Yantras

Damascius

Damascius on yantriform representations of the yavana-s.
He in turn mentions a certain “yantravit” Philolaos whose work is lost.
The placing of the goddesses in the corners of the bounding square parallels the parvan-devatA-s of H yantras.
Also circle ~ maNDala in H tradition.(5)

For why did the Pythagoreans consecrate to one god the circle, to another the triangle, to another the square,
and to each of the others another rectilinear figure as well as their mixtures,
as the semicircle to the Dioscouroi?

Philolaos, who was wise in these matters, oftentimes assigned to one same god one or another figure
in accord with one or another property of that god.
In general terms it is certain that the circular figure is common to all the intellectual gods qua intellectual,
while the different rectilinear figures are the properties of each respectively
in accord with their particular properties of numbers, angles and sides.

For example, the triangle is the property of Athena and the square of Hermes –
as Philolaos has already said.
And of the square, one angle is the property of Rhea, another of Hera,
and the other angles are associated with other deities.
And this is the complete theological definition of figures.

Proclus

Gregory Shaw explaining Proclus’ understanding of the yantriform figures of the yavana-s, which he alludes to in his “bhAShya” on Euclid (137-138). The “constellations” is Shaw’s speculation. It is not clear if that’s what Proclus meant. He could be talking celestial paths:

To each god, he (Proclus) concludes, there are appropriate symbols and shapes (In Euclidem, 138, 21-22). One may assume, therefore, that each god was associated with a geometric figure that appeared in the heavens “at critical moments,” and that these figures (constellations?) were employed at such times in some form of theurgic worship.