/lit/ - Literature

>>14613397
The Gita itself is also a very late document, it may have layers which are much older but the version we have today is heavily redacted by the Brahman priests to support their own views. This is the case for the vast majority of Vedic material. Even the parts of it that are very old, you have to remember the people who were reading/copying them for hundreds of years obviously had their own motives.

Shankara promotes the Advaita sect, and the Dvaita and Vishishtadvaitans both think it's wrong. Naturally it thinks they're the ones who are wrong, like >>14612928 says, they are all full of sectarianism because they are religious sects. You should read all of them that interest you, but keep a critical perspective. Also you should keep in mind, just because a sect became one of the "major" ones, doesn't mean it's necessarily correct or better than some other writer who is more obscure. History works in weird ways sometimes. The key thing is, keep an open mind. For example as long as you understand that this post >>14613451 comes from a religious and not a scholarly perspective, there is no harm in taking what it says at face value.

You should just be wary of people who want to pretend they are unbiased while really presenting a biased position. Especially these days. Hindu nationalism has made it almost impossible to discuss Hinduism online.