नात्मा, आश्रुतेर्नित्यत्वाच्च ताभ्यः ॥ १७ ॥
nātmā, āśruternityatvācca tābhyaḥ || 17 ||
na—Is not (produced); ātmā—the individual self; āśruteḥ—not being (so) mentioned by the scriptures; nityatvāt—being eternal; ca—also; tābhyaḥ—from them (Srutis);
17. The individual self is not (produced), (for it is) not (so) mentioned by the scriptures ; also (on account of its) being eternal, (for so it is known) from them (the Sruti texts).
At the beginning of creation there was only “One Brahman without a second” (Ait. 1. 1), and so it is not reasonable to say that the individual soul is not born, for then there was nothing but Brahman. Again the Sruti says : “Just as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, even so from this Atman emanate all Pranas (organs), all worlds, all gods, and all the selves” (Brih. 2. 1. 20, Madhyandina recension). So the opponent argues that the individual soul is born at the beginning of the cycle, just as Akasa and other elements are born. This Sutra refutes it and says that the individual soul is not born, for there is no statement to that effect in the Sruti in the section dealing with creation. On the other hand Sruti texts clearly deny such birth to the individual soul. “Unborn, eternal” (Kath. 1. 2. 18); “This great birthless Sell” (Brih. 4. 4. 25). It is the one Brahman without a second that enters the intellect and appears as the individual soul (Jiva). “Having created it, It entered into it” (Taitt. 2. 6). Hence as there is in reality no difference between the individual soul and Brahmar:, the fact of the Jiva’s being n on-created does not contradict the text, “At the beginning there was only the Atman without a second” (Ait. 1. 1). The creation of souls spoken of in the other texts cited is only in a secondary sense. It does not therefore contradict the text, “Having created it, It entered into it.”