Advaita Vedanta versus Maimonides

My basic feeling about the Advaita Vedanta is that it does not start out with obvious first principles. It wants to claim a strong thesis without proof and that thesis is by no means obvious. On the contrary, in Math, people start out with certain given axioms, but which are not counter intuitive. Rather axioms that seem obvious and almost do not even need to be stated. Like the shortest distance between two point is  straight line.

Besides that there are idolatry and Sitra achra [Dark Side] problems with Eastern Religions and all mysticism.The only thing I see as being a valid set of values is the Torah  system with no mysticism mixed in.
Mysticism is how the Sitra Achra managed to penetrate the Torah world
To this Brett Stevens answered to me:
My basic feeling about the Advaita Vedanta is that its does not start out with obvious first principles.
It starts with a vision, from which first principles are later implied throughout the documents.
As far as its thesis, idealism is it; it supports this with metaphor instead of conventionally structured argument.
This is probably the best introduction for it I can imagine:

That, and Evola, maybe a bit of Schopenhauer.

That was the version of the book that I read many times over. I still have to say that I was not convinced. The closest I saw as an argument was Spinoza and even there I was not convinced. [He assumes nothing can affect a substance. That stacks the deck for his approach. But it is not a obvious first principle.] [On the other hand it clear substances can affect each other.]

You would probably more want to read The Upanishads, but the point Huxley makes is that these ideas are not presented in philosophical format. They are merely descriptions and metaphors, like most religious writing. I found Spinoza convincing with a few caveats, so detoured to Kant. From there, Schopenhauer and from that, the Bhagavad-Gita.

I did a bit of the Upanishads and Sutras. But took a different path than you. From Spinoza to Maimonides, Kant,  and Schopenhauer.  I have great respect for Spinoza and I can understand why you would think he is true. I think it was a combination of things that took me on a different track. (1) Leibniz (2) my own critique on him based on my understanding of Substance based on Aristotle. From my  side of things it find it hard to imagine taking either the rationalists or the empiricists based on Kant's Critique. To me it seems there simply is no choice for anyone except to go with some school of thought that takes Kant into account. That means some school of German Idealism.

So I settled on the Kant school which seemed to make the most sense to me. You really have to combine it with Schopenhauer. You also need to be able to read through the chatter of later 20th century philosophical pseudo intellectuals.]

If I try to explain what I like about Kant it would probably go like this. I hate when stupid philosophers talk about science. I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs. Even the really smart ones like Edward Feser. The only one that did his homework is Kelley Ross and he shows very well how Kant's system works well with Quantum Mechanics.