In the context of the embodied Guest within making no response two questions might arise. There is first a difference between the Guest in the heart’s cave of Savitri and the guest sitting in our heart’s cave. Savitri belongs to Ishwarkoti and we to Jivakoti, one to the Divine category, the other to the human.


Could that mean that the Psyche, the embodied Guest within, is not identically the same Divine Agni in all? The only difference between individuals will be the difference in the degree to which it has "come out" in each person. That would be a glorious hope for us, that by following the glorious, the transcendent example of Savitri given to us by Sri Aurobindo we too might be able to push out the veil surrounding our psyche. In other words, can the Yoga of Savitri given in Savitri also be our Yoga, that it can be practised by any authentic seeker of the spirit? Is the Book of Yoga meant only for Savitri and that it is not a prescription for us all? Is it meant for any and every seeker-soul, each and every soul?

 
This cannot be, it is not so. In fact, it is Yoga distinctly meant for Savitri, Savitri alone, and it cannot be for anyone else. This cannot be the Yoga even for Aswapati. But then what is the use of the Book of Yoga for us, if it is meant specifically for Savitri? We shall take this question in another conext, when we come to the Book of Yoga. Savitri's Yoga is for the conquest of Death, the Yoga of the Conquest of Death.

 

It is true that the Divine Agni is the same everywhere, the primordial Agni, the Fire in which all the other fires are born; but the Agni of one individual is different from the Agni of another. Each amśa is a different amśa though all the amśas come from one Source alone. Or else where would lie the individuality of the individual? Not only that; the individual’s Agni is different from the Avatar’s Agni—and that is wonderful indeed! In house and house, damé-damé, there burns a different fire. Because there is the Divine Fire that there are different fires, a thousand spark-bursts of one solitary Spark. Otherwise manifestation and multiplicity would be meaningless, pointless. That is the great richness of the divine Agni. Mere difference in degree will not constitute individuality; this we must recognise fully. The distinction is there between individual and individual, and yet a vaster between we and the Avatar. If we have to go step farther, then we can say that there is a distinction between Avatar and Avatar, although they are all emanations of Vishnu himself.


Regarding Ishwarkoti and Jivakoti, the Divine category and the human category, let us read some of the letters written by Sri Aurobindo. (Letters on Yoga)

 

p. 59

I don't think I have written, but I said once that souls which have passed into Nirvana may (not “must”) return to complete the larger upward curve. I have written somewhere, I think, that for this yoga (it might also be added, in the natural complete order of the manifestation) the experience of Nirvana can only be a stage or passage to the complete realisation. I have said also that there are many doors by which one can pass into the realisation of the Absolute (Parabrahman), and Nirvana is one of them, but by no means the only one. You may remember Ramakrishna's saying that the Jivakoti can ascend the stairs, but not return, while the Ishwarakoti can ascend and descend at will. If that is so, the Jivakoti might be those who describe only the curve from Matter through Mind into the silent Brahman and the Ishwarakoti those who get to the integral Reality and can therefore combine the Ascent with the Descent and contain the “two ends” of existence in their single being.


p. 71

The language of the Gita in many matters seems sometimes contradictory because it admits two apparently opposite truths and tries to reconcile them. It admits the ideal of departure from samsāra into the Brahman as one possibility; also it affirms the possibility of living free in the Divine (in Me, it says) and acting in the world as the Jivanmukta. It is this latter kind of solution on which it lays the greatest emphasis. So Ramakrishna put the “divine souls” (Ishwarakoti) who can descend the ladder as well as ascend it higher than the Jivas (Jivakoti) who, once having ascended, have not the strength to descend again for divine work. The full truth is in the supramental consciousness and the power to work from there on life and Matter.


p. 94

Ramakrishna himself never thought of transformation or tried for it. All he wanted was bhakti for the Mother and along with that he received whatever knowledge she gave him and did whatever she made him do. He was intuitive and psychic from the beginning and only became more and more so as he went on. There was no need in him for the transformation which we seek; for although he spoke of the divine man (Ishwarakoti) coming down the stairs as well as ascending, he had not the idea of a new consciousness and a new race and the divine manifestation in the earth-nature.

pp. 441-42

It is difficult to give a positive answer to these questions, because no general rule can be laid down applicable to all. The mind makes rigid rules or one rigid rule, but the Manifestation is in reality very plastic and various and many-sided. My answers therefore must not be taken as exhaustive of the subject or complete.

 

(1) He [the Jivanmukta] can go wherever his aim was fixed, into a state of Nirvana or one of the divine worlds and stay there or remain, wherever he may go, in contact with the earth-movement and return to it if his will is to help that movement. This [going direct from the world of the soul's present highest achievement to a still higher world] is doubtful. If originally he is not a being of the evolution but of some higher world, he would go back to that world. If he wants to go higher, it is logical that he should return to the field of evolution so long as he has not evolved the consciousness proper to that higher plane. The orthodox idea that even the gods have to come to earth if they want salvation may be applied to this ascension also. If he is originally an evolutionary being (Ramakrishna's distinction of the Jivakoti and Ishwarakoti may be extended to this also), he must proceed by the evolutionary path to either the negative withdrawal through Nirvana or some positive divine fulfilment in the increasing manifestation of Sachchidananda. As to the impossibility of return, that is a knotty question. A divine being can always return—as Ramakrishna said, the Ishwarakoti can at will ascend or descend the stair between Birth and Immortality. For the others, it is probable that they may rest for a relative infinity of time, śāśvatīh samāh, if that is the will in them, but a return cannot be barred out unless they have reached their highest possible status. No, that [return to the psychic world before a new birth] is part of the evolutionary line only, not obligatory for divine returns.

 

(2) An advanced psychic being may mean here one who has arrived at the soul's freedom and is immersed in the Divine—immersed does not mean abolished. Such a being does not sleep in the psychic world, but may remain in his state of blissful immersion or come back for some purpose. The word “descend” has various meanings according to the context—I used it here in the sense of the psychic being coming down into the human consciousness and body ready for it; that descent might be at the time of birth or before or it may come down later and occupy the personality it has prepared for itself. I do not quite understand what are these personalities from above—it is the psychic being itself that takes up a body.

 

(3) No, the psychic being cannot take up more than one body. There is only one psychic being for each human being, but the beings of the higher planes, e.g., the Gods of the overmind can manifest in more than one human body at a time by sending different emanations into different bodies. These would be called Vibhutis of these Devatas.


(4) These [the Guardians of the psychic world] are not human souls nor is this an office to which they are appointed nor are they functionaries—these are beings of the psychic plane pursuing their own natural activity in that plane. My word “guardian” was simply a phrase meant to indicate by an image or metaphor the nature of their action.