Within the preserved tradition, only a very small number of commentarial voices are clearly associated with the Kaulājñānanirṇaya. Among these, one stands out as the principal, fully attested Sanskrit commentary: the Prakāśa composed by Amṛtānanda, a Kaula teacher situated within the broader Krama/Trika-related currents of Kashmir. This work is generally referred to simply as a ṭīkā on the Kaulājñānanirṇaya and is treated in the tradition as the main exegetical key to the text. Its existence already suggests that the Kaulājñānanirṇaya was not merely a marginal manual, but a scripture that called forth a sustained, internal hermeneutic effort.

Alongside Amṛtānanda’s Prakāśa, another commentary is also reported: the Dīpikā of Madanakula. While less is said about its contents or historical setting, its very attribution indicates that more than one lineage or scholarly milieu sought to illuminate the often deliberately veiled teachings of this Kaula tantra. The presence of both a Prakāśa (“illumination”) and a Dīpikā (“lamp”) is symbolically apt, for each title evokes the act of shedding light on a text that is, by design, esoteric and initiatory in character.

Beyond these traditional works, modern academic studies have taken on a quasi-commentarial role, even if they are not śāstric commentaries in the strict sense. Scholars such as Agehananda Bharati, Teun Goudriaan, and Ryutaro Tsuchida have discussed and partially translated the Kaulājñānanirṇaya, providing critical analysis and explanatory notes that function as aids to understanding. These studies, while external to the initiatory lineages, testify to the text’s complexity and to the continuing effort to unpack its ritual, doctrinal, and symbolic layers. Together, the traditional commentaries of Amṛtānanda and Madanakula, and the later scholarly exegesis, form a small but significant constellation around this dense Kaula scripture.