Within the Ajivika tradition, no independent scriptures or canonical texts have survived, and no specific titles can be identified with certainty. What is known of this determinist school is therefore refracted through the lenses of other traditions, often in polemical or critical contexts. The Ajivikas appear to have had their own body of teachings, but the historical record preserves only echoes rather than the original voice. This absence of primary texts has left their doctrine, especially the emphasis on fate (niyati), as something to be carefully reconstructed rather than directly read.

The most substantial portrayals of Ajivika thought are found in Buddhist and Jain literature. Buddhist sources, particularly in the Pāli Canon such as the Dīgha Nikāya and the Sāmaññaphala Sutta, summarize and critique the teachings associated with Makkhali Gosāla and his followers. Jain scriptures, including the Jain Āgamas and works like the Bhagavatī Sūtra, likewise recount narratives of debate and disagreement, preserving Ajivika ideas mainly as positions to be refuted. Later commentaries within both Buddhist and Jain traditions further elaborate these portrayals, though always from an external standpoint.

Beyond these religious canons, a few other witnesses gesture toward the historical presence of Ajivikas. Inscriptions from the Mauryan period, for example, mention Ajivika communities, indicating that they were once a visible and organized group, even if their own writings have not endured. Occasional references in later Hindu literature and historical accounts similarly attest to their existence, but add little doctrinal detail. What emerges, then, is not a scriptural corpus in the usual sense, but a mosaic of second-hand reports through which seekers attempt to discern the contours of a lost spiritual path.