Early Buddhists tended to cast the Ajivikas as the poster children of fatalism. Imagine Siddhārtha’s disciples rolling their eyes at a worldview that blamed every twist of fate on an unchangeable cosmic script. In the Buddhist scriptures—especially in the Dīgha Nikāya—Ajivikas are often lumped in with other “wrong views” for denying moral effort. Their faith in niyati, or predestination, struck Buddhists as a recipe for spiritual stagnation. Why bother with meditation or ethical conduct if everything’s already written in cosmic stone?

Jains, on the other hand, found themselves in a curious tug-of-war with Ajivika thought. Both traditions shared deep respect for nonviolence and asceticism, yet Jain texts accuse Ajivikas of undermining the power of personal karma. In works like the Ācāranga Sūtra, Jain teachers lament how Ajivika determinism could leave a seeker feeling powerless—more a cosmic puppet than an architect of spiritual progress. For Jains, every small action mattered; the idea that destiny alone decided one’s rebirth felt like watching a thriller with the ending spoiled.

Fast-forward to today, and echoes of that ancient rivalry still resonate, especially in academic circles at interfaith conferences. Modern Buddhists often point to quantum mechanics and chaos theory to argue against hard determinism, while some Jains draw parallels between their nuanced understanding of karma and current debates over free will. Neither tradition has much appetite for the kind of iron-clad fate the Ajivikas championed. Instead, both emphasize a hands-on approach to salvation: mindful intention for Buddhists, rigorous self-discipline for Jains.

In recent years, podcasts on ancient philosophies have even featured friendly debates that highlight how those millennia-old disagreements about destiny versus choice continue to spark lively discussions—proof that the Ajivikas’ ghost still lingers in conversations about what really shapes a life.