I believe I used the imagery of a wheel, where the center is still while the circumference is busy. What can be more revealing than this?
Actually, two things:
The first is most telling:
The wheel is a symbol that lies in a single, horizontal, plane — it is a circle in which the fullness of its being is explored, but never transcended.
The second, I realise, is something about you, which I shall not publish, suffice to say it explains your sense of your own infallibility — you pick the wheel because you see your self as the centre of the cosmos, all being relates to your being.
With regard to symbols (as opposed to imagery) I would suggest the cross, which not only 'covers' the wheel, but brings out the axis upon which the wheel turns, allowing a pan- (as opposed to two-) dimensional activity, as well as opening up a meta-cosmology.
According to René Guénon, perhaps the foremost esoterist and metaphysician of the last couple of centuries, in most traditional doctrines the cross symbolises the realisation of 'Universal Man'.
The cross clearly represents the manner of achievement of this realisation by the perfect communion of all states of the being, harmoniously and conformably ranked, in integral expansion, in the double sense of "amplitude" and "exaltation".
This expansion of the being (and the eventual transcendence of being itself) takes place horizontally at the level or degree of existence, and vertically in the hierarchical superimposition of all the degrees (by incorporation into the highest, the Logos).
The horizontal represents "amplitude", or integral extension of the individuality taken as basis for realisation (in Christianity, it also signifies inclusion, in the arms spread wide), and the vertical represents hierarchy, likewise and a fortiori indefinite, of the multiples states of being.
Another view of the cross, defined by the equator and the line going through the poles, is tridimensional, linked to the six directions of space and the centre of the cross, through a symbolism that appears notably in the Hebraic kabbalah in relation to the "mystery of unity", in Christian mystagogy, and in Hindu doctrines as well (cf Romans 8:38).
Then, the symbol of the cross may develop according to different points of view: "union of the complements", with the vertical line representing the active principle and the horizontal line the passive principle, hence establishing an application of the general consideration of Purusha-Prakriti, Essence-Substance, the "resolution of the opposites", symbolized by the central point which corresponds to what Islamic esoterism calls the "Divine station", namely "that which combines contrasts and antinomies" (al-mâqam lillahi huwa mâqam ijtima 'al-diddâin): this station (mâqam), or degree of the being's effective realization, is attained by al-fanâ', that is, by the "extinction" of the ego in the return to the "primordial state"; such "extinction", writes René Guénon, even as regards the literal meaning of the term denoting it, is not without analogy to the Nirvâna of the Buddhist doctrine.
Beyond al-fanâ', there is still fanâ al-fanâ', the "extinction of the extinction", which similarly corresponds to "Parinirvâna". In the Far-Eastern tradition, the central point is called the "Invariable Middle" (Ching-Yin) which is the place of perfect equilibrium, represented as the center of the 'cosmic wheel', and is also, at the same time, the point where the 'Activity of Heaven' is directly manifested. This center directs all things by its "actionless activity" (wei wu wei), which although unmanifested, or rather because it is unmanifested, is in reality the plenitude of activity, since it is the activity of the Principle whence all activities are derived; Guénon notes that this has been expressed by Lao Tzu as follows: "The Principle is always actionless, yet everything is done by It". This "Invariable Middle" is also the locus of "Peace in the void", corresponding to what Islamic esoterism calls the "Great Peace".
The Symbolism of the Cross
+++
It is not problematic at all if you are not Christian.
No, quite true, but then, if you're not, it's irrelevant, isn't it? It's totally out of its paradigmatic context.
The appeal of the GoT is that it can mean anything you want it to.
What has surpassed the GoT? It contains everything that is necessary, it should be the first text all Christians read when they become intrigued by theosis - nothing I have seen within the Christian spectrum even comes close.
Lunitik, sometimes you say things which demonstrate just how little you know about what you presume to be an authority on ...
There are superior texts, but nothing Christianity has developed.
Feel free to show me I am wrong here...
Sadly, as you yourself have stated, you're not here to learn. And I'm not here to waste my time, and the list would exhaust the post word-count, and your patience, and you'd not understand a fraction of it, anyway.
Off the top of my head, anything from the
Philokalia, let's see how poor an opinion you have of
that ...
God bless,
Thomas