You are still talking about oneness, whereas Advaita clearly means not-twoness. Allow me to quote from MN1:
“He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself in Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself apart from Nibbāna, he should not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he should not delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say.
This sounds like it totally conforms to not-twoness. If you are finding twoness in the realisation of nibbana, I am surely not seeing it!
Now, regarding ‘an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma’, there is clearly twoness:
“He perceives unity as unity. Having perceived unity as unity, he conceives himself as unity, he conceives himself in unity, he conceives himself apart from unity, he conceives unity to be ‘mine,’ he delights in unity. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
Here it is clear that the perceiver and nibbana are being experienced as/taken to be two.
You have apparently changed your argument, and seem to be now assuming that devotion is bad because it must be ‘wrong saddha’, even though I fail to see any support being provided for your claim.
Have you failed to differentiate between the bhikkhu sangha and the ariya sangha perhaps? To remind you of your statement, you said: “If there was a Noble Sangha, why do the monks disagree with each other?” And have you also mistakenly assumed that stream enterers can have differing opinions? I am unaware of any definitions of stream enterers that includes omniscience.