Liberation and Sovereignty: Reinterpreting Mokṣa in Kauṇḍinya’s Pāśupata Exegesis

In scholarship on South Asian philosophy of religion, liberation (mokṣa) is often conceptualized in terms of negative freedom: the removal of constraints, liberation, or the absolution of the soul from the cycle of saṃsāra. The Sanskrit root muc, which forms the basis of mokṣa, connotes release or escape. Other traditions reinforce this understanding with terms such as nirvāṇa, indicating the extinguishing of suffering (as in Buddhist thought), or kaivalya, the isolation of puruṣa (consciousness) from prakṛti (matter) (as in Sāṃkhya-Yoga philosophy). The Pāśupata Śaiva tradition has typically been understood in a similar vein, with duḥkhānta (the cessation of suffering) posited as its soteriological goal. Indeed, scholars have historically interpreted the Pāśupata path as primarily ascetic, focused on eradicating suffering through disciplined practice. In other words, when Pāśupata Śaivism has been situated within broader discourses on what liberation means, the focus has been on what we might describe, drawing on Isaiah Berlin, as a type of negative freedom, or “freedom from,” wherein release or liberation entails detachment from worldly entanglements and existential suffering.

Kauṇḍinya, a ca. fourth/fifth-century CE Pāśupata exegete, is the earliest known commentator on the Pāśupatasūtra, whose Pañcārthabhāṣya provides a foundational exposition of Pāśupata doctrine. This paper argues that Kauṇḍinya’s view of liberation is more complex than previous scholarship has recognized. While duḥkhānta is central to his soteriology, Kauṇḍinya employs multiple terms, such as aiśvarya or sāyujya, to describe liberation, and these terms must be read in relation to one another. In particular, aiśvarya (sovereignty) introduces a dimension of positive freedom into his thought, complicating the notion that Pāśupata Śaivism is a purely ascetic tradition. Kauṇḍinya suggests that liberation from bondage (pāśa) is not merely a means to ending suffering but also leads to the attainment of absolute sovereignty—a state in which the practitioner acquires divine agency (śivatva) and unites with Śiva (sāyujya). This suggests that Kauṇḍinya envisions liberation as not just “freedom from” suffering but also “freedom to” exercise sovereignty, including the ability to gain siddhi-like supernatural power. Related to this, previous studies have also ignored proto-tantric claims such as the idea of kāmitva or being able to do whatever one wants, or how sovereignty could be interpreted to imply political agency. 

A key challenge in interpreting Kauṇḍinya, then, is the apparent tension between duḥkhānta and aiśvarya. While negative freedom (duḥkhānta) aligns with renunciatory traditions, positive freedom (aiśvarya) suggests an active exercise of divine will. This paper will address the following questions about the nature of liberation for Kauṇḍinya: How does Kauṇḍinya conceptualize aiśvarya in relation to liberation, and what does this reveal about the interplay between negative and positive freedom in Pāśupata philosophy? How does Kauṇḍinya’s interpretation of the process of the pāśupatavrata—in other words, how he proposes practitioners can achieve liberation—relate to this tension between aiśvarya and duḥkhānta? This raises further questions about the nature of agency for the Pāśupata: What faculties does a liberated being possess? How does Kaundinya’s concept of liberation align with his broader doctrinal commitments?

Existing scholarship on the Pāśupata tradition remains limited. Alexis Sanderson’s The Śaiva Age (2009), reconstructs the history of Śaivism, tracing its evolution from early Atimārga asceticism to the Mantramārga’s structured temple-based traditions. Sanderson’s analysis places Pāśupata Śaivism within a Śaiva historical trajectory, emphasizing its ascetic character and its role in shaping later tantric traditions. The foundational text of the Pāśupatas, the Pāśupatasūtra (c. second/third century CE), with its later commentary by Kauṇḍinya (fourth/fifth century CE), provides the earliest textual evidence of the tradition. To answer these questions, this paper situates Kauṇḍinya’s thought within scholarly discussions of Śaiva soteriology and examines how different scholars have represented Pāśupata ideas of liberation. While classical studies (Hara 1980) align Pāśupata liberation with Sāṃkhya’s kaivalya, recent scholarship (Bisschop 2023, Bakker 1997) has begun to explore the role of aiśvarya in later Śaiva thought, but a systematic explication of how Kauṇḍinya deploys aiśvarya, śivatva, and sāyujya remains absent.

More recent scholars have examined Pāśupata Śaivism’s development from its ascetic roots to its later institutionalization, including its absorption into institutionalized Śaiva sects such as Lākula, Kālamukha, and Kāpālika traditions. Elizabeth Cecil (2021) has similarly traced Pāśupata Śaivism’s geographical and textual evolution through the Skandapurāṇa. Diwakar Acharya (2011, 2014, 2020) has made significant contributions to the study of the Pāśupatasūtra by critically editing and translating the text while analyzing its philosophical and ritual dimensions. His research demonstrates the relationship between the Pāśupata system and broader Śaivism and how its early ascetic practices and doctrinal formulations influenced later Śaiva traditions. Acharya’s work is particularly valuable in tracing the textual transmission of the Pāśupatasūtra and situating Kauṇḍinya’s Pañcārthabhāṣya within Śaiva history. And yet, while these scholars have identified early Śaiva traditions’ engagement with royal power, they have not systematically analyzed how Kauṇḍinya’s use of aiśvarya complicates standard ascetic models of Pāśupata liberation. 

Ultimately, I aim to argue that although Kauṇḍinya does not provide a fully satisfactory resolution to the tension between positive and negative ideas of liberation, this very tension makes his work especially relevant to comparative Hindu philosophy. Rather than dismissing aiśvarya as a later interpolation or treating duḥkhānta as the sole defining concept of Pāśupata liberation, this paper examines how these terms function within Kauṇḍinya’s commentary, analyzing their systematic coherence and their implications for Śaiva theology and practice.