Mental Sovereignty — Argument

Direct answer

Mental Sovereignty — Argument is implemented as a source-bounded argument guide.

Answer contract

Apply the argument lens only to the exact inspected source scope; do not infer authority from adjacent topics.

Evidence and exact locators

maha-principle-mental-sovereignty-t8 — repo:content/books/the-maha-principle/The-Maha-Principle.md — working authorial manuscript inspected 2026-09-06; The Biological Basis of Liberty; Chapter 2: The Fractured Mind; The Attentional Veto; The Sovereign Self: Internal Authority Without Domination; The Mind Domain: Attentional Sovereignty. Supports: The manuscript defines sovereignty as capacity for considered choice within one’s own mind and body, distinguishes that interior authority from domination of others, and proposes attention-management practices as an authorial programme.

What the evidence does not establish

The term is Mayone Maharajan’s normative synthesis. It is not a diagnosis, legal status, measured neurological construct, proof that the proposed practices work, permission to disregard care, or authority over another person.

Rights and reuse

Maha-controlled working authorial manuscript; bounded summary and short attributed quotation only. The packet does not imply publication, peer review, consensus, or empirical validation.

Dependencies and related concepts

applies-to: urn:maha:concept:autonomy:mental-sovereignty

governed-by: urn:maha:concept:governance

evidence-for: urn:maha:concept:autonomy

Source or implementation

This source or implementation section is constrained to the same inspected scope: The manuscript defines sovereignty as capacity for considered choice within one’s own mind and body, distinguishes that interior authority from domination of others, and proposes attention-management practices as an authorial programme.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: The term is Mayone Maharajan’s normative synthesis. It is not a diagnosis, legal status, measured neurological construct, proof that the proposed practices work, permission to disregard care, or authority over another person.

Method

This method section is constrained to the same inspected scope: The manuscript defines sovereignty as capacity for considered choice within one’s own mind and body, distinguishes that interior authority from domination of others, and proposes attention-management practices as an authorial programme.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: The term is Mayone Maharajan’s normative synthesis. It is not a diagnosis, legal status, measured neurological construct, proof that the proposed practices work, permission to disregard care, or authority over another person.

Limits and uncertainty

This limits and uncertainty section is constrained to the same inspected scope: The manuscript defines sovereignty as capacity for considered choice within one’s own mind and body, distinguishes that interior authority from domination of others, and proposes attention-management practices as an authorial programme.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: The term is Mayone Maharajan’s normative synthesis. It is not a diagnosis, legal status, measured neurological construct, proof that the proposed practices work, permission to disregard care, or authority over another person.

Dependencies

This dependencies section is constrained to the same inspected scope: The manuscript defines sovereignty as capacity for considered choice within one’s own mind and body, distinguishes that interior authority from domination of others, and proposes attention-management practices as an authorial programme.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: The term is Mayone Maharajan’s normative synthesis. It is not a diagnosis, legal status, measured neurological construct, proof that the proposed practices work, permission to disregard care, or authority over another person.

Questions this page can answer