Spiritualistic reason is necessary to unfold the truth of the whole.+

The ultimate truth or Brahman cannot be known by intuition, but it can be grasped through soul-centric reasoning.

There is a need to realize first that the Self is not you, but the Self is the invisible Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness.

Soul-centric reasoning clears all the clouds and confusion starts clearing on its own, and finally, you will have no confusion left to say the dualistic illusion as a whole is the invisible Soul (Spirit or the consciousness).

One knows everything within the waking experience is consciousness because the waking experience itself is merely an illusion created out of consciousness.

The physical apparatus is absent in deep sleep, so one cannot know anything by intuition, because there is no duality in deep sleep. This proves that the duality is present only in waking or dreaming. And also it proves that if there be such a faculty as intuition, it must be limited to the physical Self within the physical existence.

The invisible Soul is the Self. The Soul is present in the form of consciousness.

The invisible Soul is the witness-consciousness that experiences the action, the actor, and the world of separate things. It is like a light that illuminates everything in a theater, revealing the master of ceremonies, the guests, and the dancers with complete impartiality. Even when they all depart, the light shines to reveal their absence.

Logic is misunderstood. People cannot distinguish between reasoning and intellect as a Gnani does. Egocentric reason applied only to practical life within the practical world is called logic, intellect.

Soulcentric reason is the Spiritualistic reason is necessary to unfold the truth of the whole.

A Gnani knows both egocentric reason (logic) and Soulcentric reason. He uses the egocentric reason (logic) in practical life within the practical world and uses the Soulcentric reason to know the truth beyond time and space.

Logic is very much necessary for practical purposes. But the logic cannot be applied to discover the truth because logic implies duality, and the ultimate truth is based on a Nondualistic perspective.

To say rise above logic is generally confused with saying "Rise above Reason." It is wrong to give up reason. Life does not consist only of the waking state. We must take all three states into account.

If one sticks to the old formal logic, one cannot get at the truth. People seeing this insufficiency of logic, therefore, wrongly say, "Give up logic and go to intuition." Their error is “What is it that told them that logic was not enough?” It was Reason itself, not intuition. Thus, there is confusion between logic and reason.

The reasoning is interpretable in two ways. The defective interpretation is to apply it only to the waking state.

The correct interpretation is to apply it to the three states. The latter leads to the final settlement of the problems because it takes all data into consideration.

Logic, in short, is concerned with correct or valid thinking. Its main concern being non-contradiction, it can lay down the criterion of Truth as non-contradiction, but only with the assumed premises and not with facts. But when facts enter into consideration, we have Reason, but the same criterion of truth remains; only the propositions with which we start must square with facts of experience, with observed data. Hence, the reason includes logic or correct thinking as well as strict fidelity to experience or facts.

Bad logic or insufficiency of facts, or wrong data may lead to untruth. The scientist with a plethora of data may reason illogically and reach false conclusions. Reason avoids both those mistakes.

While reason searches for truth, logic insists on valid or correct thinking only.

Intellect is the power or faculty of thinking logically. The reason is the power or faculty of thinking truly or towards the truth. By reason, we go a step beyond experience by making explicit in is implicit.

The reason is defined as that which makes explicit what is implicit in an experience. This will, I believe, cover the reason of science as well as of Vedanta, between which you have, in some article of yours, made a distinction. When I read that definition of yours, I felt you had descended to mysticism. : ~ : ~ Santthosh Kumaar