According to Osho, the Charvaka corpus was destroyed because it threatened the livelihood and authority of pundit-priests who depend on second‑hand, fragile theism. As the ultimate expression of atheism, it could awaken people’s latent doubt—the necessary ladder to authentic faith—causing fake believers to panic. To preserve their power and business, they silenced and eliminated it.
Priests destroyed Charvaka books because its bold atheism would make people question borrowed beliefs, risking the priests’ power and income.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, why was the corpus of Charvaka philosophy destroyed? What are your thoughts on Charvaka?
Vairale, the corpus of Charvaka philosophy was dangerous for the pundit-priests. Their death was hidden in it. To save themselves they had to destroy it. The Charvaka corpus was the ultimate expression of atheism. And only a supreme theist can embrace the ultimate expression of atheism—not the petty, phony believers. The fake believers will panic; the ground will slip from beneath their feet. The scriptures of these false believers tell you: if anyone speaks against God, plug your ears. Do not hear a single word contrary to God. Why? Because your God is fragile; your belief is hollow. You’re afraid that if someone speaks against God, my doubt might awaken! The doubt is already there within you; you fear someone may provoke it. But provoked or not, if doubt is within, it is within. Better that someone does provoke it, so you can know it for what it is. Thank…
Is monotheism a necessary step in human evolution, or is it just an invention of the priests?
You are asking about monotheism: is it a necessary step? No, not at all. It is an absolutely unnecessary step, and not only unnecessary, but dangerous. It has created only violence, murder. Living people have been burned in the name of a monotheistic god. One god will not allow you to believe in another god. Polytheism is also an invention of priests, but far more liberal. Monotheism is the invention of the priests, but far more dictatorial. It gives you commandments, as if you are an army and you need commandments. Buddha does not have any commandments, nor Mahavira. They persuade you; they don't command, they don't humiliate you. They respect you, they know that your hidden potential is the same as theirs. Gautam Buddha relates this about his past life. He heard that one man had become enlightened. He was not very much interested, but just out of curiosity...…
Did the Charvakas make any real contribution?
They worked hard. They worked very hard. But it seems to me the Charvakas never had a truly great mind among them. So the discussion they set in motion remained on a very low plane. That is, it never became metaphysical. They could never produce, even once, someone of the stature of a Hume—Hume’s advocacy of atheism still carries a powerful argument, a profound thought. With Charvaka the case seems very simple: hedonism—eat, drink, be merry. But there isn’t any compelling argument in it that you... (The audio recording of the question is unclear.) Epicurus is truly extraordinary. The Charvakas have nothing comparable to Epicurus. Epicurus is a rare phenomenon in the entire history of humankind. To find a man to match Epicurus is difficult; such a lovable man he is. Had the Charvakas produced even one Epicurus, their tradition would have endured in that era. It could not happen.…
Osho, in the present situation, how far will you limit yourself? Will Rajneeshism once again envelop the world, or will you remain only a Charvaka?
There are two questions hidden in this one. First: will Rajneeshism once again take the world into its fold? There never was, is, or will be anything like “Rajneeshism.” I am an enemy of all “isms.” It is these “isms” that have ruined the world. What, after all, is Islam? What is Christianity? What is Jainism? They are the attempts of certain individuals to wrap the whole world in their net. They all failed—and in their failure they hurled the whole world into filth. I am not willing to commit such a sin. I do not want to encircle the world. I want the world to take me into its embrace. Let it forget my name, forget my address—let it remember itself. I do not want to leave a religion behind me. My only prayer to those who love me is this: there will be only one proof of your…
Osho, a clarification. You said that Buddhism and some other religions were never allowed to become the mainstream; later they were merged into a bigger stream. That happened later. You must surely be aware of the fact that when, through the use of state power, Buddhism spread in this country, its refutation and eradication were accomplished by Adi Shankaracharya through shastrarth—scriptural debate—not by force.
Who is denying any of that? I am not saying you were weak at shastrarth. But you kept doing shastrarth; what never happened in this country was dialogue. Do you understand what shastrarth means? Shastrarth means: What is the meaning of the scripture? Please grasp this. The disputes in this country have been about things like: What does this line of the Gita mean? What meaning do you give it, what meaning do we give it—that is the quarrel. But there is no quarrel about whether there is truth in that line of the Gita or not. That is not the quarrel. It is always: What is the meaning of a line in the Gita, or of a verse in the Vedas, or of a passage in the Upanishads. Shankaracharya engaged in shastrarth, yes—but in India a Socratic dialogue could not arise. Shastrarth did happen. And there is a fundamental…