Critics of Charvaka often begin with its epistemology, where the exclusive reliance on direct perception is seen as both too narrow and internally unstable. To affirm that only perception is a valid means of knowledge already seems to require going beyond what is strictly perceived, rendering the doctrine vulnerable to the charge of being self-refuting. Furthermore, the rejection or radical restriction of inference and testimony appears at odds with ordinary life, in which people constantly depend on these means to navigate the world, communicate teachings, and make decisions. This tension leads many traditional philosophers to argue that Charvaka quietly depends on what it publicly denies, thereby weakening its philosophical credibility.

A second line of criticism focuses on the ethical and social implications of Charvaka’s materialism and its association with hedonism. By emphasizing pleasure and denying an afterlife, karma, or any transcendent moral order, the system is accused of leaving no firm basis for duty, justice, or sustained social cooperation. Opponents fear that such a view can encourage selfishness, moral relativism, and even social disorder, since there is no intrinsic reason—beyond immediate benefit or harm—to restrain destructive impulses. The pursuit of sensual enjoyment, when elevated as a central value, is also portrayed as ultimately unsatisfying, potentially leading to suffering rather than genuine fulfillment.

Metaphysically, Charvaka’s reduction of consciousness and mental life to material processes is another major target of criticism. Many classical schools contend that such reductive materialism does not adequately account for the richness of conscious experience, emotions, and inner awareness. The denial of any reality beyond the physical realm is judged by these critics to be overly simplistic, leaving unexplained dimensions of human life that other traditions treat as central. From this perspective, Charvaka is seen as offering a truncated picture of existence, powerful in its clarity yet unable to encompass the full range of what beings actually experience.