Ājīvika

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Ajivika, the ancient Indian school of absolute fatalism, planted a single unsettling idea at the heart of its philosophy: nothing you do matters, because everything has already been decided. Founded around the 5th century BCE, it rivaled Buddhism and Jainism for centuries before virtually vanishing from history. Its original scriptures are lost. What survives comes almost entirely from the writings of rival traditions that considered Ajivika their enemy. That fact alone raises a question that haunts every account of this school: how much of what we think we know is actually a portrait drawn by those who wished to destroy it?

• 2. The Man Behind the Movement

  ›

  Makkhali Gosala, dated by some sources to around 484 BCE, is generally considered the founder of the Ajivika movement, though some scholars argue the tradition existed in India well before his birth. The Swedish Indologist Jarl Charpentier is among those who cite ancient Indian texts to suggest Ajivika predates Gosala. His very name points to the circumstances of his arrival: "Gosala" means cowshed, because according to the Bhagavati Sutra, his mother Bhadda gave birth to him in the cowshed of a wealthy householder named Gobahula, in the settlement of Saravana near the city of Savatthi. His father Mankha was a professional mendicant.

  Gosala is described in ancient texts as a contemporary of both Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism, and Gautama Buddha. The Jain Bhagavati Sutra depicts him as having studied under Mahavira for six years before the two had a falling out. The two later met again, but by then Gosala insisted he was not the same person who had been Mahavira's disciple. He offered the example of a sesame plant that had been pulled up, temporarily died, and then been replanted and reanimated. Mahavira called this sophistry, and the break between them became permanent.

  Gosala appears to have assembled his doctrine from older strands of Indian thought. He drew on niyati (destiny), svabhava (nature), and sangati (change) to argue that all beings move inevitably toward salvation, not through effort but through the unfolding of cosmic forces. Other schools labeled him with terms like ahetuvadin and ajnanavadin, essentially charging him with denying cause and denying knowledge as a guide to liberation.

• 3. Fate, Atoms, and No Free Will

  ›

  At the center of Ajivika thought stood niyati, a word meaning "inner order of things" or "predeterminism." Every event, every choice, every moment of joy or sorrow was held to be already fixed by cosmic principles. James Lochtefeld summarized the belief this way: life and the universe are like a ball of pre-wrapped string, which unrolls until it is done and then goes no further. No human effort, no religious practice, no ethical discipline could alter this course. The karma doctrine, which held that one's actions shape future existences, was treated by Ajivikas as a fallacy.

  This position did not make the Ajivikas passive nihilists, however. The scholar Riepe drew a comparison to Calvinist predeterminism in Europe, noting that Ajivikas were considered optimists rather than pessimists. They believed all beings were destined for salvation, and that salvation was therefore a certainty rather than something to be earned.

  Alongside this fatalism, the Ajivikas developed a detailed atomic theory. According to three Tamil texts, they recognized seven kayas, or elemental categories: earth, water, fire, air, joy, sorrow, and life. The first four related to matter, the last three to non-matter. The Tamil text Manimekalai described atoms as that which cannot be further subdivided, cannot penetrate another atom, is neither created nor destroyed, and never grows, expands, splits, or changes, yet moves, assembles, and combines to form the perceived world. Combinations of these atoms always occurred in fixed ratios governed by cosmic rules, forming what the Ajivikas called skandha, or molecules. The determinism of their physics mirrored the determinism of their ethics: everything experienced, including joy, sorrow, and life itself, was a function of atoms operating under laws that left no room for choice.

• 4. Caves, Emperors, and Royal Patronage

  ›

  Several rock-cut caves belonging to Ajivikas survive from the reign of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, who ruled from 273 BCE to 232 BCE. Known as the Barabar Caves, located in the Jehanabad district of Bihar, they are the oldest surviving cave temples of ancient India. Carved from granite with highly polished interior surfaces, each cave consists of two chambers: a large rectangular hall and a small, circular, domed chamber, likely used for meditation.

  Ashoka's dedications to the Ajivikas were engraved in the 12th and 19th years of his reign, corresponding to approximately 258 BCE and 251 BCE, based on a coronation date of 269 BCE. The word Ajivikas in these inscriptions was later attacked with a chisel, presumably by religious rivals, at a time when the Brahmi script was still legible, likely before the 5th century CE. The original engravings were deep enough to remain decipherable despite this defacement.

  The peak of Ajivika influence came during the rule of Bindusara, Ashoka's father. According to the 4th-century Buddhist legend Ashokavadana, Bindusara and his chief queen Shubhadrangi were adherents of the philosophy. The same text claims that after converting to Buddhism, Ashoka ordered the execution of Ajivikas in Pundravardhana following a painting that depicted the Buddha unfavorably, with around 18,000 followers supposedly killed. Scholars including K. T. S. Sarao and Benimadhab Barua regard this story as sectarian fabrication, pointing to Ashoka's own inscriptions at the Barabar Caves as evidence of his donations and patronage to the Ajivikas.

• 5. A Long, Quiet Decline

  ›

  After the Maurya Empire fell in the 2nd century BCE, the Ajivikas faded from the center of Indian philosophical debate. In northern India, they may have become negligible by the Shunga period in the 1st century BCE. References in the Vayu Purana suggest that by the Gupta period, spanning the 4th to 6th centuries CE, Ajivika practices had changed substantially and the sect was declining rapidly.

  In the south, the story was different. At least 17 inscriptions from southern India, ranging from the time of the Pallava king Simhavarman II around 446 CE to the 14th century, suggest that a tax was imposed on Ajivikas or Acuvas, believed to be a Tamil rendering of the same name. The last of these inscriptions are dated to 1346 CE and were found at three different places around the Kolar district. Arthur Basham concluded that the Ajivikas may have survived in the south until the 15th century, citing the writings of Vaidyanatha Dikshita.

  The Ajivika presence created ongoing confusion among contemporaries. The 6th-century astrologer Varahamihira mentioned Ajivikas in an astrological context in the Brhaj-jataka, but the 9th-10th century commentator Utpala interpreted the reference as pointing to Vaishnavite Ekadandin ascetics rather than Ajivikas. The commentator of Achara-sara thought the Ajivikas were Buddhists. In the Neelakesi, the Ajivika leader himself clarifies that his followers should not be mistaken for Digambaras. Basham interpreted these mix-ups as evidence that surviving Ajivikas had absorbed beliefs and customs from more dominant faiths. By 1292 CE, the Jain commentator Mallisena, writing Syadvada-manjari, still appears to have been aware of Ajivikas in southern India. By the time the 14th-century compendium Sarva-Darshana-Sangraha catalogued the Indian philosophical systems, no mention of Ajivikas appeared, marking a clear endpoint for their presence as a recognized school.

• 6. The Problem of Sources

  ›

  Nearly everything known about Ajivika comes from texts written by its rivals: Buddhist works such as the Samaññaphala Sutta, the Sandaka Sutta, and Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Sammannaphala Sutta; Jain texts such as the Bhagvati Sutra; and occasional Hindu references such as the Vayu Purana. Scholar Paul Dundas stated directly that Jain and Buddhist texts cannot be considered reliable sources of Ajivika history and philosophy, arguing that a doctrine genuinely advocating the absence of individual effort seems unlikely as the basis for a renunciatory path, and that the Jains and Buddhists appear to have deliberately distorted Ajivika doctrine for polemical purposes.

  Johannes Bronkhorst proposed a revision of the standard account. Where Jain and Buddhist sources present the Ajivikas as believing that ascetic practice is entirely useless, Bronkhorst argued that Gosala actually taught one could stop the influx of new karma through ascetic practice, even if old karma could not be shed. This interpretation would explain the otherwise puzzling fact that Ajivikas did practice asceticism, and would make the school's ancient popularity more intelligible if its doctrine was genuinely less radical than its rivals claimed.

  The Ajivikas recognized three emancipators named in the Sandaka Sutta: Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Sankicca, and Makkhali Gosala. Their original scriptures, including the ten Purvas (eight Mahanimittas and two Maggas) and the Onpatu Katir, are lost. What the Mahanimittas contained can only be partially glimpsed through rival commentaries, including a claim that the Bhagavati Sutra was extracted from teachings Gosala received from Mahavira. The inscriptions at the Barabar Caves, despite the chisel marks left by hostile hands, remain the closest thing to a primary source left by the Ajivikas themselves.