I don’t reach the conclusion that the mind-body duality per se is necessary for reasoning. It’s the principle appealed to in rejecting the mind-body duality that’s at issue. This principle seems to be the notion of a real or true distinction, i.e. a distinction that’s written into the laws of the universe. However, nothing but the fundamental particles (or “building blocks”) of the universe could be said to have such distinctions, and those only from one another. It also entails a rejection of logical distinction, which is at least on the premise level is completely arbitrary. If I presume two symbols, be they 0 and 1, A and B, or True and False, you’re in no way obligated to accept my presumption.
Regarding what you claim as “alternative ways to practice consciousness”, I can’t help but note that consciousness is still required there. As long as a person is conscious, he’ll have an “ego”. Essentially I equate the two notions. Now the consciousness/ego might change its behavior, as in the “ego death” article you cite, but that doesn’t make it go away. In fact, one could interpret “ego death” as the ego feeling as though it’s expanded to become the entire universe, in which case maybe the term “ego ascendance” or “ego supremacy” might be more appropriate.