Modern engagement with the Brahma Sūtras unfolds along several distinct yet overlapping paths. Many readers still approach the text through the great traditional commentaries of Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and others, treating each bhāṣya as revealing a coherent philosophical system—Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita—already latent in the terse aphorisms. At the same time, a strong critical-historical current views the Sūtras as a relatively early attempt to systematize diverse Upaniṣadic teachings, generally placed after the principal Upaniṣads and before the fully formed sectarian Vedānta schools. Within this line of study, the work is often seen as “pre-sectarian,” with later non-dual, qualified non-dual, or dualistic readings regarded as creative elaborations rather than the original standpoint of the text itself.

Academic interpreters frequently treat the Brahma Sūtras less as a self-contained creed and more as a sophisticated guide to reconciling apparently conflicting scriptural passages. From this angle, the text functions in a manner akin to Mīmāṃsā, laying down rules of hermeneutics and methods of argument rather than spelling out a single, unambiguous doctrine. Historical and philological analysis has highlighted the extreme compression and ambiguity of the aphorisms, which allows different schools to unfold them in divergent ways while still claiming fidelity to the Upaniṣads. Some scholars even speak of the Sūtras as an intentionally open framework, whose polyvalent character authorizes multiple Vedāntic visions rather than prescribing only one.

Within Advaita circles, Śaṅkara’s commentary has long been treated as the classical lens, and many modern thinkers have read the Sūtras as fundamentally non-dual in spirit. Neo-Vedāntic figures draw on this heritage to present a universalist, experiential Advaita, emphasizing spiritual realization over ritual or sectarian boundary-marking, and seeking to harmonize the text with modern rational inquiry. At the same time, philosophically minded Advaita scholars carefully distinguish between what the aphorisms explicitly state and what Śaṅkara’s interpretive genius adds, noting where his non-dualism may move beyond the literal wording of the Sūtras.

Other Vedānta traditions likewise claim the Brahma Sūtras as their own scriptural foundation. Viśiṣṭādvaita interpreters argue that the aphorisms presuppose a personal Brahman, with the world and selves as real modes of that ultimate reality, and that this qualified non-dualism fits the Sūtras and Upaniṣads more naturally than radical non-dualism. Dvaita scholars, for their part, stress passages that, in their reading, affirm a real and enduring difference between God, individual souls, and the world, taking the refutation of rival views within the text as evidence for a robust theistic realism. From this perspective, the Sūtras are seen as affirming a personal, omnipotent Lord and a hierarchically ordered plurality of selves.

Beyond these intra-Vedāntic debates, many modern philosophers approach the Brahma Sūtras as a resource for systematic metaphysics and philosophy of religion. Through the major commentaries, they explore questions about the nature of Brahman, the status of the world, the character of selfhood and consciousness, and the means of valid knowledge. Comparative work places these discussions alongside Western idealism, personal theism, and other metaphysical traditions, while also examining the Sūtras’ subtle methods of scriptural interpretation. Across these varied readings, the text emerges less as a closed doctrinal code and more as a dense, generative seed from which multiple, rigorous spiritual philosophies can legitimately grow.