The fading of the Charvaka, or Lokayata, tradition can be understood as the result of several converging pressures, both intellectual and social. Unlike many other Indian schools, Charvaka thinkers did not cultivate a strong written canon; their teachings were largely transmitted orally, and the few texts attributed to them were not preserved. As a result, what is known of their thought comes mostly through the critical accounts of their opponents, which made it difficult for a self-sustaining lineage of teachers and students to endure. This lack of a preserved textual foundation meant that later generations had little stable material on which to build a continuous tradition.

Equally important was the absence of institutional and political support. Other philosophical systems were often anchored in monasteries, ashrams, royal courts, or temple cultures, which provided both material resources and social legitimacy. Charvaka, by contrast, rejected the authority of the Vedas, priesthood, and ritual, and did not offer a ritual role or monastic structure that could attract patronage. In a religious landscape shaped by kingship, temple life, and ideals of renunciation and liberation, such radical this‑worldliness found little solid ground on which to stand.

The school also faced sustained and often hostile intellectual opposition. Almost every major Indian tradition—Nyaya, Vedanta, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Buddhism, Jainism—took Charvaka materialism as a foil, criticizing its denial of karma, afterlife, and dharma, and frequently portraying it as hedonistic or morally subversive. This portrayal contributed to social stigma and limited its appeal among those seeking spiritual solace or a comprehensive ethical framework. Moreover, by recognizing only direct perception as a valid means of knowledge and sharply restricting the role of inference, Charvaka philosophers stood somewhat apart from the sophisticated logical and metaphysical debates that animated the broader intellectual culture.

Finally, the internal character of the system, as it is reported, made long-term survival more difficult. Charvaka thought is often presented as predominantly critical—rejecting metaphysics, rebirth, ritual, and scriptural authority—while offering a comparatively modest positive program centered on sense perception and worldly enjoyment. In contrast, rival schools articulated elaborate cosmologies, soteriologies, and ethical disciplines that could organize a community’s life over generations. Without a rich, constructive vision that could rival these comprehensive systems, and lacking the social, textual, and institutional supports that sustained other traditions, Charvaka gradually receded from view, remaining largely as a remembered and refuted voice in the literature of its opponents.