Among the traditional expositors of Niyamasara, Amritachandra Suri stands out as a particularly authoritative voice. His commentary, known as Ātmakhyāti, reads Kundakunda’s terse verses from an inward, contemplative standpoint, continually directing attention to the inner spiritual meaning rather than merely external observance. He underscores the distinction between the relative, practical perspective (vyavahāra naya) and the ultimate, absolute perspective (niścaya naya), and shows how ethical discipline becomes genuinely “right” only when grounded in right vision of the pure self. In his reading, vows, restraints, and ascetic practices possess liberating efficacy only when they arise from inner purity and self-realization, not from conformity or ritualism alone. The path he sketches is one in which liberation is experienced as the realization of the soul’s separateness from body, karma, and passions, so that “niyama” comes to mean an ordered, lucid state of the soul itself.

Other commentators extend this line of interpretation into more specific domains of practice and audience. Padmaprabhamala Dhari, in the Bhavadīpa, approaches the text from the standpoint of the lay follower, elucidating how the same inner principles of restraint and purity can be lived amidst household responsibilities. Balachandramuni, in the Balachandrikā, offers a devotional and practical reading that speaks especially to those at the beginning of the spiritual journey, translating the lofty ideals of Niyamasara into accessible guidance. Jayasena’s Sanskrit vṛtti, by contrast, is more scholastic and systematic, integrating Kundakunda’s verses into the wider doctrinal framework of Digambara Jainism and clarifying technical notions such as the stages of spiritual development and the mechanics of bondage and liberation.

Across these commentarial traditions, a shared insight gradually comes into focus: ethical discipline is not merely a matter of external rule-keeping, but an inside-out transformation rooted in right faith and right knowledge. The commentators repeatedly stress that vows, austerities, scriptural study, and ritual observances are authentic aids to liberation only when they express and reinforce an awakening to the soul’s pure, passionless nature. From the perspectives of monk and householder, novice and adept, their works converge on the conviction that the true measure of ethical perfection is the degree of freedom from attachment and aversion. In this way, Niyamasara, as read through these lenses, becomes less a manual of external regulations and more a map of inner purification, guiding the aspirant from initial restraint toward the serene clarity of a liberated consciousness.