How can the book criticize argumentation as 'bad thoughts and false logic' while simultaneously using its own arguments to persuade the reader? This seems like a contradiction.

The text from Chapter 2 makes a nuanced distinction between different forms of reasoning. It warns against a specific type of argumentation rooted in ego, the desire to "establish your own side," and to engage in "dualistic explanations." This approach, as Chapter 2 describes, is a product of ignorance and Maya. The book does not reject reasoning entirely but rather advocates for a different path to truth, one centered on faith, devotion, and contemplation. The logic it employs is to guide the reader away from intellectual sparring and toward a state where "Self-experience and self-bliss will come naturally" through hearing and internalizing Baba's stories.