He[Ramakrishna] did not exploit him to gain something selfish for himself; his idea was that through Vivekananda others will be benefited. He exploited him only in the sense that he made use of him. There is a great difference between exploitation and utilization. When I am dealing with something or using something for the sake of my ego, then it becomes exploitation.

 

But when I am doing something for the world, for the universe, for everybody, there is no question of exploitation. Besides, where is the certainty that if Ramakrishna had not shown him the glimpse, Vivekananda would have got it in this life by himself? This point can be decided only by those who are enlightened. I feel that would have been the case, but we cannot show any proof in such matters.

 

-Osho, "In Search of the Miraculous Vol 2, #1, Q7"

 

 

 

 

The first sutra is:

THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ATMAN, THE SOUL.

 

Although conscious we all are, yet we never come to know the soul. If consciousness is indeed the soul, then we should all have the knowledge of it. We all possess consciousness, but what is really the meaning of, "consciousness is the soul?"

 

The first meaning is: in this world, only consciousness is yours. The word atman means: that which is your own. Regardless of how much the rest may appear to you as your own, it is alien. All of that which you otherwise claim as yours -- friends, loved ones, family, wealth, fame, high position, a great empire — it is all a deception. Because one day death will snatch it all away from you. So death is the criterion for determining who is your own and who is the stranger. That which death can separate you from, know that it didn't belong to you, and that which it can't, was indeed your own.

 

So atman means: one's own. But the moment we think in therms of "mine", the other comes in. "Mine" in itself means, "Someone else who belongs to me." It never occurs to you that except your own self, there is no one who can be yours. And the longer you will remain swayed by the idea that the other belongs to you, the greater will be the loss of time on your part, you will have wasted that much life. That much time you gave in for dreaming. You could have awakened in the meantime -- you could have attained moksha. But all that time you only collected garbage.

 

So this is the first sutra: you are all by yourself; that means, there is nothing by way of either relationship or possession that you can claim as yours. No one and nothing except yourself belongs to you really. This is indeed a very revolutionary sutra. It goes against the very nature of society. Because the society exists on the very premise that others are mind -- the caste people are mine, the countrymen are mine. A whole array of possessive attitudes in on display: my country, my caste, my religion, my family. The society survives on the concept of "mine". Religion is essentially antithetical to society -- it is a freedom from society, it is a freedom from the "other".

 

According to religion, there is no one you can claim as "mine" except your own self. If seen superficially this statement looks selfish. Because, if I alone am for myself then one immediately surmises this as a selfish attitude. But there is nothing selfish in it. The truth is, this feeling alone will cause the attitude of altruism and universal goodness to arise in your life. Because one who has not yet become aware of the fact that essentially only his being is his own, cannot follow altruism,

 

When you call others as "mine", what do you do really? You exploit them. Your "mine" is nothing but a part and parcel of your exploitation of them. Whosoever you identify as "mine", you turn that person into a slave. You convert the person into one of your possessions. You say, "my wife, my husband, my son, my father...", what goes on behind the backdrop of this "my-ness"? What is the basis of your relationship made evident by calling someone as yours? You exploit the other, you take advantage of the other, you take the other for a ride. And if this is what you call as altruism then you are indeed carrying a false notion.

 

-Osho, “The Great Path, #1”