How do the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras refer to each other?

Question

The most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school, which bases its tenets on the doctrines laid out in the Brahma Sutras, a work by Vyasa which summarizes and systematizes the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. You can read the Brahma Sutras here; they consist of concise sayings that people often consider hard to understand without a commentary. In any case, near the end of the Adhyaya 2 Pada 3 of the Brahma Sutras, Vyasa says this:

(The individual souls are) parts of God because of the mention that they are different, also because some read otherwise of (Brahman’s) identity with fishermen, slaves, gamblers and others.

This follows from the words of the mantras also.

And this is also stated in the Smriti (Gita).

My question is about Sutra 45, which refers to the Bhagavad Gita. Note that the parenthetical mention of "Gita" was added by the translator; the Sanskrit just says "api smaryate" or "thus it is stated in the Smriti". (The Bhagavad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata, which is a Smriti text.) In any case, that Sutra is clearly referring to this verse of the Bhagavad Gita:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

This is confirmed in both Adi Shankaracharya's commentary the Brahmasutra Bhashya and in Ramanujacharya's commentary the Sri Bhashya. So this suggests that the Bhagavad Gita is older than the Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Now here is where things get weird. In another chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says this:

That knowledge of the ﬁeld of activities and of the knower of activities is described by various sages in various Vedic writings. It is especially presented in Vedānta-sūtra with all reasoning as to cause and effect.

Note that the translator says "Vedanta-Sutras", an alternate name for the Brahma Sutras, but in any case the Sanskrit says "Brahma Sutras". So to sum up, the Brahma Sutras refer to Bhagavad Gita, a text that refers back to the Brahma Sutras!

My question is, how is it possible for these two texts to have references to each other? Which text came first? Could it be that one or both of these references are interpolations? This web pages argues that they're not:

It might be argued that at least one text has had spurious insertions made into it to apparently refer to the other[.]... However, it is not found that the various rescensions of the Brahma-sUtra are different, with some not having the questionable references; all copies of the Brahma-sUtra as obtained from a variety of sources carry them. Moreover, considering the flow of the discourse in the Bhagavad-Gita and the Brahma-sUtra, it seems very unlikely that the references are spurious insertions; they fit in well with the general background of the discussion, and do not stand out as later insertions presumably would.

Here is webpage's alternate explanation:

[T]he same author could very well have written both works in any order; he could add a reference to an as-yet-unwritten text, knowing that he was going to write it, and also knowing what he was going to write in it.

There's one problem with this explanation though: Vyasa may have composed the Mahabharata as a whole, but Bhagavad Gita constitutes the words of Krishna himself on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. The Bhagavad Gita is part of the 8800-verse core of the Mahabharata Known as the Jaya, and as I discuss in this answer the Jaya is a record of Sanjaya's narration of the Mahabharata war to Dhritarashtra. So Vyasa did not insert any content into the Bhagavad Gita, and thus this wouldn't explain things if the Bhagavad Gita came after the Brahma Sutras

Could it be that Vyasa, being a Trikalanyani, knew what Krishna was going to say in the battlefield of Kurukshetra, or could it be that the Mahabharata war had already happened by the time of the composition of the Brahma Sutras, but Vyasa hadn't finalized the Mahabharata yet?

Please give the specific chapter and verses you are referring to in the Gita. You also say that it is confirmed in both Shankara's and Ramanuja's commentaries. Where specifically? Their comments on verse 45 you reference? — Swami Vishwananda, Dec 13 '14 at 10:34
@SwamiVishwananda I provided links to everything in my question. The Brahma Sutra line that refers to the Gita is listed as Adhyaya 2 Pada 3 Sutra 45 here: http://www.advaita.it/library/brahmasutras2.htm Adi Shankaracharya's commentary on this Sutra says "In the Îsvaragitâs (Bhagavad-gîtâ) also it is said that the soul is a part of the Lord, 'an eternal part of me becomes the individual soul in the world of life' (Bha. Gî. XV, 7)." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38046.htm — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 13 '14 at 16:18
@SwamiVishwananda And Ramanujacharya's commentary on this sutra says "Smriti moreover declares the individual soul to be a part of the highest Person, 'An eternal part of myself becomes the individual soul (gîva) in the world of life' (Bha. Gî. XV, 7)." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48290.htm And the Bhagavad Gita verse that references the Brahma Sutras is chapter 13 verse 5. — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 13 '14 at 16:21
The Brahma Sutra verse you reference is 2.3.44. When you look on sacred texts it only shows the verse number. Let me look at some commentators. — Swami Vishwananda, Dec 14 '14 at 08:27
btw, when referring to scripture you should always give the chapter and verse for your source texts. I very rarely use the internet for scriptural sources. Most translations on the internet are not so good. — Swami Vishwananda, Dec 14 '14 at 10:17
This is just my opinion Keshav. The Brahma Sutras say 'smriti' not Gita. The commentators are saying that Gita also supports this. (Note the word also in Shankaracharya's commentary and the 'For this reason also' in Ramanujacharya's commentary). They are using the Gita's verse to say that the Sutra verse is VALID. They are not meaning to say that the Sutra refers to the GITA section. Like saying 'even Einstein said the same thing about gravity so Newton's theory is right'. That does not mean Newton's theory was referring to Einstein's or vice versa. Same for the Brahma sutras. — Sai, Dec 16 '14 at 23:04
According to Shankaracharya's translation it is 'passages referring to Brahman' and there are passages for Upanishads. Ramanujacharya says the same thing. If he was implying that Sri Krishna is referrring only to Brahma Sutra, then Ramanujacharya would have explained the passage in his commentary only taking the brahma sutra. but let us see what he says in the entire commentary for that shloka by the Lord. — Sai, Dec 16 '14 at 23:10
Sri ramanuja uses sentences as follows "have been variously described by the rsis or holy sages such as Parasara and Vasistha." and "have been copiously expounded in various Vedic scriptures in numerous ways". Then he uses quotations from Vishnu Purana, Rig Veda, Taittirya Upanishad and Vedanta Sutras meaning he is using Brahma Sutras to support Gita and not that Gita is referring to the Brahma Sutras of Vyasa. So the two commentaries that you refer to according my opinion do not use the translation as referring to Vedanta Sutras. Thank you Sir :)! — Sai, Dec 16 '14 at 23:11
"They are using the Gita's verse to say that the Sutra verse is VALID." You have to distinguish between Sutras that are making claims and Sutras which provide evidence for those clsims; if Adi Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya had merely provided the Gita quote because they thought it supported the underlying claim "(The individual souls are) parts of God", then they would put it in their commentary of that earlier Sutra. Here what they're trying to do is to back up the Sutra which says that Smriti says it. — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 16 '14 at 23:22
@KeshavSrinivasan the use of the word 'also' in the commentary by SHankarachayra (he says 'In the Bhagavad gita also it is mentioned) and by Sri Ramanujacharya (he says 'for this reason also it must be believed) makes me believe that they were indeed using it to tell the reader, indeed it is mentioned in smritis, rather than indeed Vyasa was referring to the Gita. So yes they're backing up the Sutra by saying a smriti that says it, not the smriti that says it. Otherwise the word 'also' would have no meaning. Please do let me know of your thoughts. Also please read comment Brahma Sutras — Sai, Dec 16 '14 at 23:24
@Sai I think the "also" just refers to the fact that this Sutra is providing an additional piece of evidence for the claim made in the main Sutra which says "(The individual souls are) parts of God". In fact, that is why the Sutra itself says "api smaryate" - the "api" means "and also". — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 16 '14 at 23:29
@Sai In any case, this isn't the only reference in thr Brahma Sutra to the Bhagavad Gita. There is also Adhyaya 4 Pada 2 Sutra 21 here: http://www.advaita.it/library/brahmasutras2.htm "yoginah prati smaryate smarte caite" Both Adi Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya say that this reference to Smriti is about the Bhagavad Gita: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38301.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48536.htm — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 16 '14 at 23:45
@KeshavSrinivasan yes I understand I was just giving my opinion on that verse. I will look at the other verses and let you know what I get. But in any case coming to the other point I think there is no reference to the Vedanta Sutras by Sri Krishna according to the commentaries and translations. Please read those comments above (I posted three!) as well and let me know of your opinion. Thanks — Sai, Dec 16 '14 at 23:47
@KeshavSrinivasan also in Brahma Sutras there are multiple places where the word 'Smriti' is used and Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya both use Gita to support these claims. In most of the places it can be interpreted either way, either as support or like you say a direct reference to Gita. However one would think that Badrayana (who is also believed by some to be Lord Vyasa) would have used the word Krishna or Gita or a direct word rather than the more general 'Smriti' if He had referred to it. :) Please do read the other comments (I posted three!) above and let me know of your thoughts. — Sai, Dec 17 '14 at 00:10
@Sai The reason that Ramanujacharya discusses so many scriptures in his commentary on that Gita verse is that he is discussing the different parts of the verse; Krishna says that the knowledge conveyed in this chapter has been described previously by "rishibhir" (by the Rishis), "chandobhir" (by the Vedas), & "brahma sutra padais" (by Padas of Brahmasutras). To justify the first part he quotes the Vishnu Purana. To justify the second part he quotes the Taittirya Upanishad. And to justify the third part he quotes the actual Brahma Sutras. And note he says "It is also called the Sariraka Sutras" — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 17 '14 at 00:28
"However one would think that Badrayana (who is also believed by some to be Lord Vyasa) would have used the word Krishna or Gita or a direct word rather than the more general 'Smriti' if He had referred to it. :)." Well, that's the cryptic style that Vyasa adopts throughout the Brahma Sutras. (That's the style of Sutra texts in general.) For instance, instead of saying things like "this is confirmed by the Rig Veda", he just says "this is confirmed by Mantras." And by the way, I definitely believe Badarayana is the same as Vyasa; see here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48003.htm — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 17 '14 at 01:20
@KeshavSrinivasan It may be valid to think that he is referring to Krishna as specifically referring to the Sutras. But I believe rather the Great Saint is saying 'there are rishis who have said this (see proof)! there are vedas that mention this (see proof)! there are passages on Brahman that mention this (See proof)!' and not 'Sri Krishna is referring to these rishis ! Sri Krishna is referring to these Vedas ! Sri Krishna is talking about these Brahma Sutras!' I hope you understand my point. This is even clearer when taking Shankaracharya's commentary into consideration'. — Sai, Dec 17 '14 at 01:52
As for Badrayana's Brahma Sutras, Well I think he does use specifics when he wants to refer to someone or something (like this "as in the case of Vamadeva" in I.11.30) although not always. I find it much more meaningful to think of 'Smritis' as smritis than as Gita. The Gita would be in agreeance with the Sutras and the Sutras with the Geetha, for they both speak of the One. That does not mean they refer to each other. Finally for Badrayana and Vyasa Yes I do agree that many believe he is the same as Lord Vyasa (so do I) but there are many who don't! All the best! Thanks — Sai, Dec 17 '14 at 02:05
@Sai Yes, it's clear that Adi Shankaracharya does not believe it refers to the Brahma Sutras, which is why he quotes the Brihadaranyakopanishad when discussing the words "brahma sutra padais". But I think Ramanujacharya thinks Krishna is referring to the actual Brahma Sutras, because he says "It is also called Sariraka Sutras", which is a very specific term for the actual Brahma Sutras. And by the way, independent of commentaries it seems like Krishna is referring to the Brahma Sutras, because he says "hetumadbhir vinischitaih" - logic and evidence is the province of the actual Brahmasutras. — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 17 '14 at 02:26
@KeshavSrinivasan This is just my own speculation again, but He calls the Brahma-sutras shariraka-sutras because He has explained about the body and the embodied being (kshetra and kshetrajna) in the previous verses and is so saying that brahma sutras, which are famously called the Sariraka-Sutras (passages about embodied one) have described this. That proves the validity of the line that rishis, vedas and passages on Brahman talk about this. He is not at all implying that Sri Krishna is talking about the 'Sariraka Sutras'. Adi Shankaracharya's usage of the Upanishads is all the more reason. — Sai, Dec 17 '14 at 02:38
@Sai I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this :-) I'll just close by saying that I'm not the first person to notice this circularity of the Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita seeming to refer to each other. But it is of course possible that you're right and there is no actual circularity. Still, I would like to know, for those who interpret the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras such that they do refer to each other, how would such a person explain the circularity? — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 17 '14 at 02:56
@KeshavSrinivasan Independent of commentary, I think logic and reasoning is a quality of the verb describing. That is Sri Krishna says that there are many passages about Brahman where this embodied One principle is described logically and evidently. This is in accordance with the translation 'Sages have sung in many ways, in various distinctive chants and also in the suggestive words indicative of the Absolute, full of reasoning and decisive.' translated by The Great Master Sri Sivananda. There are many saints who do not believe that the shlokas refer specifically to the Sutras. — Sai, Dec 17 '14 at 02:59
@KeshavSrinivasan Ah I see. I just wanted to point out the view that it is possible that the two do not refer to each other at all which must be taken into consideration. Anyways good luck for the question. Hope you find a good answer! Take care and keep up the great work you have been doing keeping the SITE alive and kicking! All the best sir! — Sai, Dec 17 '14 at 03:02
@Sai By the way, you mentioned that the Brahma Sutras refer to a verse of Vamadeva in the Rig Veda. Coincidentally, I just asked a question about that exact same verse of Vamadeva: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/4050/36 — Keshav Srinivasan, Dec 20 '14 at 18:32
The premise of this question is inaccurate. Mahabharata is itihAsa not smRiti. smRiti comprises upavEdA, vEdAngA, shat darSanA, dharma SAstras. — , Jan 14 '15 at 01:01
@moonstar2001 No, the Puranas and Itihasas are also Smriti texts. And in this case, both Adi Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya say that this Sutra is referring to the Bhagavad Gita: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38046.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48290.htm — Keshav Srinivasan, Jan 14 '15 at 01:21

score 5 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 08:59

Bhagavad Gita is older than (or prior to) Brahma Sutra of Vedavyasa according to the Timeline of Hindu texts or say the chronology of Hindu texts.

Here is what Adi Shankaracharya said in his Bhasya on Bhagavad Gita verse 13.5:

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda

13.5 Gitam, It has been sung of, spoken of; bahudha, in various ways; rsibhih, by the Rsis, by Vasistha and others; sung prthak, separately; vividhaih, by the different kinds of; chandobhih, Vedic texts-chandas mean the Rg-veda etc; by them; ca, and; besides, hetumadbhih, by the rational; and viniscitaih, by the convincing, i.e. by those which are productive of certain knowledge-not by those which are in an ambiguous form; brahma-sutra-padaih eva, sentences themselves which are indicative of and lead to Brahman. Brahma-sutras are the sentences indicative of Brahman. They are called padani since Brahman is reached, known, through them. By them indeed has been sung the true nature of the field and the Knower of the field (-this is understood). The Self is verily known through such sentences as, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (Br. 1.4.7), which are indicative of and lead to Brahman.

So, the sentences which are indicative of and lead to Brahman are called Brahma-Sutra. The example of one Sutra/sentence which is indicative of and lead to Brahman is given as आत्मेत्येवोपासीत् from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.7.

So, ब्रह्मसूत्रपदै: (BG 13.5) may refer to the sentences (of Upanishads) which are indicative of and lead to Brahman, rather than Brahma Sutra of Vedavyasa.

Anubhav Jha · Answer 2 · 2018-01-24T17:36:25.987

Lord Krishna at one more place claims that he is the compiler of vedanta (makes sense as vyasa was an incarnation of Lord vishnu)

Here- Chapter 15: The Yoga of the Supreme Person

TEXT 15

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

SYNONYMS

sarvasya—of all living beings; ca—and; aham—I; hrdi—in the heart; sannivistah—being situated; mattah—from Me; smrtih—remembrance; jnanam—knowledge; apohanam ca—and forgetfulness; vedaih—by the Vedas; ca—also; sarvaih—all; aham—I am; eva—certainly; vedyah—knowable; vedanta-krt—the compiler of the Vedanta; veda-vit—the knower of the Vedas; eva—certainly; ca—and; aham—I.

TRANSLATION

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

So it's most likely that gita is referring back to brahma sutras.

Lord Krishna himself was God he could probably see future, after all to prove his divinity he showed "what there ever have and will be" to arjuna, he knew that he in form of vyasa will write the vedanta.

score 3 · Answer 3 · answered Dec 14 '14 at 11:25

3

The verse in the Gita (13.5) does not specifically refer to the 'Brahma Sutras'. Three different advaita sources use similar language for 13.5 (which is in some versions is 13.4 as there is in opening verse not included in all versions) - "All this has been sung by sages in many and different ways, in various distinctive hymns, and also in well reasoned and convincing passages indicative of Brahman." - There is no reference to the book 'Brahma Sutras' specifically in these versions.

Some of your confusion may be translation. The Sanskrit for this verse refers to brahma sutra, but the sanskrit is not to a specific book, but ALL sutras about Brahman (meaning samhitas, upanishads, etc.)

A Vashnavite version translation with several different Vashnavite commentators also refers in Sanskrit to brahma sutra in the verse 13.5, but the Vashnavite commentators do not refer to the 'Brahma Sutras' specifically in their translation and commentary to this verse. From the commentaries they seem to interpret the same verse as the advaita commentators and refer to Upanishads in their commentaries on this verse...

Only one version, the version by A.C. Bahktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON, does refer to the 'Brahma Sutras' in his translation of 13.5. He has in his version, Bhagavad Gita As It Is - "...-especially in the Vedanta-sutra-..." It would appear that this is a interpolation by him, not supported by either other Vashnavite or Advaita translations.

In his introduction to his translation of 'Brahma Sutra Sri Bhasya', Swami Vireswarananda refers to the text as 'Brahma-Sutras' or 'Sariraka-Sutras'. The same text also goes by the name of Vedanta Sutras and Vyasa Sutras.

Given all of the above, I do not think there is any reference in the Gita to the text we call the 'Brhama Sutras' specifically. There is no circular referral.

answered Dec 14 '14 at 11:25

Swami Vishwananda

24,140
2
34
78

1

Ramanujacharya clearly refers to the actual Brahma Sutras in his commentary on chapter 13 verse 5. "Also the Vedanta Sutra verses reveal in its sublimely concise aphorisms the nature of the brahman and its relationship with the Supreme Lord. It is also called the Sariraka Sutras because of its conclusive authoritative judgement on these esoteric topics. For example in Vedanta Sutra II.III.I beginning no viyadasruteh... Another example is seen in II.III.XVIII beginning utcrantigatyagatinam... But in verse II.III.XXXX beginning kritaprayatnapekshastu vihita pratisiddha..." – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 14 '14 at 16:26
Yes Sri Ramanuja does, but that is not your question. – Swami Vishwananda Dec 14 '14 at 16:30
1

The Sri Vaishnava commentary on this verse by Ramanujacharya, the Rudra Vaishnava commentary by Sridhara Swami, and the Kumara Vaishnava commentary by Kesava Kashmiri all refer to the actual Brahma Sutras: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-13-04.html I'm disputing your statement that "the Vashnavite commentators do not refer to the 'Brahma Sutras' specifically in their translation and commentary to this verse." – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 14 '14 at 16:31
On page 448 of Swami Krishnanda's Advaita commentary, concerning this verse he says "Rishis also sing of this knowledge in the Upanishads and the Vedas, and the Brahma Sutras are filled with logical pros and cons establishing the nature of this knowledge." See here: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bgita/bgita_38.html – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 14 '14 at 16:48
1

The online Vashnavite version with several commentaries is here - http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html. I have also done some more research. There are several that interpret the verse with the specific Brahma Sutra reference and several without. It would appear that the commentators and translators are divided as to the exact interpretation of the Sanskrit. As such, I think both are equally valid interpretations. To quote Anandagiri "A knower of Reality is never a slave of the Vedas. Whatever interpretation he gives to the Vedas is their true meaning." – Swami Vishwananda Dec 16 '14 at 05:49
bhagavad-gita.org is the same website I linked to in an earlier comment to show that the Vaishnava commentators all refer to specific Brahma Sutra quotes. In any case, if you think both are equally valid interpretations, then in the interpretation that makes the words "brahma sutra" refer to the actual Brahma Sutras, what would be the explanation as to how the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras can refer to each other? – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 16 '14 at 05:57
1

They are equally valid. But none of the great commentators, including those who use the term referring to the actual Brahma Sutras, have brought up anything in their commentaries as to there being a need for an explanation or that there is a conflict existing. If they saw no need for an explanation, who am I? – Swami Vishwananda Dec 18 '14 at 08:30

Pradip Gangopadhyay · Answer 4 · 2018-05-05T01:08:32.003

This is a very interesting question. Gita does refer to Brahma Sutra.

Rsibhir bahudha gitam chandobhir vividhaik prthak| brahma-sutra-padais caiva hetumadbhir viniscitaih

In many and different ways have the Rishis sung about this subject in metres of varying description. The well-reasoned and definite aphorisms of the Brahma-sutras too have discussed it.

Gita 13.4

The opposite is also true. Brahma Sutra also refers to the Gita. Here is one example.

And this is also stated in the Smriti (Gita).

Brahma Sutra II.III.45

This raises the interesting question about the relationship between the two texts, Gita and Brahma Sutra. Did the authors of the two texts know each other? Did the author of the Gita write parts of the Brahma Sutra? What does this mutual cross reference tell us about possible dates of the two texts?

I am posting excerpts from Swami Vireswarananda's detailed discussion, albeit speculative, on this question.

Moreover, that the Vedanta-Sutras were known to exist before Buddha can also be made out from the Gita. The date of the Gita and the original Mahabharata, of which the Gita is a part, can be fixed before the time of Buddha. Both of them are pre-Buddhistic, for they contain no reference to Buddha and Buddhism. Quotations from both are found in Bodhayana who belongs to 400 B.C. The language of the Gita also seems to belong to a period before Panini. He [Badararayana] is also conversant with epic characters.So we can well say that the Gita and the Mahabharata were known before Buddha. Now we find a clear reference to the Brahma Sutras, in Gita 13.4, where the word 'Brahma-Sutra-padaih' occurs. This is a definite reference to the Vedanta Sutras. .....Tilak argues in his Gita-Rahasya that the first half [of Gita 13.4] refers to teachings which are disconnected and unsystematic and therefore refers to the Upanishad, while the later half to something definite and logical - a difference that is clearly brought out by this stanza and therefore refers to the systematized thought in the Vedanta Sutras. Max Mueller too is of the opinion that the Vedanta-Sutras belong to an earlier period than the Gita and in the text just quoted he finds a clear reference to the recognized title of the Vedanta or Brahma-Sutras. Indian commentators on the Gita like Ramayana, Madhva and others identify the Vedanta-Sutras in this passage of the Gita.

But if the Vedanta-Sutras be of an earlier date than the Gita, how could it contain references to the Gita? In Sutras 2.3.45 and 4.2.21 all the commentators quote the same text of the Gita, and there seems to be no doubt that they are right. These cross references show that the author of the Gita had a hand in the present recension of the Sutras. This is made clear by the rejection of the four-fold Vyuha of the Bhagavatas both by the Gita and the Sutras and the great predominance given to the Samkhya school in both. The Gita accepts the Samkhya view of creation but modifies it to some extent and makes the Pradhana subservient to the Supreme Brahman which is non-dual. In the Vedanta-Sutras also the author refutes the dualism of the Samkhyas. Otherwise he has no objection in accepting the Pradhana or Prakrti as a principle dependent on the supreme Lord (vide 1.4.2-3). Sankara in his Bhasya on these Sutras makes this quite clear.

From what has been said above we find that there are strong grounds for believing that the Vedanta-Sutras must have existed before Buddha and that if Badarayana and Veda-Vyasa are not one and the same person as tradition holds, the latter must have had a hand in the present recension of the Sutras, though it is very difficult to say to what extent - whether it was by way of merely revising the original Sutras of Badarayana or writing them down in toto after the teachings of Badarayana.

Brahma Sutras according to the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya translated by Swami Vireswarananda

This is just.posting the pasaage please make clear.if they refer each other or.not with verses.and bold the important points — Rakesh Joshi, May 04 '18 at 20:54

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Oct 23 '15 at 14:33

Vysa (Krishna Dwaipayana) is referred to avatara of the supreme, Krishna is also one of the avatara of the supreme. Thats the reason there is a reference of Gita in Vedanta Sutra and vice-versa. For the same reason, all the vedanta school acharyas followed Parasthanatrayam (Three superior pranamanas (authority)) namely Vedas including upanishads, Brahma sutras, and Bhagavath Gita.

How do the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras refer to each other?

5 Answers5

Linked