'andra

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.