Ardhanārīśvara as a diagram of liberation
International Journal of Sanskrit Research September 1, 2026 DOI: 10.22271/23947519.2026.v12.i5b.3341 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Proposes that the Ardhanārīśvara form can be read as a practitioner-centred diagram of liberation, in which the Śiva half is the contracted ego-state and the Pārvatī/Satī half is the liberating pole, and that the form models three conditions of liberation: orientation, commensurability, and distinction without separation. The author presents this as an interpretive model, not as a canonically established meaning of the icon. |
Abstract
The Ardhanārīśvara form has been read theologically as a statement about divine completeness, philosophically as a non-dual metaphysics of Prakāśa and Vimarśa, and ideologically as a symbol of gender complementarity. This paper proposes an additional interpretive register: reading the form as a practitioner-centred diagram of liberation, in which the relation between bounded identity and the liberating pole toward which it moves is modelled through three proposed conditions. Within the practitioner-centred interpretive framework developed here, the right (Śiva) half is read as the contracted ego-state, the limited consciousness that seeks liberation, while the left (Pārvatī/Satī) half is read as the liberating pole, ontologically prior, the direction of genuine spiritual orientation. The paper proposes that the form models three conditions of liberation: orientation (the practitioner’s internal seeking must be genuinely directed toward liberation rather than secondary goals); commensurability (the practitioner must approach the liberating pole at proportional scale, neither in self-negation nor in premature self-identification); and distinction without separation (the central axis differentiates the two halves without separating them, and no retained identity structure may function as a barrier between the bounded self and its liberating pole). These are proposed as an interpretive model, not as canonically established meanings intrinsic to the icon. Primary textual evidence is drawn from Liṅga Purāṇa I.41, Śiva Purāṇa (Vāyavīya Saṃhitā I.27), Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka. The paper distinguishes this practitioner-centred reading from the phenomenological reading employed in a companion neurophysiological study (Samanta et al. 2026), where Śiva represents the physical body substrate and the serpent represents consciousness. The two readings are not contradictory; they employ different registers of the same tradition’s symbolic vocabulary for different analytical purposes.