti = identification with body = bondage

Puruṣa – Prakṛti = Salvation


Kapila and James Ballantyne., 1885. The Sankhya Aphorisms of Kapila With Illustrative Extracts From The Commentaries. Dehli, Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill

Klaus K. Klostermaier., 2000. Hinduism: A Short History. Oneworld Publications

Dr T.G. Mainkar., 2004. Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrsna with the commentary of Gaudapada. Dehli., Chaukhamra Sanskrit Pratishthan

V.J Roebuck., 2004, The Upanishads, London., Penguin Books Ltd

Swami Gambhirananda., Bhagavad Gita with the commentary of Sankaracarya. Advaita Ashram.

Kevin Burns., 2006. Eastern Philosophy: The Greatest Thinkers and Sages from Ancient to Modern Times. Enchanted Lion Books

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhuapada., 2005. Vedic Philosophy for student. Sri Sri Sitaram Seva Trust, New Dehli


A detailed summary of the Sāṁkhya sutras






Introduction to the main concepts


Refutation of Advaita


Refutation of Buddhism


Refutation of activity of soul e.g motion, merit – demerit


Bondage and Liberation described


Bondage is in the mind


Knowledge of the 25 elements inc. soul


Soul and Nature eternal and rootless


The tree of nature


Soul devoid of character, only nature has character


Refutation of Advaita and unreality of the world


Mimaṁsa refuted


Liberation from repeated births comes from discrimination between soul and nature




Refutation of Iśvara


Experience of nature, ignorance of soul, liberation of soul


Refutation of Nyāya


Mind etc non-eternal products


Soul is not the body, material, qualitive, it has not qualities or attributes


Multiplicity of souls, refutation of Advaita, all souls are similar, hence they are non-dual, description of soul



Creation is for removing pain, and knowing the soul


Products of elements, modifications


Soul abides in itself


Number of organs



Gross body derived from parents, subtle body (linga śarira) from creation.


Linga śarira has 17 products. 11 organs, 5 subtile elements and understanding


Linga śarira is atomic


Gross body made of either5/4/1elements


Knowledge gives salvation only through gross body and not the subtle


Liberation only comes through knowledge not action


Meditation/Yoga defined


Duty with dispassion


Creation is from discrimination from Brahmā to a post


In the higher regions, sattwa, middle, rājas and below tāmas, but everything is impermanent


Refutation of an eternal Lord


Matter is non-sentient


Nature effects him who is not realised


Bondage and Liberation do not effect soul, bondage only belongs to nature


7 ways prakṛti binds soul


Non-discrimination causes bondage


Renunciation leads to discrimination


Acceptance of Jivan mukti



Kings son – forester – King


Even if instructions were to another liberation is possible


Repitition of instruction


Examples of how liberation can be achived


Examples of discrimination



Refutation of Iśvara


Refutation of Nyāya and Vedānta (Advaita)


Refutation of Cārvaka philosophy (materialistic)


Discussion on Veda, supreme person, eternity of Vedas refuted


Non duality of soul rejected, advaita rejected.


Everything is non-eternal minus nature and soul


Liberation explained


Refutation of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika


Refutation of nihilists


Various types of gross bodies with elements


Three principle bodies


Refutation of God



Acceptance of Soul, different from body, aim


Description of discrimination and non-discrimination and bondage, souls aim


Meditation defined

32-33, 36, 40

Nature is the cause of all other products, all pervading, for the purpose of realisation


No creation took place for the realised souls


Multiplicity of souls admitted, Vedānta rejected


Self-consciousness is the agent not the soul


Creation etc are all in the mind


Aim of the soul


[1] śad darśan – nyāya, vaiseṣika, mimaṁsa, vedānta, saṁkhya, yoga
[2] Those which recognise an allegiance with the Vedas.
[3] sāṁkhya sutra 1.1.1
-ādhyātmika – due to one’s own self
-ādhibhautika – due to the products of the elements
-ādhidaivika – due to supernatural causes.
[4] cāndogya upaniṣad – 6.4.1, 7.26.2, 3.17.7, 1.3.1
[5] śvetāśvataropaniṣat 6.13
[6] cāndogya upaniṣad – 6.4.1, 7.26.2, 3.17.7, 1.3.1, kathā upaniṣad – 1.3.9-10
[7] bhagavad gita 18.13, 18.19
[8] bhagavad gita 2.39
[9] सम्यक् ख्यायते इति सांख्य
[10] That thou art – तत् त्वमसि – cāndogya upaniṣad 6.9.4
[11] Sāṁkhya tattva vilāsa.
[12] In the appendix section, I have  added the full summary of the Sāṁkhya sutras.
[13] According to Klostermaier this was around 250-325 A.D.
[14] Gaudapādācarya has also written a commentary on Iśvara kṛṣṇa’s Sāṁkhyakārika. According to Klostermaier this was around 700-750 A.D.
[15] The Sāṁkhya sutra 1.46 refutes the buddhist philosophy which is clearly asynchrous with the time chronology ofIndia history.
[16] The sutras also discuss importance of a teacher etc, which the kārikā leave aside as redundant.
[17] Sāṁkhyakārikā verse 70: एतत् पवित्रमग्र्यम् मुनिरासुरयेऽनुकम्पया प्रददौ। आसुरिरपि पञ्चशिखाय तेन१ बहुधा२कृतं तन्त्रम्॥ ७०।
[18] P.C.C. Lahore, II, pp 855-882.
[19] Gaudapādācarya in his commentary on the kārika, saṁkara (not śaṁkarācārya) in the jayamangalā etc.
[20] The yukti-dipikā seems to be a much older work on Sāṁkhya philosophy, the authors of the treatise are unknown but the work seems to be before 841 A.D. The yukti-dipikā also mentions Iśvara kṛṣṇa as Bhagawān Iśvara kṛṣṇa.
[21] Kevin Burns
[22] A work of 70 verses
[23] Sāṁkhyakārikā bhāṣya 69:       सांख्यं कपिलमुनिना प्रोक्तं संसारं विभुक्तिकारणं हि यत्रैताः सप्ततिरार्या भाष्यं चात्रा गौडपादकृतम
[24] Due to the fact, he has not commented on verse 70-73, which are normally included in the kārikā
[25] Dr. T. G. Mainkar., Sāṁkhyakārikā of Iśvara kṛṣṇa with the commentary of Gauḍapāda, pp 32-33.
[26] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.88, 1.98, 1.100, 1.101
[27] Sāṁkhya sutra 3.84
[28] doubtful
[29] Sāṁkhyakārikā 6
[30] Sāṁkhyakārikā 4
[31] Nyāya sutra 1.1.5
[32] Nyāya sutra 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 2.1.68
[33] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.75
[34] Sāṁkhya sutra 6.45
[35] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.19
[36] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.67
[37] Sāṁkhya sutra 3.53,  Sāṁkhya kārikā 10
[38] Sāṁkhya kārikā 15
[39] Sāṁkhya kārikā 14, Sāṁkhya sutra 3.59
[40] A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
[41] Sāṁkhya kārikā 13
[42] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.61
[43] Later vedāntins, used the idea and established the three bodied concept of astral (sukṣama), causal (kāraṇa) and gross body (sthula śarira).
[44] Sāṁkhya sutra 3.14
[45] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.54, 1.75
[46] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.67
[47] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.49
[48] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.52
[49] Sāṁkhya kārikā 19
[50] Sāṁkhya sutra 1.95
[51] Sāṁkhya sutra 3.57
[52] Sāṁkhya sutra 3.78-84


The copyright of the article Sāṁkhya darśan – The Theoretical School of Enumeration is owned by the Jigyasa Team. Permission to republish in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.


About Makwana

A student of Sanatan Vedic Dharma



  1. Pingback: Samkhya Karika with Commentary of Gaudapada « jigyāsā - March 23, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Blog Stats

  • 276,615 hits