>>24697565
i'm not saying it was not a symbol originally, what i'm saying is that its meaning in tantric buddhism or whatever doesn't necessarily have a very strong connection with its original meaning.
sure, it was a symbol, but like those others it was a pretty obvious one, not too abstract, more of a metonym - a little bit multivalent in the context of actual rigvedic poetry perhaps, but certainly nothing like the much later esoteric schools that made use of it.
anyway my point was moreso the fact that it is literally cognate with those mythologies.