The disappearance of the Ajivika tradition seems to have arisen from several intertwined historical and doctrinal currents rather than from a single decisive blow. Its core commitment to absolute determinism, the doctrine that everything is fixed in advance and human effort is ultimately powerless, made it far less compelling in a culture that valued karmic responsibility and the transformative power of ethical and spiritual practice. While Buddhism and Jainism could promise that disciplined conduct and meditation would shape one’s destiny, Ajivika teaching offered little sense of practical spiritual progress, and thus less guidance for everyday life. This rigid fatalism, though philosophically striking, appears to have limited the religion’s capacity to adapt and to inspire sustained lay commitment.

Institutionally, Ajivika communities seem not to have developed the same durable structures that supported their rivals. Their ascetic groups did not leave evidence of a strong, enduring monastic organization comparable to the Buddhist sangha or Jain orders, and their scriptural legacy has not survived. The absence of a preserved canon made it difficult to transmit teachings reliably across generations, and a tradition without a stable textual and educational base is especially vulnerable to fragmentation and forgetfulness. Over time, this fragility was compounded by internal divisions among teachers, which further weakened cohesion and the ability to present a unified identity.

Patterns of patronage and geography also played a decisive role. Although Ajivikas enjoyed some early royal support, such as under certain Mauryan rulers, this backing did not continue with the same vigor in later periods, especially when compared with the sustained patronage extended to Buddhist, Jain, and Brahmanical communities. As power centers shifted and other traditions secured closer ties with rulers and merchant elites, Ajivikas lacked comparable institutional and economic support. Their presence remained largely confined to particular regions and never achieved the broad geographical spread of their competitors, leaving them more exposed to local religious and political changes.

Over the centuries, the distinct contours of Ajivika life and thought appear to have been gradually worn down by contact with more resilient traditions. Elements of their asceticism and worldview were absorbed into surrounding Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain milieus, blurring the boundaries that once set them apart. Without a strong textual heritage, without robust institutions, and without a widely compelling promise of spiritual agency, the Ajivika path slowly lost its separate visibility. What remained was not a dramatic collapse, but a gradual fading, as its insights were dispersed into the broader religious landscape rather than preserved as a living, independent lineage.