Marian Symbolism

[nyquistfrequency]

Here's something I've written on Marian Symbolism which came to me after a period of praying 15 decades of the Rosary each day from around 2 months.

The Feminine aspect of pleasing and serving only occurs/activates in a state of dependence.  
The Feminine must be receiving what she desires (meaning, sustenance, pleasure) for the state of dependence and consequently servitude to form. Dependence is simply a logical outcome of receiving and with dependence comes servitude. It even happens in employment, if the employee isn't receiving pay (people buy things for either meaning, sustenance, or pleasure) there is no servitude to the employer. Even slaves receive and depend upon food, water, and shelter otherwise they die unable to serve anymore, so this is something of a law of reality.  
If we think of Femininity (expression without meaning) in terms of employees, they have the ability to produce work (potential for expression) however they must be guided by the purpose (meaning) of the employer (masculinity = meaning without expression), in order to produce something (physical manifestation). Femininity as principle is pure potential (substance/matter without form) whereas Masculinity is pure act (essence = form without substance/matter)  
  
However, something quite interesting I noticed is that there is no distinction between the highest form of Femininity and the Unmoved Mover. When Femininity dutifully serves without desire for anything in return, a Holy Slavery (as outlined in Louis de Montfort’s Secret of Mary), she acts without reason or motivation,  and thus there is no distinction between her and the Unmoved Mover, she becomes a direct manifestation of God on earth. As she dutifully serves without looking for a reward, a payback, or an external sustenance, she becomes the self sufficient origin of All things. By removing the "Why" of personal desire, she removes the cause of her motion. She is no longer reacting to a conditional input. She acts without an external reason or a localized motivation.

At this limit, she becomes The Vessel. In the Christian tradition, this is the Fiat of Mary:
Luke 1:38 "And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her." Because she has no personal "why" (no egoic motivation), she becomes the perfect mirror for the Absolute's "Why."

www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/secret/secret.shtml
Louis de Montfort’s Secret of Mary is essentially a Christian form of Bhakti yoga, the practice of unmotivated devotion, i.e. Holy Slavery.

Thus Mary's perpetual virginity is a symbol of Materia Prima, Primordial Substance untouched by any finite essence.  

As the universal archetype of Femininity, Maya is both Eve and the Virgin.  
They are two aspects of the same principle, the ambivalent character of Divine Relativity, the Indefinite Dyad of Plato. Maya projects souls in order to free them, and projects evil in order to be able to overcome it. She projects her veil in order to be able to manifest the potentialities of the Supreme Good and She veils good in order to be able to unveil it and manifest a further good: that of the prodigal son's return, or of Deliverance (liberation). The glory of Mary totally effaces the sin of Eve, for it is the sum of all oppositions that constitute perfect harmony, the sum of all disorders and disequilibriums that constitutes the total order, so from this standpoint, which lies beyond all particular standpoints, nothing remains but absolute order and evil is not. Everything but the Supreme Principle is only a seeming, for only God truly is, and thus Eve is infinitely forgiven and victorious in Mary.

Anyways feel free to share your thoughts.

[trevor123]

I would object to your statement that "there is no distinction between her and the Unmoved Mover". In light of the Blessed Virgin's total submission to the will of God, it does not make sense to say that "there is no distinction" between her will and God's will. Submission, by it's very nature, is a suppression of one's one will to the will of another, whether by necessity, or by choice. If the Blessed Virgin's will could be said to be indistinguishable from God's, then saying that she submits to God's will would be meaningless, as at that point she would then only be acting in the only way possible according to her nature.

And again, it does not seem fitting to say that "she becomes the self sufficient origin of All things". I may be misinterpreting the meaning of this, but it seems that such could truly only be said of God. There must be an ontological difference between the will of one submitting to a higher authority, and the will of the higher authority itself: if not, then it does not make sense to say that one could be "submitting" to the authority at all.

Saying that Her will is to do the will of God, would capture the very essence of Her perfect submission to divine providence, and the superabundance of Her own faith in the face of the insurmountable mysteries of Her divine motherhood. But if instead it were to be said that the will of the Blessed Virgin were to cease to exist as something ontologically distinct from the will of God, then that would be a kind of removal of the Blessed Virgin's free will. This is with the understanding that, in a way, She was "predestined" to be the Virgin Mother of God, in accordance with Her Immaculate Conception, in a similar way that it is said that the Lord Jesus was "predestinated the Son of God in power" (Romans 1:4).

[nyquistfrequency]

I would object to your statement that "there is no distinction between her and the Unmoved Mover". In light of the Blessed Virgin's total submission to the will of God, it does not make sense to say that "there is no distinction" between her will and God's will. Submission, by it's very nature, is a suppression of one's one will to the will of another, whether by necessity, or by choice. If the Blessed Virgin's will could be said to be indistinguishable from God's, then saying that she submits to God's will would be meaningless, as at that point she would then only be acting in the only way possible according to her nature.

And again, it does not seem fitting to say that "she becomes the self sufficient origin of All things". I may be misinterpreting the meaning of this, but it seems that such could truly only be said of God. There must be an ontological difference between the will of one submitting to a higher authority, and the will of the higher authority itself: if not, then it does not make sense to say that one could be "submitting" to the authority at all.

Saying that Her will is to do the will of God, would capture the very essence of Her perfect submission to divine providence, and the superabundance of Her own faith in the face of the insurmountable mysteries of Her divine motherhood. But if instead it were to be said that the will of the Blessed Virgin were to cease to exist as something ontologically distinct from the will of God, then that would be a kind of removal of the Blessed Virgin's free will. This is with the understanding that, in a way, She was "predestined" to be the Virgin Mother of God, in accordance with Her Immaculate Conception, in a similar way that it is said that the Lord Jesus was "predestinated the Son of God in power" (Romans 1:4).

Often the things we say are only a means to realize the illusion of them. In the same way, one realizes that one had no will truly independent from God's will, that the egoic will was simply a misinterpretation of reality. Only God's will can be truly free, and any freedom can only be attributed to that which is totally free, that which encompasses all potentials, and not to one's own limitations. The means and the ends (substance and essence) were always truly one, but it is knowledge (of good and evil) which prevented one from realizing this, for knowledge can only be of something particular. There was never any removal of free will, only the realization that the conception of one as a finite being never had any free will to begin with.

For what is the observer but that which is without form, for to have form it would need to be seen, making it an observed object rather than the perceiving subject.
Since all forms arise through difference, and differentiation is a function of perception, the observer must be prior to all distinction and difference.
Thus by Leibniz' identity of indiscernibles the observer is not separate from the Unmanifest but identical to it, the Universal Substance that both perceives and gives rise to all things.
The Unmanifest is not mere nothingness or an absolute/self negation but the Absolute Affirmation of all Possibility, it is like a clay shaped by a sculptor whose tool is perception, 
and in the likeness of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, it is this formation, it is that formation, it is both this and that formation, 
but it is also neither this nor that formation since it is the intangible substance of which all formations consist.
Being omnipotent, the Absolute is bound by nothing and has no limits.
So in encompassing every possibility or limitation, the Absolute, the true Self must realize or actualize itself because it IS itself,
and can be nothing else.
This is the "I AM THAT I AM" of the Self, the very principle of both Identity and Affirmation
In other words, He is that which Affirms or Expresses Himself.

[nyquistfrequency]

I would object to your statement that "there is no distinction between her and the Unmoved Mover". In light of the Blessed Virgin's total submission to the will of God, it does not make sense to say that "there is no distinction" between her will and God's will. Submission, by it's very nature, is a suppression of one's one will to the will of another, whether by necessity, or by choice. If the Blessed Virgin's will could be said to be indistinguishable from God's, then saying that she submits to God's will would be meaningless, as at that point she would then only be acting in the only way possible according to her nature.

And again, it does not seem fitting to say that "she becomes the self sufficient origin of All things". I may be misinterpreting the meaning of this, but it seems that such could truly only be said of God. There must be an ontological difference between the will of one submitting to a higher authority, and the will of the higher authority itself: if not, then it does not make sense to say that one could be "submitting" to the authority at all.

Saying that Her will is to do the will of God, would capture the very essence of Her perfect submission to divine providence, and the superabundance of Her own faith in the face of the insurmountable mysteries of Her divine motherhood. But if instead it were to be said that the will of the Blessed Virgin were to cease to exist as something ontologically distinct from the will of God, then that would be a kind of removal of the Blessed Virgin's free will. This is with the understanding that, in a way, She was "predestined" to be the Virgin Mother of God, in accordance with Her Immaculate Conception, in a similar way that it is said that the Lord Jesus was "predestinated the Son of God in power" (Romans 1:4).

It seems I cleared up my difficulty somewhat imperfectly but I did not clear up your difficulty.
Let's first clear up what the will means by looking at some dictionary definitions:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/will

"used to talk about what is going to happen in the future, especially things that you are certain about or things that are planned"

"the mental power used to control and direct your thoughts and actions, or a determination to do something, despite any difficulties or opposition"

"what someone wants to happen"

The will is the ability to determine the ends or purpose towards which one's actions (means) are oriented. In other words, the will is that which binds one's action to purpose, means to ends, how to why, succession to simultaneity, substance to essence.

We can also observe a fruitful relation to desire or want which is often associated with the will. Desire implies incompleteness or separation, for if one possessed the object of desire one would no longer desire it, and if one possessed All there would nothing left to desire. And we may notice that all things undesired are those things which limit one or trespass on one's nature.

One can explore this further with the subject object distinction. If one says there is only object, then it is no longer an object, because it only became the object in relation to the subject. Yet, the observer (subject) or the one that perceives, has no form of its own, for to have form, it would need to be seen, making it an object rather than the perceiving subject. So if there were only pure object, there would be no unseen subject, and therefore nothing excluded from the object - it would be non-limited, no object in particular - which is to say it wouldn't be any-thing at all. Much like one cannot have a hole in a piece of fabric without the fabric, one cannot have an object without the perceiving subject which engulfs the object giving it its form.

Since all forms arise through difference, and differentiation is the function of perception, the observer must be prior to all distinctions and differences. But prior to distinction there is only the boundless unmanifest field of pure potential. Thus by Leibniz’ identity of indiscernibles the observer is not separate from the Unmanifest pure potential but identical to it, the Universal Substance that both perceives and gives rise to all things.

The Unmanifest is not mere nothingness or an absolute/self negation but the Absolute Affirmation of all Possibility, it is like a clay shaped by a sculptor whose tool is perception, and in the likeness of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, it is this formation, it is that formation, it is both this and that formation, but it is also neither this nor that formation since it is the intangible material of which all formations consist.

Now one can recognize that the observer or subject corresponds to pure potential, whereas the object corresponds to the actual. And now one may recognize that act and potency are an aspect that the substance and essence distinction is viewed under.