Thinkin' astir

I think therefore I exist? Descartes's syllogism traps one into believing it, because his logic impresses. But after all, I don't exist only because I think? I exist even prior to the commencement of thought. Descartes seems pretty certain that he exists, and based on that assumption he expounds things. Quite possibly, the premise is awry. In strict logical terms, this demands inquiry. My own assumption above is, perhaps, equally faulty. How do I know that I exist even prior to the commencement of thought? It will be worthwhile, also, to remind ourselves that the whole argument is a reaction (to something). Reason is a reaction. It is merely a function upon which existence need not depend. The quandary of mental or reason oriented approach to knowing is that it can not objectify itself. It assumes subjectively that it (the thinker) exists. Something must be assumed Hypothetically, in order for it to be proven. But it is indeed a valid approach and it has helped man delve deep into the nature of phenomena. It has explained phenomenon. But what about the origin upon which,- let us agree-, phenomenon is reflected? It is quite natural that existence is presumed. The very fact that I inquire presupposes that I exist. But do I exist because I think? Worth considering, Would you not say? What, then, should be the right premise of inquiry? Intelligence? Intuition? Or is there something called intuitive intelligence? Let us reflect upon the Sanskrit Shlokah: पूर्णम् इदम् /पूर्णमदः/ पूर्णात् पूर्णंमुदछ्यते//पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय/ पूर्णंमेवावशिष्यते । ॐ शान्ति शान्ति शांतिः॥