Triads in Defence of the Holy Hesychasts 1 part 12/21

...glorified the stars as bodies [worthy of divine honor], nor those who say that the horses of the gods leap only as far as the eye can see from a watchtower over the wine-dark sea.

Since, then, all people now, through the light that shone in darkness, know God better than those men once admired for their wisdom, who knew him beyond sense-perception -- so much so that they no longer endure at all to depict him by fashioning likenesses from the things that are -- how did you dare to fasten such a reproach upon the disciples of the gospel, who received the God-delivered sayings unto the hearing of the ear, who were initiated through mouths tempered by the fiery tongues of the Spirit, whom no angel, no man, but the Lord himself taught through his own adorable mouth (for the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him) -- how did you dare to fasten upon these very ones, the elect out of every nation, the holy nation, the Church of God, such a reproach as this: that they suppose the essence of God to be perceptible by sense, possessing shape and mass and quality, and that, as being such a light, it is mingled with the air, which is receptive of the effluence from it and circumscribes it locally and sensibly?

Has it not occurred to you, in reasoning this through, to realize that -- why should not one call the sun God, if he holds such an opinion about God?

And how does he think he escapes the perception of others, if indeed he considers the divine to be perceptible by sense?

And for what reason does he dishonor sensory pleasures -- which is precisely what those slandered by you in this way do more than anyone?

...those who receive glory from men, but do not seek the glory that comes from God alone.

But do not those who have transcended in mind all these things, and that for the sake of the God who is above all, show by their deeds that they truly worship him who is beyond all things?

Or is it because they also counsel others to abstain from these things which take away the glory that comes from God alone, that one should not only fail to be persuaded by them, but should even slander them as not holding a sound opinion concerning the divine?

For what you say, in bringing to a close your lengthy verbiage against these men, has made manifest my charge of your deliberate slander against them; for now, he says, we speak concerning the light said by some to be personally subsistent, without having first declared our own opinion about it -- as being what they say they see: a noetic and immaterial light, existing in its own hypostasis.

And here too, then, he weaves in something of slander; for the great Macarius, and Maximus, so abundant in things divine, and those like them, say that the light is seen in hypostasis, but not in a distinct hypostasis of its own.

Nevertheless, even though he did not put forward even this claim free from an admixture of slander, he does acknowledge that they call such a light noetic and immaterial; but what is noetic and immaterial is not sensible, nor, as being sensible, symbolic.

How then, at the outset, did he represent these men as saying that the essence of God is a sensible light, mingled with the air and contained by it, and possessing shape and quality and mass -- all of which belong to sensible light?

And yet those men, even when they call the light of grace noetic, do not do so in the strict sense; for they know it to be even beyond intellect, coming to be in the mind only by the power of the Spirit, upon the cessation of every noetic energy.

But not even so did any of them call this the essence of God, or an effluence [of it], such as this man supposes; even if someone, maliciously twisting what has been said by them in an illustrative way concerning this light, should infer something...

...of this kind -- it is he himself who says it, not they.

Is it not, then, beyond all slander to suppose that men who say this light is not only beyond sense-perception but even beyond intellect, and who moreover glorify the essence of God as being above even this, are saying that the essence of God is a sensible and visible light?

But what does this slanderer of those illumined beyond conception go on to say?

...saying [this], they suppose it to be an angel, or the very essence of the mind itself, when, purified of the passions together with ignorance, [the mind] sees itself and, in itself as in its own image, sees God. If, then, what is said by them is one of these things, it must be granted that they think quite rightly about this and in accord with the tradition of the Christians; but if they say that this is neither the supra-essential essence, nor angelic, nor the mind itself, but that the mind sees it as [looking] into another hypostasis, then, for my part, I do not know what this light is, but I do know that it is not.

And what man ever, O you who speak so loftily against men who truly exist, would say that a noetic light exists in its own hypostasis, which is neither God, nor an angel, nor a human intellect?

For not even in fancy could anyone at all fashion a noetic light in its own hypostasis outside of these [three].

But let us grant this impossibility; let us then grant that some one of the hesychasts said this to your learnedness -- I do not know who, for you yourself cannot point him out -- yet you say he is [one] of the unimportant ones.

If, then, that man was unable to explain it well -- which I am rather more inclined to believe -- or even was unable to discern it well (let this too be granted, for not all possess knowledge), ought you not to have inquired of those who possess the gift of discernment, and to have learned, as far as attainable, what the great vision of this light is -- rather than at once condemning the God-possessed as madmen, and plainly suffering what is said by the divine Paul?

For if, as [Paul writes] to the Corinthians, there should come in among you, he says, an unlearned man or an unbeliever, and he does not listen even to those able to discern, he will say that you are mad.

This, then, is what belongs to the unlearned and the unbelievers -- and, alas, you too, the monk and philosopher, have suffered the very same.

But let it be granted that it is not one, nor some, but many -- indeed all of us -- who say this; would it not have sufficed for you to say what you said after your lengthy struggles, namely, I know that this light does not exist?

For all would have agreed with you that a light existing in its own hypostasis, which is neither God, nor an angel, nor a man, does not exist at all; and all would likewise have at once perceived that, if someone should say he sees a noetic light in its own hypostasis, he means that he sees one of these [three] -- and in saying this you too would yourself have spoken quite rightly.

Was not, then, [this reproach] directed against these very men, whom you yourself afterward declared to think rightly -- even though your slander against them has not [thereby] been withdrawn?

For I do not say this -- that they think concerning this light as you do, or theologize as you do -- but rather that they have risen up so far above you as to be beyond your slanders and reproaches against them.

For you say concerning them: If they call God a noetic light, preserving for him the property of being invisible and untouchable by all the senses, they speak well. But they know the essence of God as [something] even beyond being untouchable by all the senses, since he is not only God, being above the things that are, but also above-God; and he is not only above every affirmation, but the transcendence of him who is beyond all things is above every negation as well, and above every transcendence whatsoever that comes to mind...

The light, however, which the saints see spiritually as hypostatically real -- as they themselves say -- being real and not symbolic (unlike the phantasms fashioned to fit the circumstances that arise), an immaterial divine illumination and grace seen invisibly and known unknowably, they know by experience itself; but what it is, they themselves say they do not know.

...descending -- thus, then, the body too, having been deified, becomes, O the wonder, perceptible to bodily eyes; and there are times when it converses clearly with the one who sees, through words that are, so to speak, ineffable, just as also with the divine Paul -- [the light] descending from its own watch-height, so that it might be contained, at least in some measure, by created nature, according to Gregory the Theologian: he who, according to his own nature, being from the ages and unto the ages and still now, is to all invisible and uncontainable.

He then frequently turns over in his mind that name which the children of the Jews gave to the bread that came down from above upon the wilderness, calling it manna.

And this is, for them, the name of that light; but as for you, if indeed [you wish] to say something more --

But let us return to what follows.

You again say that they speak well, even if they suppose this light to be an angel.

But they would never call this light an angel --

-- but they know, being initiated in the words of the Fathers, that the angelic vision that comes to pass occurs in different ways, appropriate to those who see: either in a coarseness of essence, which also falls under sense-perception and is not invisible even to those subject to passion or wholly uninitiated; or in a subtlety of essence, according to which the soul too sees in some measure; or in a true vision, of which only those who see spiritually through purity are deemed worthy -- even though you, being uninitiated in the distinction of these modes, suppose that you show the angels themselves to be invisible to one another, asserting them invisible not according to their incorporeality, but according to their essence; and in the midst of your discourse you rank the God-seers together with the ass of Balaam [a pun on the name Barlaam], on the ground that it too is recorded to have seen an angel.

And again, [as regards] the mind -- if it does not see as into some other hypostasis, but rather sees itself, and in itself, as in its own image, sees God, when it has been purified of the passions together with ignorance -- you suppose that positing this as being a seer of God agrees with the most mystical tradition of the Christians, [in the case of] those who thus speak of seeing the very essence of the mind as light.

But they know that the mind, having been purified and illumined, and having come clearly into participation of the grace of God, partakes also of other mystical and supernatural visions, as our discourse laid bare a little above; but also, in seeing itself, it sees as it were another thing, yet not into another [hypostasis], nor simply its own image -- but rather the brightness [given] by the grace of God, which fulfills the mind's power to transcend itself and perfects the union unto things better and beyond conception, through which the mind, in a manner surpassing man, sees God in the Spirit.

And even if you are ignorant of this, it is nothing to wonder at; for not even would these things be wonders to you, though you knew what concerns them -- you who set nothing above [mere] knowledge.

For this reason, then, you say that the mind becomes a seer of God when it has been purified not only of the passions but also of ignorance; but they take no account at all of this purification of ignorance as you understand it, but, having purified themselves of the evil passions and, through persistent and immaterial prayer, having risen above all [merely intellectual] knowledge, attain to the vision of God -- inasmuch as they are not deceived by such arguments, nor have they let go of attending to themselves, nor do they pass by [such attentiveness] and busy themselves with gathering opinion and learning, [asking] whether anyone professes to know something, be he Scythian or Persian or Egyptian, for the sake of this purification of ignorance -- but rather, knowing precisely that such ignorance in no way impedes the vision of God.

For if, as you yourself say, the keeping of the commandments provides only the purification of the passions, and it is in the keeping of the commandments alone, according to God's promise, that his presence and abiding and manifestation are accomplished, is it not a clear error [on your part] to add this purification [of yours], which you call the purification of ignorance?

But we have shown, in our earlier discourses as well, through many arguments, that this purification of ignorance is [in fact] the destruction of true knowledge.

But now we must return to what he says next against the hesychasts.

...struggling, and overturning the fabrications of his own mind, wrestling against -- or rather throwing down -- himself; but since he supposes he is writing against our own [party], let us see what these [charges] are.

First, then, he states the cause from which those he accuses were moved to suppose that the essence of God, or the effluence from it, is a sensible light; he says, then, that they came to suppose this upon observing that most of the visions and revelations that occurred mystically to the saints, as recorded in the sacred sayings, came to pass and appeared in light and through light -- came to pass and appeared, and appeared; and the sign that they held such [a supposition]...

...[the sign] that they suppose the essence of God [to be] from such things is that they establish contemplative virtue, and [define] a contemplative man as one who continually encounters and converses with such lights.

And how, my good sir, does one who defines the contemplative man in this way suppose the essence of God to be such a light?

For no one among us has ever defined the contemplative man as one who sees the essence of God.

If, then, the contemplative man does not see the essence of God, and they, according to you, call contemplative the one who sees light of whatever kind you please, it is clear that they have come to hold the opinion that the essence of God is not the kind of light which they maintain the one they call contemplative sees.

So easily refuted is malice, turning itself about in manifold ways, and, as it were, not even sparing itself, but ever proceeding against itself, in that it is altogether and utterly inconsistent with itself.

Thus also the elders grown old in wickedness showed Susanna innocent against their will — although they were three — when they were examined separately, apart from one another, by the wisdom raised up by God in the boy Daniel of that time; it is no wonder that they did not agree with each other.

But this man, who cannot even follow himself, being but one — and that although he sets forth his slanders with deliberation and in writing — by how much has he outdone them!

Nevertheless, even though the sign which he put forward at the very outset against the hesychasts — as though he would forthwith convict them as the most ill-reputed of all men who ever lived — has turned out instead to be a proof of their orthodoxy, still he has done himself a favor by it, giving room for that which was swollen by the soul's distress to be vented through his discourse.

For this, it seems, was what produced in him such violent grief and stirred up his madness against these men: that they did not think fit to call him "contemplative," nor indeed any other one (p.

) of those who practice Greek learning throughout their life but have not devoted themselves, even briefly, to prayer and psalmody, to abstinence from the passions, and to the exercise of the virtues.

Having thus been maddened, and for these reasons, he hides the passion in the recesses of his heart, but insinuates himself among the more simple by fawning upon them — just as they say the serpent once did with Eve — and first he learns from some of them a few of the patristic traditions, but then, through his mischief, perverts them; and since he could not win even these men over to his persuasion, but found them imitating rather the new Adam who came for our sake than the old, he proceeds first against them, and through them against all who embrace stillness (hesychia) — sparing not even those who lived before us from accusation, nor those honored by the Church as saints, but rather turning against them all the more, because they too ascribed to the Scriptures things that do not testify to what is, in his view, best of all.

In order that his slanders against those men might carry sufficient credibility — the men with whom he first consorted as a would-be disciple and through whom he later attacked the others — he used to exhibit in writing what he claimed they had taught him, before tearing up with his own hands, as untrue, what he had been taught by them, as he then said.

He showed these things, then, to us also at that time.

In them, then, there was no interpretation of the prophetic revelations, nor any mention of such, nor even a single word concerning the essence of God; but only that it is not the man of great learning who is made akin to God, but the one who through virtue has been purified of the passions and, through fervent and pure prayer, cleaves to God, and through these attains full assurance and tastes the good things to come — which, as a mystical pledge, they honored, so far as was possible, with more divine names.

He himself used to say that they called it utterly useless and (p.

) the knowledge of existing things evil, and the passions demons united in substance with the soul, and various other such things, not a few.

But these things did not suffice for this novel accuser; he added, alas, even matters concerning the essence of God.

But since he had determined to fabricate this too against those men, having considered whence this great and terrible fabrication of slander might gain acceptance, he brought forward the prophetic revelations given through light, and the supposed objections arising from these — objections that no one else has ever voiced, except this man who now sets them in opposition.

Whether, then, he prevails in these arguments while contradicting himself, or not, is of no concern to us; let us leave him being struck and cut down by himself.

But after this contest of slanders, he strips for another, hastening to show that the knowledge of created things alone is a light contemplative to the mind, so that, once this is demonstrated, everyone who has not diligently studied Aristotle's natural philosophy, Plato's theology, and Ptolemy's astronomy may be shown to be darkened and impure.

For this reason he also proceeds insultingly against those who do not maintain that illumination comes through concepts alone, and derides them with contemptuous names, saying, in his very words: "But those concerned with the breathing say that there are two lights shown by God noetically to the holy ones: one, that of knowledge, and the other, hypostatic, which appears especially to those who have advanced far in the breathing."

Let us see, then, who those are whom he disparages with such names as men of alien mind; for once this is shown, it will at the same time be demonstrated that there is also a light far better than knowledge and more godlike, revealed only to those who see through the Spirit — not to those still living only, but to all the saints from every age.

That this man accuses, of those living in our time, not this or that particular person, but simply all who embrace the sacred and quiet life, is shown clearly by the fact that the written tradition (p.

) that came down to us from the fathers, praised by those who have excelled in virtue and by the divine men who, as we know, formerly arose among us, and which has demonstrated through experience its usefulness for beginners, was first sophistically distorted and slandered by him, and then, on the basis of that distortion, he proceeded to name everyone as guilty, and to carry his argument forward into a common slander.

Since it has been given to very many of the saints venerated by us of old to learn and to teach, through experience, concerning the light of grace, we — just as we did when pleading the cause of the evangelical commandments — have adduced their sayings as testimony, sayings that also concur with the confession of those not directly cited, signifying beforehand that the scriptural oracles teach in the same way; in the same manner here too we shall set forth those patristic sayings which the very man who proclaims these things insists were written in accordance with the teaching of all the other Fathers.

Did you hear that all the Fathers say this?

They say, then, that we have two eyes of the soul, and that the use of the vision through each is not the same: for with one eye we see the things hidden in created natures — that is, the power of God, His wisdom, and His providence toward us, apprehended from the majesty of His governance over us; and with the other eye we contemplate the glory of His holy nature, whenever God is pleased to lead us into the spiritual mysteries. Insofar, then, as both are eyes, that which is seen by them is light; but insofar as the use of the vision through each is not the same, a certain duality appears in the contemplation of this light — for by each of the eyes a different light is seen, which is not seen by the other.

As to what each of these actually is, this divine Isaac has explained to us, calling the one the apprehension of the power and wisdom of God (p.

) who created them; and the other he called contemplation — not of the divine nature (lest the slanderers again find occasion), but of the glory of His nature — which the Lord gave to the disciples, and through them to all who believed in Him and demonstrated their faith through works, and which He willed them also to see; "for I will," He says to the Father, "that these also may behold my glory which You have given me, because You loved me before the foundation of the world"; and again, "Glorify me, You, Father, with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

Thus He gave to human nature the glory of the Godhead, but not the divine nature itself; the nature of God, then, is one thing, and its glory another, even though they are inseparable from one another. But even though it is other than the divine nature, it would not be numbered among things that are under time, since it does not exist by way of surpassing degree, but is present within the divine nature itself in an ineffable manner.

Yet He gave this glory, which surpasses all beings, not to the lump of humanity united to Himself alone according to hypostasis, but to the disciples also: "for I," He says, "have given them the glory which You gave me, Father, that they may be one, even as We are one — I in them and You in me — that they may be perfected into one."

But He also willed that they should see it.

This, then, is the glory through which we acquire within ourselves and properly behold God.

How, then, do we acquire and see this glory of the divine nature?

Is it, perhaps, by examining the inner principles of created things and, through them, hunting out the knowledge of God's power, wisdom, and providence?

No; that is a different eye of the soul which sees these things, by which, according to what has been said above by holy Isaac and all the other Fathers, the divine light, the glory of His nature, is not seen. This light, therefore, is other than the light which is called by the name of knowledge.

Therefore, not everyone who possesses the knowledge of beings, or through it (p.

) attains vision, has God dwelling within him; rather, he possesses only that knowledge of created things itself, conjecturing God from it as from a likely inference.

But he who possesses that light ineffably, and sees no longer by conjecture but by a true vision established far above all created things, both knows God and has Him within himself; for he is never separated from the eternal glory.

But let us not, on account of the surpassing greatness of this benefaction, disbelieve and rebel; rather, believing in Him who partook of our nature and imparted to us the glory of His own nature, let us seek how one acquires this and sees it.

By the keeping of the divine commandments; for to him who keeps them the Lord promised His own manifestation, which, proceeding further on, He also named the "abode" of Himself and the Father, saying, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him," and "I will manifest myself to him."

That by "my word" He means His commandments is clear, since above, in place of the "word" just mentioned, He had set down the commandments themselves; for He says, "He who has my commandments and keeps them, that one is he who loves me."

So from this too it is shown — especially according to the philosopher's own words and the doctrines held by him — that this contemplation of God is by no means knowledge, even though he would wish anything rather than this.

But we too must understand, when we say that this contemplation is not knowledge, that it is not so by way of deficiency but by way of transcendence — just as we say that God, too, is "non-being," for we believe Him to be above all beings.

But how, even against the philosopher's own will, is it shown from his own words that this divine light is other than knowledge?

He himself says that the keeping of the commandments cannot drive out the darkness of ignorance from the soul, but rather learning and the persistent study that goes with it; but that which does not drive out ignorance could never furnish knowledge.

— it grants His manifestation, according to the words of the Lord Himself; this contemplation, therefore, is not knowledge — not only should it not be regarded or called knowledge, but it is not even knowable at all, except perhaps loosely and equivocally; or rather, properly speaking it is knowable, but only in a transcendent and set-apart manner,

superior to, and differing from, all knowledge and all contemplation that proceeds according to knowledge, since there is nothing higher than, nor equal to, nor even near to, the abiding of God within us and His manifestation.

But we know that the fulfillment of God's commandments is also productive of knowledge, indeed of true knowledge; for through this alone health comes beforehand to the soul.

And what would be the health of a soul whose cognitive faculty is diseased?

We know, then, that the commandments of God are productive of knowledge, but not of knowledge alone — rather also of deification; and we attain this fully once we have acquired and seen within ourselves, in the Spirit, the glory of God, whenever God shall be well pleased to advance us into the spiritual mysteries, according to this aforementioned saint.

But since he cited the Fathers as saying this, let us too, setting aside all those who came after him, look at some of those who preceded him, to see what glory of God they say is seen, mystically and ineffably, by the initiates alone — and before the others, the eyewitnesses and apostles of the only God, our Father, Jesus Christ, through whom every fatherhood in the fullness of the holy Church is named; and, before the apostles again, their chief, Peter, who says: "We did not follow cunningly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been made eyewitnesses of His majesty."

(...) Peter and those with him saw the glory of Christ.

Let another of the evangelists come forward again to bear joint witness: "His face," he says, "shone as the sun, and His garments became white as the light"; and He showed them that He is, according to the psalmic word, the God who wraps Himself in light as with a garment.

For this reason Peter also, after saying that he had beheld the glory of Christ on the holy mountain — the light which, marvelous though it be to say, shone round about even the sense of hearing (for there they beheld a luminous cloud resounding with words) — after seeing, then, this glory of Christ, says, "And we have the prophetic word made more sure."

What prophetic word, made more sure, have you thereby come to hold, having learned it from the vision of the light, O God-seeing men?

What other than that God wraps Himself in light as with a garment?

"And you do well," he says, "to pay attention to this prophetic word, as to a lamp shining in a dry place, until the day dawns."

Surely, this is the day that dawned on Tabor.

Surely, this is He Himself, who shone forth there together with James and John.

"Until this daystar arises" — where?

Do you see that this light now shines in the hearts of the faithful and the perfect?

And do you see how greatly it surpasses the light of knowledge?

Not the light that comes from Greek learning (for that does not even deserve the name of "light" at all, being entirely false or mingled with falsehood, and more akin to darkness than to light) — not this, then, is what we mean; but even the light of knowledge that comes from the divine Scriptures, the light of this contemplation so far surpasses, that the former light is likened to a lamp shining in a dry place, while the light belonging to this mystical contemplation is likened to the daystar shining in the daytime, which is the sun.

"But how," he says, "can this light, even if it is divine, be compared to the sensible sun?"

(...) Are you ignorant, and unable to understand by way of illustration, rather than by way of strict comparison, that God shines as the sun, or above the sun?

And yet, even if a second luminary equal in brightness were to appear in the daytime as well, the light of day would become twofold, and each of the two suns, shining amid so much light, would appear less bright than before.

He, then, who at that time shone as the sun, outshining the sun, did not shine as the sun shines, but above the sun; thus, even when spoken of by way of likeness, He admits of no equality, and even when compared by way of illustration, He admits of no likeness of equal honor.

That the light which appeared on Tabor to the chosen disciples of the Lord is, properly speaking, not even intelligible/noetic, has already been sufficiently demonstrated beforehand, to the best of my ability, in the treatise On Divine Illumination and Sacred Beatitude.