Mayank Singh

This article explores the roots of violence and hatred in modern society, arguing that they arise not from human nature itself but from a deep loss of devotion to humanity and the Earth. Through an examination of ego, self-centredness, and conditioned social structures, the article suggests that violence is normalized through subtle psychological and structural mechanisms long before it manifests physically. The work situates violence as a consequence of attachment, domination, and unconscious power, and contrasts it with love as a non-psychological, non-egoic state of being.

This work argues that democracy survives not through elections or institutions alone, but through the continuous questioning of power by citizens. It presents questioning as an essential democratic duty that keeps authority accountable, prevents the concentration of power, and protects the nation from internal authoritarian tendencies. By challenging the idea that criticism is disloyal or anti-national, the text redefines patriotism as active engagement with constitutional values and public welfare. Ultimately, it emphasizes that the true strength of a democracy lies not in its rulers, but in the vigilance and courage of its questioning citizens.

This work examines modern education as a structural and psychological process rather than a pedagogical or policy problem. It argues that contemporary educational systems increasingly replace intelligence—understood as direct perception, inquiry, and openness—with memorisation, authority, and credential-based legitimacy. Drawing on phenomenological observation, the text analyzes how teaching practices, examinations, moral instruction, academic specialization, and institutional incentives condition obedience while discouraging uncertainty, curiosity, and foundational questioning. Particular attention is given to higher education and doctoral culture, where intellectual authority is formalized and wonder is progressively replaced by methodological loyalty and professional caution. The work does not propose reforms or alternative models; its aim is diagnostic rather than prescriptive. By exposing normalized assumptions about education, expertise, and morality, it seeks to clarify the distinction between knowledge and understanding, qualification and intelligence, and learning and freedom.

This chapter argues that the defining challenge of the twenty-first century is not technological advancement but a crisis of consciousness rooted in the illusion of human separation—from one another and from the Earth. Drawing on phenomenological reflection and contemporary global realities such as ecological collapse, technological mediation, and social fragmentation, the work examines how identities built on division have shaped human psychology, relationships, and institutions. It proposes togetherness not as a moral ideal or ideological demand, but as a practical and existential necessity for collective survival. The chapter explores a shift from domination to coexistence, from control to awareness, and from isolated individuality to relational responsibility, suggesting that genuine awareness dissolves the false boundaries that sustain conflict. Togetherness is presented as a rediscovery of an already interconnected reality rather than a future political project.

This paper undertakes a phenomenological investigation into the experience of overthinking and its relation to fear, anxiety, and happiness. Rather than treating overthinking as a cognitive malfunction or emotional imbalance, the study brackets psychological and therapeutic explanations to examine how overthinking appears in lived experience. The analysis reveals that overthinking is structured by psychological time—namely regret associated with the past and expectation associated with the future. Fear and anxiety emerge as experiential formations within this temporal structure, while happiness is shown not to arise as an intentional object of thought. Instead, happiness appears phenomenologically only when consciousness is no longer oriented toward past or future projections. The paper concludes that happiness is not a product of positive overthinking but an experiential state disclosed when psychological time is suspended.

This essay examines why power and money hold deep psychological fascination in human societies, while values such as equality, love, and freedom often appear unrealistic or rebellious. It argues that this fascination does not arise from innate ambition alone, but from the structural reality of inequality. In unequal societies, power and wealth transform from practical tools into symbols of dignity, security, and human worth. As basic needs and respect are unevenly distributed, money becomes protection from vulnerability, and power becomes control over fear and uncertainty. The essay further explores how lived experience shapes human understanding, suggesting that values not practiced in everyday life remain abstract and emotionally charged rather than intellectually grounded. Consequently, equality and freedom threaten established hierarchies and are perceived as radical ideas rather than rational necessities. The work concludes that the pursuit of power perpetuates the very inequality that generates its appeal, while genuine freedom cannot emerge within unequal structures. By reframing equality not as moral idealism but as intellectual honesty, the essay challenges dominant assumptions about power, dignity, and human values.

History has long been presented as a celebration of rulers, victories, and empires. Kings are remembered as heroes, wars as necessities, and power as destiny. This research paper challenges that inherited narrative. It argues that rulers were primarily managers of power rather than guardians of people, and that history, when treated as a source of pride, loses its purpose as a tool for understanding. Central to this study is the concept of Swaraj—a term often romanticized but rarely examined. By distinguishing between monarchical Swaraj (rule by a ruler) and democratic Swaraj (rule by the people), this paper exposes how freedom has frequently been reduced to symbolic independence while systems of domination remained intact. The paper further proposes that history is not a moral courtroom nor a battlefield of pride, but a mirror reflecting collective human choices, obedience, fear, and responsibility. Understanding history truthfully is essential not to glorify the past, but to prevent its repetition.

This paper examines the relationship between political power and public unawareness in contemporary democratic societies. It argues that the erosion of critical awareness among citizens transforms politics from a system of accountability into a field dominated by emotional identification, symbolism, and personal loyalty. Rather than treating unawareness as merely a failure of education or information access, the paper analyzes it as a structural condition that enables the concentration of power and the weakening of democratic institutions. When political leadership is evaluated through identity, charisma, or perceived strength rather than policy outcomes and responsibility, accountability dissolves and dissent becomes delegitimized. This dynamic gradually paralyzes democratic functioning by replacing critical participation with passive spectatorship or defensive allegiance. The paper concludes that democracy depends not only on formal mechanisms such as elections, but on sustained public awareness capable of questioning authority and resisting the personalization of power.

Contemporary human life is increasingly organized around approval and validation. Social media amplifies performative identity, while education is largely reduced to economic utility. These developments are often criticized as cultural or technological distortions. This work argues instead that they reveal a deeper existential structure: human identity itself is historically and psychologically formed through dependence on external approval. While human consciousness possesses a unique capacity for self-awareness beyond survival needs, this capacity remains largely unused. The dominance of validation-based existence limits genuine understanding and reduces intelligence to an instrumental function. By examining approval as the foundation of identity, this essay explores the purpose of human consciousness and the conditions under which understanding—rather than performance—may emerge.

This paper examines the contemporary claim that individuals live freely chosen lives and argues that personal freedom in modern society is largely illusory. It contends that from birth onward, individuals are embedded within inherited social, cultural, economic, and ideological structures that pre-configure desires, fears, ambitions, and definitions of success. Rather than exercising genuine autonomy, most people select from a limited range of socially approved options while mistaking conditioned compliance for free choice. The paper analyzes how modern systems of control operate primarily through internalization rather than overt coercion, leading individuals to self-regulate and self-censor in accordance with prevailing norms. By questioning the origins of our beliefs and life trajectories, the paper raises a central philosophical question: if our goals and values are largely inherited, whose life are we actually living? The paper concludes that reclaiming one’s life does not require radical rebellion but sustained self-awareness, critical reflection, and the willingness to think independently, even at the cost of comfort and social approval.

Contemporary democratic societies have achieved significant technological and institutional development, yet persistent violence, inequality, and ethical fragmentation remain. This paper examines whether these failures stem from defects in democratic structures or from a more fundamental limitation in human consciousness. Drawing upon the author’s three-volume work The Illusion of Being Human and engaging with the philosophies of Baruch Spinoza, early Buddhist texts, B. R. Ambedkar, and phenomenology, the paper argues that the concept of God may be reinterpreted as an emergent ethical reality rather than a supernatural authority. It is suggested that democracy can function as a genuinely ethical system only when accompanied by a corresponding development in collective consciousness. Keywords: Consciousness, Democracy, God, Ethics, Spinoza, Buddhism, Ambedkar, Phenomenology

This paper presents an independent philosophical inquiry into consciousness, belief, and human freedom through a phenomenological and observational approach. Rather than offering doctrinal conclusions or empirical proofs, the study examines lived human experience as it unfolds within social conditioning, belief systems, bodily awareness, and relational life. Drawing from sustained first-person observation and reflective analysis, the inquiry is structured in three conceptual movements: (1) an examination of why human intelligence and morality often fail to translate into humane behavior; (2) an analysis of belief as a formative psychological and social force shaping perception, identity, and action; and (3) an exploration of freedom understood not as ideological liberty, but as perceptual clarity arising from awareness. The paper situates itself within the philosophical traditions of phenomenology, existential inquiry, and contemplative philosophy, while explicitly acknowledging the limits of knowledge and subjectivity. Concepts such as consciousness, love, and freedom are treated descriptively rather than prescriptively. The aim is not to persuade or instruct, but to restore attention to observation itself as a foundational philosophical act in an age dominated by belief, opinion, and certainty. Keywords: Phenomenology, Consciousness, Belief, Awareness, Freedom, Love.

This paper advances a philosophical inquiry into consciousness by arguing that primordial order precedes both theological and metaphysical abstractions traditionally invoked to explain existence. Against frameworks that ground consciousness in divine causation, transcendental substance, or externally imposed rational structures, the paper proposes the concept of zero as a pre-theological and pre-ontological condition from which order, meaning, and conscious experience emerge. Drawing on phenomenological analysis, the study examines lived experience prior to conceptual mediation, revealing consciousness as self-ordering rather than derivatively structured by belief, doctrine, or metaphysical necessity. The paper critically engages with classical and contemporary accounts of God, order, and subjectivity, showing how theological assumptions often retroactively impose coherence upon what is originally indeterminate. By situating consciousness before belief and order before divinity, the argument reframes the relationship between meaning, existence, and freedom. This approach not only challenges dominant metaphysical and religious narratives but also offers a non-dogmatic foundation for understanding human experience as fundamentally open, dynamic, and self-constituting. The paper contributes to ongoing debates in phenomenology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion by articulating a minimal, non-theistic account of order grounded in consciousness itself.