The confusion is not so much in the texts as it is in the approach taken by each school.
Advaita resorts to explaining away ~98% of the śrutis as either karma kāṇḍa and/or vyāvahārika (including śrutis from upaniṣads), and of the remaining ~2% only portions of the sentences are used to establish their thesis.
V-advaita though accepting karma kāṇḍa distinction, it at least takes all upaniṣad vākyas on the same footing.
Tattvavāda considers the entire gamut of śruti vākyas to convey tattva unequivocally and with a common purport with karma kāṇḍa meanings being only secondary.
Well, @
तत्त्वप्रह्व will address this with more detail, but I have never seen someone say that there are more Abheda Shrutis than Bheda Shrutis. The verses that advocate difference clearly outnumber the verses that advocate non-dualism, but there's no problem with that. I don't know about Advaitins, but Vishistadvaitins can explain both of them pretty easily without resorting to word jugglery and favoring certain verses.
Well, anyone with even basic understanding of epistemology of advaita, wouldn't make such surmises about other schools, but it is really pointless to clarify to those whose only qualification is ignorance even of the school that they seem to profess.
ya know dvaita philosophy started after the introduction of christianity and islam.
advaita philosophical school started in the 8th century,
philosophical schools aside. gurus who preached these philosophies can be traced back.
the earliest accounts of strict advaita teachings date back to the 4th century, while the early accounts of strict dvaita teachings date back to the 5th century.
You haven't a clue about what you are talking. There were dvaitins before Śri Śaṅkara, during his time, and later too. The very naming shows that his philosophy is that which is against it. Śri Śaṅkara himself uses the term dvaitinaḥ to refer to those schools.
although this isnt exactly unbiased to say, mystics from several other religious groupings have confirmed advaitas stance, this indicates in a very scientific way that regardless of codes or belief there is an underlying truth that is found at the end of the road of spiritual growth. Sihks, buddhists, jains, shintoists, and pagan mystery schools all end up with pretty much the same conclusion as advaita.
What you are saying is tantamount to holding that advaita is basically same as buddhism, jainism, with which traditionally advaitins themselves will disagree.
on the other hand the only religions that are even vaguely similar to dvaita are abrahamic religions, hmm suspicious....
Really? In what way? Do abrahamic religions believe in Viṣṇu? Or in the vedas? Or in reincarnation? Or in infinite kalyāṇa guṇas (~divine characteristics) of Viṣṇu? Or in Him having multiple forms? Or the possibility of worshipping those forms in icons? Or not resorting to animal sacrifices? Or in performing yajñas? Even jewish and zoroastrian texts have corrupted teaching from the vedas, it only goes to show the influence of vaidika thoughts on those religions, not the other way round.
From sai babas to kriya yoga schools, it has been advaitins who have tried to form some kind of syncretism, perhaps much to remorse of traditional advaitins.
@kalyan most people here do not understand even basic saṁskṛtam, what exactly are to trying to learn by discussing upaniṣads!? If all you want is copy-paste of poor english translations that belie even the schools that are presented, it is really not that difficult - wikipedia/sacred texts/etc will give more than enough of such crap. Do you think anyone has even bothered reading what you've written in the OP to understand?
नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।
