Have any Buddhist thinkers responded to the critique of the Brahma Sutras? By far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, which almost all Hindus nowadays belong to, is the Vedanta school, which is based on an ancient Hindu work called the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras.  The Brahma Sutras consist of a series of aphorisms which summarize and systematize the philosophical teachings of a set of Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads.  They also spend some time defending the philosophy of the Upanishads against rival schools of Indian philosophy.  In particular, here is what they say concerning Buddhism:


  Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists    
  
  
  Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
  If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a
  successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each
  merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding.
  And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next
  in the series).
  (If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if
  you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the
  entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist
  simultaneously.
  Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there
  can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals
  forming the current).
  And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
  And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
  And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
  Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
  And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.
  
  
  Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted
  
  
  (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
  And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
  (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
  And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
  Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view.
  


My question is, have any Buddhist thinkers responded to this critique of Buddhism? Note that I don't want answerers to try responding to the critique themselves (which might lead to too much speculation and arguments).  I'm just interested in whether any published works have responded to it.

By the way, the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras are somewhat cryptic, so their meaning and justification are usually understood with the help of commentaries, like this one and this one.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You in Advance.

EDIT: Here is a book about the Brahma Sutras' critique of the Vedanta school.
I think Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is the work you are looking for. Just like Brahma-sutras does not mention specific Buddhist sutras it debates with, Mulamadhyamakakarika does not mention Brahma-sutras, but it does methodically address the same points.

As ancient texts go, Mulamadhyamakakarika is way too obscure to be brought in here and contrasted point by point, luckily the details of the polemics between the two commentary traditions are surveyed in the book you mentioned, a modern (1980s) work "An Evaluation of the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism". The author concludes (emphasis mine):


  In this work, an attempt has been made to compare the interpretations by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva of those sutras of the Vedantic texts, the Brahma-sutra, devoted to a refutation of Buddhism. An attempt has also been made to compare the interpretation by each Vedantic commentator of a particular Buddhist school's position with the actual Buddhist school's position as set forth in its own texts. It has been discovered that Buddhist positions were often distorted out of ignorance or deliberate intent, and that the Vedantic commentators proceeded to build their refutations of Buddhism on the basis of incorrect assumptions. It may have been the case that other matters were of more pressing concerns to the Vedantic commentators than the refutation of Buddhism. [...] In any case, however, it may be concluded that Buddhist positions have not been portrayed correctly in the Vedantic commentaries to the Brahma-sutra.


Another work that compares and contrasts Vedanta and Buddhism is Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche's essay "Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta". Instead of debating with Brahma-sutras it addresses Swami Vivekananda's claim that Buddhism was an offshoot of Vedanta. Although it does not directly address your question, the essay is very informative if you are interested in comparative studies:


  In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially Mahayana/Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a negative way of expressing what Hinduism has formulated positively. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common cultural matrix and therefore tend to use the same or similar words. Even though they share certain concepts like karma and re-incarnation, their interpretations differ. Hindu concepts of karma and reincarnation tend to be rather linear, whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratityasamutpada. [...] However, all similarities to Hinduism end there. The Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna and Candrakirti is by no means a negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanishad, Samkara and Vidhyaranya groups.