. from vedic india to buddhist japan 1051
a “socio-ontological” shift, that is, a change in ontological category for
some particular social group. In the Vedic tradition the establishment
of the three (or five) śrauta fires constituted a change that seems to
have been ambiguously identified with the fires themselves and with
the practitioner.^13
Mandalization of the Lived World: Altars, Dwellings, and Monasteries
The anthropocosmic vision of the Vedic practitioners lies in the back-
ground of such construction rites, creating homologies between the
human body, the mandala, the altar, and dwellings (Meister 2003).
These homologies are concretized, for example, in the geometrics
involved in laying out a Vedic altar and the very similar geometrics
used to lay out a mandala.^14
That such rites formed a major concern of tantric Buddhists is
reflected in the Kriyāsaṃgraha, a text dealing with constructing a
monastery, including finding an appropriate site and locating sound
building materials. At the same time, however, the instructions
(^13) This at least is how I understand the ambiguity about whether the initial estab-
lishment of the śrauta fires (agnyādheya) changes the social status of the one offering
sacrifice or has to do with the fires themselves. As an initiatory rite, the agnyādheya
should change the status of the sacrificer permanently. On the other hand, the fires
could become extinguished or “wear out,” and thus need to be ritually reestablished
(punarādheya). “Nevertheless the texts do not recommend the punarādheya as a rem-
edy, but only yearly offerings with certain mantras. Apparently the ritualist, though
still recognizing the need for a periodical renewal, held on to the position that the
śrauta fires are to be established once for all” (Sparrebom and Heesterman 1989, 98).
In other words, although the fires would need to be rekindled, such an action could
not change the social status of the sacrificer, who had already achieved the status
of a śrauta sacrificer. It is worth emphasizing, however, that this may be more of a
problem for us today since we draw a sharp distinction between social and ontologi-
cal realms, a distinction that was perhaps not made or not made as sharply by the
Vedic authors.
(^14) In Japan the term “mandara” is used for a variety of geographic representations
(see ten Grotenhuis 1999; Orzech 1996a; Gardiner 1996). Given this rather unique
usage, one wonders whether the mathematical part of the ritual tradition did not make
it to Japan, hence providing the freedom of adapting the term “mandara” to a variety
of geographic representations. Apparently under the influence of Romantic precon-
ceptions regarding the nature of religion, much of the attention to East Asian Bud-
dhism has focused on its aesthetic and doctrinal aspects, leaving unexamined ritual
practice and the attendant cultural knowledge required. This entire field, including
the question of mathematical knowledge, is an area requiring additional research to
determine what kinds of mathematical texts did get translated into Chinese and then
conveyed to Japan.