The problem with this statement is in ignoring that Buddhism arose from the shramana movement - ascetic pursuits which gave rise to 'Indian mysticism'.
What does 'my study of Buddhism' entail? Universals are abstractions and non-existents in buddhadharma.
Abstractions of what? What I mean by universal is the totality of all form and energy that is not in form. Indian mysticism did not arise in a vacuum, but was influenced by forces outside of India parts of what is now Eastern Europe. Sanskrit is Indo-European.
From my study of Buddhism, there is a pretense of being universal which encompasses all phenomena, imagination and so forth, but in reality the parameters are carefully defined and reductionist. E.g. the monastic system, vows etc. Not very flexible.
Grammar can be culturally biased, whereas mathematics are not. I stand by my statement which was based on studying this period. When persons or writers of texts are rigidly defining their philosophical beliefs such as what Buddhism is replete with, then my statement stands.