'andra

The dhyana beginning with "Katyayani pravakshyami rupam dashabhujaamstatha..." seems to have "lochanatraya samyuktam purnendu sadRShAnanAM"- I e., her 3 eyed face is like full moon and next verse says "atasi puShpavarNAbhAM supratiShThAm sulocanAM". Seems to be pointing to her having moon like white face and body that is blue. Which is like the Ekanamshā Rupa described in Harivamsha

I know the essay below defines "Hindu" in terms of theology and praxis (i.e. veneration of deities that adhere to an Indo-Aryan type) Perhaps that's a more capacious definition But I feel a philosophical predilection against dualism and a preference for either non-dualism or panentheism is central to making sense of many features of Hinduism. Though many Hindus are dualists. This might annoy adherents of dvaita / shaiva siddhAnta etc. But our anti-dualist inclination explains a lot of things in the Hindu world such as below - 1. The idea of "invoking" the divine in oneself. Becoming one with the deity (central to mantra-mArga). 2. The idea of nature worship (consistent with pantheism / panentheism) 3. The idea that "dharma" is to be discovered over time from observation of the natural order, as opposed to morality being a revelatory law (as is the case in semitic religions) 4. The idea of seeing the divine in nature to the extent that nature is not seen as a "gift" from "god" to man to exploit (the latter idea is explicit in Christianity). This again explains H attitudes towards nature and perhaps even certain H predilections like a preference for vegetarian food 5. The idea of enlightenment (mokSha) again involves total union with the absolute. Anathema to the dualist mind. So much of "new age" hinduism with a focus on yoga and other sAdhanas is contingent on this idea Of course lay hindus might have no clue about philosophy. But without the non-dualist / pantheistic intellectual justification, the above features of Hinduism are indefensible and would seem "barbaric"

The Spitzer Manuscript is often said to be in “Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.” However, a fragment reads “ucchāryetu saṃskṛt mitya”—clearly referring to Sanskrit. If it were truly hybrid, terms indicating mixture would appear, but instead it directly mentions Sanskrit.