Charvakas

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, 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…

Charvaka is a hedonist, generally... Generally we would call Charvaka a hedonist; I, generally, would call Charvaka a renunciate. I would say that he is leaving aside the inner enjoyment—the greater enjoyment!

Charvaka is saying: even if you have to borrow to drink ghee, drink it. Don’t worry about debt; just make sure you get ghee. So he lives for ghee. But he is living very outwardly. His enjoyment extends only to eating and drinking. Yet there is an inner enjoyment too—towards that he has no gaze, no attention! It is Shankara who is truly a great hedonist, because Shankara goes into a much deeper enjoyment. And Mahavira, since he keeps balance and equanimity in everything, says he will not call Charvaka wrong. If Charvaka were to come to him, he would say: you are absolutely right—there is truth outside. The only mistake is that you have not gone within; there too is truth. To Shankara he would say the same: you are absolutely right; it is perfectly true that truth is within. But the outside, to which you have closed your…

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…