My 2 cents on the controversies regarding authorship of विवेकचूडामणिः (vivekacūḍāmaṇiḥ - crest jewel of discrimination)

While only श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda) would probably be the final authority on whether he was the author of विवेकचूडामणिः (vivekacūḍāmaṇiḥ - crest jewel of discrimination) (and similar texts under controversy on his authorship). While traditional orthodoxy including the long list of great आचार्य परंपरा (ācārya paraṃparā – preceptor lineage) from the last 2000+ years of पञ्चास्य मठ संप्रदायाः (pañcāsya maṭha saṃpradāyāḥ - fivefold monastic traditions) established by the जगत्गुरु (jagatguru – global preceptor) Himself. This list includes many मुख्य आचार्याः (mukhya ācāryāḥ - chief preceptors) starting from his trusted अनन्तर शिष्याः (anantara śiṣyāḥ - direct disciples) like श्री पद्मपादाचार्य (śrī padmapādācārya) & श्री सुरेश्वराचार्य (śrī sureśvarācārya) etc., upto the more recent ones viz. His Holiness श्री चन्द्रशेखरेन्द्र सरस्वती (śrī candraśekharendra sarasvatī) & श्री चन्द्रशेखर भारति (śrī candraśekhara bhārati) who were lovingly called as the Sage of Kānci, & Sage of Sringeri respectively.

Let us now ask ourselves, how many of them in this honorable list were actually disputing i.e., were  denying/doubting the authorship of विवेकचूडामणिः (vivekacūḍāmaṇiḥ - crest jewel of discrimination) ascribed to श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda)?

Please remember that this long and rich tradition of subject matter experts, were not only upholders of the केवलाद्वैत संप्रदाय (kevalādvaita saṃpradāya – absolute nondualstic tradtion) but were also अनुष्टाण अद्वैतिनः (anuṣṭāṇa advaitinaḥ - practicing nondualists) through their thought, word and deeds. In fact, many of them were ब्रह्मज्ञान जिवन्मुक्ताः (brahmajñāna jivanmuktāḥ - spiritually enlightened living liberates) as testified by their life histories.

Moreover, the rich tradition of many other eminent मुख्य  अद्वैत आचार्याः (mukhya advaita ācāryāḥ - chief preceptors of nonduality) and their establishments belonging to last two centuries viz. Bhagavān Śrī Ramana Mahaṛṣi (& Ramanāśram), Bhagavān Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṃsa (Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Mission/Mutt) and Swāmi Chinmayānanda (& Chinmayānanda Mission)  etc. have also consistently ascribed the authorship of the text to श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda).

For example, Bhagavān Śrī Ramana Mahaṛṣi in his famous introductory summary of the text, very clearly states thus: “Every being in the world yearns to be always happy and free from the taint of sorrow, and desires to get rid of bodily ailments, etc., which are not of its true nature. Further, everyone cherishes the greatest love for himself, and this love is not possible in the absence of happiness. In deep sleep, though devoid of everything, one has the experience of being happy. Yet, due to the ignorance of the real nature of one’s own being, which is happiness itself, people flounder in the vast ocean of material existence, forsaking the right path that leads to happiness, and act under the mistaken belief that the way to be happy consists in obtaining the pleasures of this and the other world. Unfortunately, however, there is no such happiness which has not the taint of sorrow. It is precisely for the purpose of pointing out the straight path to true happiness that Lord Shiva, taking on the guise of Sri Shankaracharya, wrote the commentaries on the Triple Canon [Prasthana Traya] of the Vedanta, which extols the excellence of this bliss; and that he demonstrated it by his own example in life. These commentaries, however, are of little use to those ardent seekers who are intent upon realising the bliss of liberation but have not the scholarship necessary for studying them. It is for such as these that Sri Shankara revealed the essence of the commentaries in this short treatise, The Crown Gem of Discrimination [Vivekachudamani], explaining in detail the points that have to be grasped by those who seek liberation, and thereby directing them to the true and direct path.”

Similarly, His Holiness Swāmi Chinmayānanda unequivocally declares, “Vedanta is truly the Science of Life. Sri Shankara, the great interpreter of Vedanta, not only gave us his commentaries on the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita, but also many primary texts which introduce the seeker to the joys of Vedanta. One of the greatest texts he has written as an introduction to Vedanta, is the Viveka Choodamani, which means, ‘The Crest-Jewel of Discrimination.”

Again, Swami Madhavānanda of RKM order in the foreword of his famous translation has clearly stated “Being an original production of Sankara’s genius, the book...” Similarly, श्री चन्द्रशेखर भारति (śrī candraśekhara bhārati) in his famous commentarial work on the sacred text explains “In the realm of religion Sri Samkara is a great revivalist…all these stemmed from the philosophy of Advaita which he taught as the central truth of the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita known as Prasthana Traya of Indian Philosophy…The study of these prasthanatraya-bhashyas require profound knowledge of Samskrit and proficiency in Vyakarana, Nyaya and Mimamsa and in Veda adhyayana…But Sri Bhagavatpada realized that not all will be thus qualified. Intending to instruct such persons in the truth of Advaita Vedanta, he wrote what are called as prakarana granthas in verse and prose varying from a single sloka to a thousand. The more important among these are the Satasloki, Sarva Vedanta Sara Sangraha, the Upadesa Sahasri and the Vivekachudamani…”

However, authorship of विवेकचूडामणिः (vivekacūḍāmaṇiḥ - crest jewel of discrimination) which has always been traditionally (as testified by above saint-scholars) ascribed to श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda), has been questioned by some modern day academic scholars and professors (predominantly from Western world) like Daniel Ingalls, Michael Coman, A. J. Alston etc.  Please remember that with all due respects, we should realize that most of these scholars are more academicians rather than practicing saints. So their modus operandi for their speculations regarding the authorship is confined to mortal intellectual means of linguistic, philosophic textual analysis – technically called as अपर विद्या (apara vidyā – mundane  / lower knowledge), (with very few honorable exceptions like His Holiness Śrī Satcitānanda Sarasvatī) unlike the case of those on the other side of the table, wherein the advocates include ब्रह्मज्ञान जिवन्मुक्ताः (brahmajñāna jivanmuktāḥ - spiritually enlightened living liberates).

As ordinary seekers like many of us take sides one way or the other based on our personal intellectual bias towards one of these postulates. We also take a boolean approach that if we consider प्रस्थानत्रयी भाष्यानि (prasthānatrayī bhāṣyāni – commentaries on triple sources) authored by श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda) are (seemingly) bordering on ज्ञानमार्ग (jñānamārga – wisdom path) is appears to be inconsistent his other works which seems to be focusing on other मार्गाः (mārgāḥ - paths) viz.

विवेकचूडामणिः (vivekacūḍāmaṇiḥ - crest jewel of discrimination), योगसूत्रभाष्य विवरण (yogasūtrabhāṣya vivaraṇa) etc. touching upon topics of समाधि (samādhi - atonement) etc. pertaining to योग मार्ग (yoga mārga – path of communion)

·        श्री सौन्दर्यलहरी (śrī saundaryalaharī), श्री सुब्रह्मण्यभुजङ्गम् (śrī subrahmaṇyabhujaṅgam) etc., touching upon topics pertaining to भक्ति मार्ग (bhakti mārga – path of devotion), कुमालिनी  योग (kuņďalinī yoga - biomagnetic union) etc.

 But IMHO, the inconsistencies are more superficial... as wisdom is an ocean of spiritual continuum. Truth is one. Moreover, we also we have evidence that आचार्याः (ācāryāḥ - preceptors) like आचार्य श्री वाचस्पति मिश्र (ācārya śrī vācaspati miśra) and आचार्य श्री विज्ञानभिक्षु (ācārya śrī vijñānabhikṣu) have written भाष्यानि (bhāṣyāni – commentaries) across multiple seemingly desperate दर्शनानि (darśanāni - philosophies) including न्याय (nyāya), सांख्य (sāṃkhya),योग (yoga) & वेदान्त (vedānta) etc. It is the same आचार्य श्री वाचस्पति मिश्र (ācārya śrī vācaspati miśra) who wrote respective commentaries like तात्पर्यटीका (tātparyaṭīkā), सांख्यतत्त्वकौमुदि (sāṃkhyatattvakaumudi), योग तत्त्व वैशारदि (yoga tattva vaiśāradi), शारीरक भाष्य भामति (śārīraka bhāṣya bhāmati) for each of those schools. Just because these भाष्यानि (bhāṣyāni – commentaries) focus on different दर्शनानि (darśanāni - philosophies), it does not mean, they were not written by the same person – in this case आचार्य श्री वाचस्पति मिश्र (ācārya śrī vācaspati miśra).  

Moreover, even if we take the huge corpus of अपौरुषेय शब्द (apauruṣeya śabda – superhuman logos) viz. वेद /श्रुति संहित (veda śruti saṃhita – Vedic corpus) including the ऋग् मन्त्र (ṛg mantra), यजुर् मन्त्र (yajur mantra), साम मन्त्र (sāma mantra) & अथर्व मन्त्र (atharva mantra) and their corresponding उपनिषदः (upaniṣadaḥ - upanishads).  In fact, if one looks superficially, even within each उपनिषदः (upaniṣad - upanishad) there could be potential areas of seeming inconsistences between the श्रुति वाक्याः (śruti vākyāḥ - revelatory statements) apparently seeming to favor one वेदान्त दर्शन (vedānta darśana – Vedanta philosophy) say केवलाद्वैत (kevalādvaita – absolute nonduality), over the others viz. विशिष्टाद्वैत (viśiṣṭādvaita – qualified nonduality) and द्वैत (dvaita - duality), or even the other way round. Same logic applies to ब्रह्म सूत्र (brahma sūtra) & श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता (śrīmad bhagavadgītā). Again, in these scriptures, there are sections where भक्ति मार्ग (bhakti mārga – path of devotion) seems to predominate over ज्ञान मार्ग (jñāna mārga – path of knowledge), योग मार्ग (yoga mārga - path of yoga) & कर्म मार्ग (karma mārga – path of servitude). Citing such reasons, can we say these texts are inconsistent? Just because different chapters of श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता (śrīmad bhagavadgītā) give predominance to different मार्गाः (mārgāḥ - paths), can we conclude that it is not the उपदेश (upadeśa - teaching) of the same भगवान् श्री कृष्णपरमात्म (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇaparamātma) as there are seeming inconsistencies across chapters or can we conclude it cannot be the authored by श्री व्यास महऋषि (śrī vyāsa mahaṛṣi)?

   I think all of us will agree that if we take a holistic deep dive and connect the dots, these superficial inconsistencies will give way to integral synergies. For after-all, the waves of inconsistencies are only at the superficial level and once we deep dive into the depths of the ocean beds, the highs and lows of the waves vanish and sameness prevails.

In my humble opinion, the same logic applies to the works of our revered saints as well. The main problem is we tend to judge the works of saints also with a Boolean lenses (if 1 it cannot be 0, if 0 it cannot be 1. We assume that if a saint is a ब्रह्म ज्ञानि (brahma jñāni), he cannot be a ब्रह्म योगि (brahma yogi) or a ब्रह्म भक्त (brahma bhakta).  However, life histories of saints have proven otherwise.

Let us take some recent examples, it was Bhagavān Śrī Ramana Mahaṛṣi who has given us highest form of ज्ञानमार्ग उपदेश (jñānamārga upadeśa – teaching of wisdom path) through his நான் யார் (nān yār - Who Am I)?” and உள்ளது நாற்பது (uḻḻadu nārpadu – forty verses of reality). At the same time, it is the same Bhagavān Śrī Ramana Mahaṛṣi who blessed us with his mystical outpourings of highest devotional trance through his poems like the அக்ஷரமணமாலை (akṣaramaṇamālai  - Marital Garland of Letters). Again, it is the same Bhagavān Śrī Ramana Mahaṛṣi who gave discourses on योग (yoga), ध्यान (dhyāna) & समाधि  (samādhi).

 Similarly, Bhagavān Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṃsa considered to be one of the greatest अद्वैतिन् (advaitin - nondualist) in recent times, was also a परम भक्त (parama bhakta – supreme devotee) of देवी श्री काली (devī śrī kālī) and was a seamless practitioner of सादनाः (sādanāḥ - techniques) pertaining to तन्त्र (tantra – tantra), योग (yoga – yoga) as well as वेदान्त (vedānta – vedanta). Again, Swami Vivekananda, his chief disciple, was also an accomplished ज्ञानिन् (jñānin – enlightened one) & योगिन् (yogin – yogi) and has written in detail about all the चतुर् मार्गाः (catur mārgāḥ - four paths).

Hence, from these testimonies, it is clear that, works of saints are not based on a general boolean algorithm but rather are based on quantum computing algorithms (superposition values). Just because one observes that there are seeming inconsistencies across the different works of a saint, we cannot jump to the conclusion that these texts are not the works of the saint. The inconsistencies observed are only superficial and once we deep-dive, we can connect the dots and appreciate the holistic picture.

All the मार्गाः (mārgāḥ - paths) are not watertight boolean compartments (variables) but rather are like quantum computing variables where more than one value can be superimposed simultaneously (1 & 0 can co-exist). In fact, that is the very essence of South Indian temple architectural symbology wherein every temple has चतुर् द्वाराः (catur dvārāḥ - four gates) corresponding to चतुर् मार्गाः (catur mārgāḥ - four paths) and from the perspective of मूल विग्रह (mūla vigraha – presiding deity) all paths are same