Ryan,

I'm aware of the practice of different writers contributing to a text in the name of the original author, sometimes over extended periods of time. Regarding multiple people with the same name teaching similar material in the same religious tradition, if you know of other instances, then I'll have to take your word for it. I think it's unlikely in the case of Kapila. It's more likely that the legendary figure was based on the actual historical figure.

I should point out that the Srimad Bhagavatam refers to Kapila in the third person. While statements are attributed to Kapila, there is no doubt that the author is someone else. On the other hand, the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is supposed to be the work of Kapila himself. Since that work was said to be lost for many centuries, it seems unlikely that there would be other writers contributing to it in the name of Kapila. Also there would not have been much motivation to do so, considering that the Samkhya Karika was used as the primary source during that time.

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are a good example of a case where it is thought that several authors may have contributed to the work. But in that case, it appears seamless and takes an expert to spot the differences. In this case we are talking about two different works and obvious conflicts between them.

There are those in positions of authority who say that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram was a later work, claiming that the commentator Vijnana-Bhiksu was the author. But it seems fairly obvious even to a non-academic lay person like myself that the original work pre-dates Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the Samkhya-Karika, the Srimad Bhagavatam, and the Bhagavad-Gita. One has to wonder about the motivations of those who claim that this is not so.

Incidentally, the Samkhya-Karika is faithful to the original work, even though it is very much condensed. Although it has been attributed to Krishna, there is substantial doubt that he was the real author.

Sam