Bhagavad Gita Brahma Sutras and Upanishads – 1

Vedanta study series — Part 1 of 4. Part 1 introduces the relationship between the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads, beginning with the question of action.

Teaching standpoint: This series explores an Advaita interpretation and uses contemporary analogies to connect the texts with James Traverse’s teaching. These summaries are not literal quotations from particular sutras; other Vedanta traditions interpret the texts differently.

The Bhagavad Gita brings self-knowledge into the question of action. Life calls for response; the inquiry concerns the understanding and identification from which that response proceeds.

The Core Meaning: Existence as Action

In James’s practical formulation: You exist; now you have to act. The question is: How to act? This concerns the embodied individual’s life; it does not attribute action to Ātman.

Krishna explains to Arjuna that no one can remain inactive for even a moment. Even “doing nothing” is a choice—an action of the mind. Once you acknowledge “I exist,” you are already participating in the machinery of the universe (Prakriti).

• The Inevitability of Duty: Because you are part of the cosmic fabric, you have a function to perform, just as the sun must shine or the wind must blow. This is your Svadharma (inherent nature/duty).
• The Problem of Attachment: We suffer not because we act, but because we try to “own” the results of those actions.
• The Practice: Nishkama Karma invites action without clinging to a personal reward. Such action can prepare the mind for inquiry; it does not manufacture liberation.

The Connection: The Triple Foundation (Prasthanatrayi)

To see how the Gita fits into the larger puzzle of Indian philosophy, we must look at the Prasthanatrayi. These are the three canonical nodes of the Vedanta school.

Defining The Brahma Sutras

The Brahma Sutras are traditionally attributed to Badarayana, associated in the tradition with Vyasa. They examine the meaning and consistency of the Upanishadic teaching through systematic argument. Calling them a framework of reasoning does not make this a modern experimental science.

1. The Purpose: Reconciliation

Upanishadic passages can seem to offer conflicting descriptions. The Brahma Sutras examine how they are to be understood together. This series follows an Advaita interpretation; it does not claim that all Vedanta commentators reach identical conclusions.

2. The Format: Aphorisms (Sutras)

A “Sutra” is a thread—a very short, pithy statement designed to be memorized. For example, the very first Sutra is:

“Athato Brahma Jignasa” (Therefore, now, let us inquire into the Ultimate Reality.)

Because these statements are so brief, they are almost impossible to understand without a commentary (Bhashya). The greatest philosophers in history, such as Shankara and Ramanuja, wrote massive books just to explain these short lines.

3. The Content: Defining Brahman

The text methodically defines Brahman (The Absolute) as the source, the sustenance, and the end of the universe. It uses logic to refute rival schools of thought (like materialism or nihilism) and explains how the soul travels after death, the nature of liberation, and the relationship between the individual and the Infinite.

Brahma Sutras Regarding: The Soul and The Body

In the Advaita interpretation explored here, inquiry distinguishes Ātman from the changing body and mind. The following arguments are teaching summaries for reflection, rather than literal translations of particular sutras.

Here are three ways to approach that distinction:

1. The Argument from Consciousness (Caitanyam)

In this inquiry, the body is known as an object (Drishya); the question turns toward the Awareness because of which it is known.

• The Inquiry: A camera can record an image. The contemplative question is what it means for an image or a sensation to be known. In Advaita, Ātman points to Awareness, rather than another object among the body’s parts.
• The Conclusion: The “Subject” (the I) can never be the “Object” (the body).

2. The Argument from Purpose (Pararthatva)

A house or chariot can serve as an analogy for the relationship between an instrument and its user. The analogy invites inquiry; it is not by itself a proof of the Self.

• The Logic: Any complex assembly—like a house or a chariot—exists for the sake of someone else (the resident or the passenger). The body is a complex assembly of organs and senses.
• The Limit of the Analogy: Do not turn Ātman into a small person operating the body. The individual’s use of an instrument belongs to the practical standpoint; Awareness is not another object inside the form.

3. The “Unchanging” vs. The “Changing”

Recognition offers another question: what is known as changing, and what does the word “I” refer to?

• The Inquiry: Bodily sensations, thoughts and memories change. The thought “I am the same person” is also known. Can we distinguish that personal description from the Awareness because of which it is evident?
• The Advaita Distinction: Ātman names Awareness, not a material substance inferred from an unchanged personality. Self-knowledge concerns what “I” truly means.

How this connects back to the Gita’s “Duty of Existence”

In everyday life, the individual acts, makes choices and meets their consequences. Advaita distinguishes this practical standpoint from Ātman, the Awareness that is not itself an actor. The inquiry does not remove responsibility; it examines the identification through which action becomes “my” claim to a separate existence. You exist; life calls for response. The practical question remains: How to act?

1. The Advaita Inquiry: Distinguish changing experience from Ātman, the Awareness because of which experience is known.
2. The Gita’s Practical Question: How can the individual respond with care without clinging to action as a source of personal completion?
3. The Connection: Responsibilities belong to everyday life. Ātman is not sent on a journey back to a Source from which it has become separated.

Key Takeaway: Practical responsibility and the actionlessness of Ātman are different teaching standpoints. Understanding one should not erase the other.

Connection with the Upanishads

The relationship between the two is so close that the Gita is traditionally called “Gitopanishad” (The Upanishad of the Gita).

1. The Cow and Milk Analogy

The most famous traditional verse (from the Gita Mahatmya) explains their connection using a beautiful metaphor:

“All the Upanishads are the cows, the milker is Krishna, the calf is Arjuna, and the milk is the nectar of the Gita.”

In this view, the Upanishads are the vast, raw source of wisdom, and the Gita is the concentrated, digestible essence of that wisdom.

2. Practical vs. Theoretical

The Upanishads are often abstract and were historically taught in the quiet of a forest (the word Upanishad means “sitting down near” a teacher). They focus on the nature of the Atman (individual soul) and Brahman (universal reality). The Gita takes these same concepts—such as the immortality of the soul—and applies them to a battlefield, proving that spiritual wisdom isn’t just for monks, but for people facing real-world stress.

3. Shared Concepts

The Gita directly quotes or paraphrases many verses from the Upanishads, particularly the Katha Upanishad. For example:

• The Self and the Individual: The teaching distinguishes the unborn Self from accounts of the individual taking another body. The Gita’s clothing analogy at 2.22 belongs to the latter discussion; Ātman is not a travelling object.
• The Chariot Metaphor: Both use the imagery of a chariot to represent the human condition, where the horses are the senses, the mind is the reins, and the Charioteer is the higher Intellect/God.

4. Part of the “Prasthanatrayi”

The Prasthanatrayi, the Three Foundations, are central to Vedanta study and its commentarial traditions:

1. The Upanishads (The revealed truth/Shruti).
2. The Brahma Sutras (The logical foundation).
3. The Bhagavad Gita (The practical application/Smriti).

The Gita serves as the bridge that connects the high-altitude philosophy of the Upanishads to the everyday actions of a human being.

Deep Connections

To dive deeper into the connection between these three, we have look again at how they form a single “nervous system” for Indian thought known as the Prasthanatrayi (The Triple Canon).

If the Upanishads are the inspiration, and the Brahma Sutras are the logic, the Gita is the actual lived experience.

1. The Relationship of Authority (Shruti vs. Smriti)

The connection starts with their “rank” in spiritual literature:

• The Upanishads (Shruti – “That which is heard”): These are considered the direct “revelation” of the universe. They are the highest authority. However, they are often cryptic, poetic, and scattered across different Vedic branches.
• The Bhagavad Gita (Smriti – “That which is remembered”): The Gita is technically “secondary” authority because it is part of an epic (The Mahabharata). However, it is called the “Milk” of the Upanishads. It takes the “Heard” truths and turns them into “Remembered” instructions for a person in crisis.
• The Brahma Sutras (Nyaya — Reasoning): Examine scriptural meaning and apparent contradictions through argument within the teaching tradition. Reasoning assists the inquiry; it is not a replacement for the Upanishadic teaching.

2. The Bridge: From “Being” to “Doing”

The deepest connection lies in how they handle your existence.

• Upanishadic Core: Focuses on Being. The famous “Great Sayings” (Mahavakyas) like Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art) tell you what you are (the eternal Atman).
• Gita’s Core: Brings the teaching into action, relationship and responsibility. Action concerns the individual; it does not make limitless Ātman an actor.
• The Existential Link: Practical agency belongs to the individual’s standpoint; Ātman is not itself an actor. Self-knowledge clarifies this distinction while responsibility remains meaningful in everyday life.

The image of a cell within a body can help us consider relationship and responsibility. It is a teaching image, not a division of Brahman into pieces. Ātman names the truth of the individual; Brahman names limitless Reality. The two terms provide different teaching standpoints without establishing two Awarenesses. Source and how it appears are not-two.

3. Direct “Creative Remixes”

The connection is often literal. Lord Krishna frequently “remixes” verses from the Katha Upanishad to explain the nature of the soul to Arjuna.

4. The Brahma Sutras as the “Systematizer”

The Brahma Sutras are vital because the Upanishads can be confusing. One Upanishad might say “All is One,” while another implies a “God” separate from the “Soul.”

The Brahma Sutras reconcile this by categorizing the teachings:

1. Samanvaya (Harmony): Examines the common reference of the Upanishadic teaching to Brahman.
2. Avirodha (Non-conflict): Refutes logical objections (like the ones Arjuna raises about why he should have to fight).
3. Sadhana (Practice): Examines preparation, meditation and knowledge. The Gita also explores practice through several yogas.
4. Phala (Fruit): Examines liberation. In this Advaita reading, “becoming Brahman” points to recognizing what is already the case, rather than producing a new Self.

Analogy: The Flow of Wisdom

If you think of spiritual knowledge as water:

1. The Upanishads are the clouds (The high, ethereal source).
2. The Brahma Sutras are the plumbing (The logical structure that directs the water).
3. The Bhagavad Gita is the glass of water (The practical portion you can actually drink to quench your thirst).

Summary: The Integrated Circuit

• Upanishads: Provide the Vision (The Soul exists).
• Brahma Sutras: Examine the understanding through systematic reasoning within Vedanta.
• Bhagavad Gita: Brings the inquiry into responsible action and everyday life.

Go To Part II

Further Reading

• The True Nature of Being
• BREATHE Course: Seven Parts of Non-Dual Inquiry

For the distinction between agency and the Self, see Sivananda’s commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.3.40. For preparation, self-knowledge and liberation, see Chapter 3, Section 4, particularly 3.4.26 and 3.4.52. Read the arguments together with their replies.