No I do not disagree with them. But, one must decide, when looking at all statements that are made, how the interpretation should go. Certain sections of the analysis of Brahman in the Upanishads should serve as the foundation around which the rest of the descriptions should be fitted to make the house, so to say.
Reading Sankara's works, it has been my impression that he was more concerned with how to interpret the Upanishads so as to fit his school's predetermined metaphysics and theology of Brahman, rather than developing a bottom up consistent exegesis of the Upanishads themselves guided by a plain reading of what was being said. There are certain obscure passages, but overall the Upanisads are quite simple to read and to understand in and of themselves, especially where the discussion centers on Brahman, Atman, Purusa, the world and their inter-relationships.
That is what Vedanta philosophy is, an exegesis of the Upanishads. Every Vedanta philosopher has interpreted the Upanishads and come up with a certain view. Now, whether Shankara already had a pre-existing interpretation which he looked to justify by finding it in the Upanishads, or whether he found his interpretation in the Upanishads anew, you cannot prove. The same can be said about Ramunja, Madhva and the others.
The Upanishads are not easy to read at all, because they are full of contradictions. It is because the are notoriously difficult to interpret coherently is why there is so much diversity of Vedanta traditions.
You seem to be under this impression that everybody else has got it wrong, everybody else had some predetermined agenda, and only you you have got it by "plain reading" Although so far I have seen the total opposite, you seem to be constantly misinterpreting everything you have read so far. The same charge applies to you, you seem to be trying to force it to fit modern science.
You have still not made a clear position on what you think Brahman is in the Upanishads. What is your position on what Brahman is, why do you hesitate to make one? Describe your position to us. In the same way I have made a very clear position, "Brahman is God, a sentient, seeing, thinking entity, that created this universe"
