What is the use of Logic in vedanta?

There are some stataments in Vedanta which is normally contorted or distorted according to one’s own design / desire. One such statement we take up here:

Today we will see the statement from katopanishad : “naisha tarkena matirapaneya”

Naisha – na esha – never this

Tarkena – through the logic

Matir – knowledge

Apaneya is the tricky word. Aapneya means gain and if it is taken as apaneya – destroy / wrongly understand (redirect)

The others who have not understood the Vedanta and/or who have no introduction to the school of logic (tarka) use as an instrument to condemn logic.

But if one has no use of logic, vedanta will only be like any other cult. And the shruti talking about the manana and nidhidhyasana will not just be impossible but erroneous too.

This statement only warns us from getting into the useless tarka or non-shruti based tarka. This is what bhagavan bhashyakara states in his sadhanapancakam – “dustarkad suviramyatam shrutimatas tarkonusandiyatam” – get away from the wrong logic and follow the logic accepted by the scriptures.

Since this is about the self-luminous Self, all that is needed of the logic is to negate the wrong notions about the Self. But, not understanding this, if one tries to use the logic to understand the Self or to negate the Self, then, for him this is the teaching – it cannot be gained by logic. Because through logic, we only try to reach a point that is attainable through the intellect. The self is beyond it and which illumines the intellect. And, even through hundreds of logic, we cannot also negate the existence of the Self, which is I.

“asan eva sa bhavati, asad brahma iti veda cet” – he will verily be inert (non-self-conscious, non-existent) if he understands the Brahman (Self) as asat (inert /  non-existent).

“asti brahma it ced veda, santam enam tato vidur iti” – if one understands the Brahman as existence, then the knowledgable one understands / proclaims him to be a knower of Self.

And in this same taiteriya upainshad, the process of vichara is shown. And vichara presupposes logical faculty.

And to prove this point, bhashyakara says in the bhashya of th above mentioned statement, that this truth can be understood only if is heard from a knowledgable and logical Master.

Who else is better than the logician to understand the fallacy of the logic. Any logic can be fit with an upadhi dosha, they know.

And the logicians are not kept alive by vedantins as a sparring partner for the debates, but to help us understand the nuances of the discussion better.