Therefore one might say to him who introduces such teachings: one ought not fast, not keep vigil, not bow down, not sleep on the ground, not stand for long periods — the man who cultivates noetic prayer ought to do none of these things; for all these painfully compel touch to be active, and, as you yourself would say, bring disturbance to the soul that prays, when instead one ought
1:1056
) πανταχόθεναὐτῇπεριποιεῖν
從各方面為它謀求不受紛擾之境。
to procure for it, from every quarter, freedom from disturbance.
For indeed, he says again, it would be monstrous if we should dishonor sight and hearing — the more immaterial, more dispassionate, and more rational of the senses — in our prayers, and yet welcome touch, the grossest and most irrational of all, and suppose that the activities pertaining to it cooperate with prayer.
For indeed he has not perceived — although he is a philosopher — the difference among the senses, namely how, partaking differently of the corporeal power within them, they do not all continue to be moved solely by the things that fall upon them from without.
But for us, who wish to expound what happens to the material senses as a result of immaterial prayer, a most perfect habitual disposition in regard to it, and a treatise looking to this one thing alone, would have been required; but may He who gives prayer to those who pray, and word to those who speak on their behalf, grant a discourse commensurate with the present purpose.
Now those senses that are moved by external activities must necessarily be at rest when we turn toward what is within; but as for those that are disposed together with the dispositions of the soul — and these with good dispositions — what need is there for them to be at rest?
And for what reason should one seek to be released from these, when they in no way obstruct, but rather cooperate as much as possible with the soul's shared disposition?
For this body of ours has been yoked to us by God as a companion that is to be our fellow-worker, or rather has been made subject to us; therefore, when it grows unruly we shall restrain it, but when it is led where it ought we shall welcome it.
Hearing and sight, then, are purer and more rational than touch; but one will not perceive anything at all by means of either of these, nor will one suffer pain thereby, unless the visible or the audible thing falls upon it from without, being ill-sounding or ill-appearing; but the body suffers pain rather in respect of touch when we practice fasting and
For this reason those who withdraw themselves from external things toward what is within cause those senses that are not active when external things are absent to cease their activity in that regard, so long as they remain within; but as for those senses that are active even when external things are absent, how could they cause them to be idle, especially when these very senses also tend toward the end set before them?
That this painful perception in respect of touch is most beneficial to those who pray noetically, all who have engaged even moderately in the struggle concerning it know; and for these, who have come to know it through experience, there is less need of arguments — they who indeed do not accept those who seek such things by argument alone, saying that this is the knowledge that puffs up.
Insensibility, then, is what nullifies prayer — which the fathers also call hardness — and not the pain of touch, as this man, first of all, has philosophized with inert words against those who know by experience.
For this reason, indeed, there are also fathers who have declared that fasting is, as it were, the essence of prayer; for, they say, the matter of prayer is hunger.
Are they not by nature painful, bitter, and biting to those who have only just tasted of blessed mourning, but for those who have come to enjoy it fully, are they not transformed into things pleasant and painless?
How then do the things that operate bodily — the things that both please and pain according to sense-perception — not corrupt prayer, but rather how do they both beget it and are begotten by it?
And how does God bestow these as grace, according to him who says: if you have acquired a tear in your prayer, God has touched the eyes of your heart, and you have received noetic sight?
But Paul, he says, having been caught up to the third heaven, did not know whether he was in the body or outside the body, as one who had forgotten all things pertaining to the body; if, then, it is fitting that one who hastens toward God through prayer should be without sensation regarding the things of the body, how can these be gifts of God, from which it is fitting that one who hastens toward Him should be freed?
But it is not only from bodily activities that one who hastens toward divine union ought to be freed; rather, according to the great Dionysius, one must also leave behind the noetic activities, and all the divine lights, and every ascent of all the holy heights.
None of these, then, is a gift of God — not even the ascent of all the holy heights — since it is fitting that one who hastens toward divine union should be freed from these?
O man, delighting in idle talk, who drag us too into such arguments — do you so consider divine union a small thing, as though it did not surpass the great and necessary things, but only the vain ones, so that whatever is not present when this union is being accomplished, you consider vain?
Indeed, you clearly show yourself not to have raised yourself above vain things; for if you had truly risen above them, you would have known by how much union with God surpasses even things that are useful.
But you so delight in dwelling among vain things that, though knowing nothing at all about prayer, you nonetheless prolong such lengthy idle talk — you who, alas, call the spiritual grace of prayer in the heart mere fantasy, saying that it bears within itself the idol of the heart.
But those who have been counted worthy of it know it to be not a fantastical impression, nor something within our own power, nor something that exists now and at another time does not exist, but a certain untiring energy
For just as the pleasure that passes from the body to the mind renders the mind corporeal in form — this pleasure itself being in no way improved by its communion with the better part, but rather imparting to the mind a share of the worse, so that because of it the whole human being is called flesh, according to what was said concerning those overwhelmed by the wrath of God, that My Spirit shall not remain among these men, because they are flesh — so likewise the spiritual pleasure that comes from the mind to the body, itself being in no way debased by its communion with the body, transforms the body and makes it spiritual, so that it casts off its evil fleshly desires and no longer drags the soul downward, but is instead raised up together with it, so that then the whole human being is spirit as well, according to what is written, he who is born of the Spirit is spirit.
To one who wrangles over words and contentiously opposes, it would suffice to say that we do not have such a habit — nor does the Church of God — of being led by words without practice; rather, we honor the word that is joined to practice, and the practice that is reasoned.
But since he has committed such arguments even to writing, lest he should deceive some of the many, and seem to say something dignified, and thereby win them over to falsehood, we too, in writing, make the truth manifest and refute the falsehood — using brief words with regard to these lesser matters,
but longer ones with regard to the more necessary of these matters, and everywhere setting forth beforehand the fathers, who stand opposed to this novel teacher of inactivity — who, since he shakes off the good actions performed through the body as troublesome, likewise does not admit, as one would expect, the spiritual dispositions signified in the body, even though all sacred and divinely-inspired Scripture is full of such things; for, it says, my heart and my flesh have rejoiced exceedingly in the living God, and I hoped in Him and was helped, and my flesh flourished again, and again, how sweet are Your words to my palate, sweeter than honey to my mouth.
And that he speaks of the sensible mouth, holy Isaac too shows clearly, saying that it is a sign of those who are progressing that the words of prayer become sweet in their mouth.
And holy Diadochus says that there is one perception of the soul, which the energy of the Holy Spirit, coming to be within us, itself teaches — a perception which no one can know except those alone who, for the sake of the hope of the good things to come, have been released from the good things of this present life; for in these, the mind, being vigorously moved on account of its freedom from care, itself perceives, ineffably, the divine goodness, and imparts, according to the measure of its own progress, a share of this goodness proper to itself to the body as well, as David also says: in Him my heart hoped and I was helped, and my flesh flourished again.
But the philosopher says that this pledge of the age to come, this reminder of incorruption, this energy of the all-holy Spirit, cannot possibly come about from any divine cause — and least of all during noetic prayer.
The reasons for which this man says that the alterations which come to be even in the body through the energy of the Spirit are not from God are roughly these four:
soul to be above sense-perception in prayers than to be active in any sensory way at all; since, then, those phenomena are not most perfect — for indeed there is something better than they — they are, therefore, not from God either.
What then? Since, according to the Apostle, speaking in tongues is a lesser gift than prophesying, is the gift of tongues, therefore, not a gift of God?
Is not prophecy itself a gift? Are not the powers, the helps, the governments? Are not the gifts of healings? Is not the word of wisdom and knowledge in the Spirit? Is not the discernment of spirits?
Among those with gifts of healing and those with gifts of discernment, and simply among all who have been graced by the divine Spirit, each of the charisms is, relative to the others, greater or lesser; as indeed Paul gives thanks to God that he speaks in tongues more than all of them — yet even the one who has the lesser gift has a gift of God.
Not true, then, is that premise put forward by the philosopher, from which he has here set out against the hesychasts, namely, that the gifts of God are most perfect.
It is surely clear to everyone that it is infinitely; for even concerning the angels, Dionysius, the expounder of the heavenly things, hands down that they receive increase forever with respect to this vision, being made, by that which they had previously received, more capacious toward the clearer
vision that follows. But neither, among those on earth from every age who have obtained a good share of this vision, have we seen or heard of anyone who did not still desire a yet more perfect degree of it.
If, then, the desire of those who attain it does not come to rest, and the grace already received empowers them for the participation in greater things, and He who gives Himself is infinite and supplies bountifully and ungrudgingly, what way remains by which the sons of the age to come should not progress infinitely with respect to it, receiving grace upon grace and joyfully ascending the untiring ascent?
Such, then, is the first of the philosopher's arguments; but his second, more formidable one, is that this — namely, loving those activities which are common to the passible part of the soul and to the body — nails the soul fast to the body and fills it with darkness.
It seems to me, then, that the philosopher has rendered this verdict too without due consideration, declaring universally about things that are not universal. For there are also blessed passions and common activities of soul and body by which the spirit is not nailed fast to the flesh, but which rather draw the flesh up near to the dignity of the Spirit and persuade it too to incline upward.
The spiritual ones — I mean those not going from the body to the mind, as we said before, but passing from the mind to the body, and through these activities and experiences refashioning it for the better and working divinely upon it.
For just as the divinity of the Word of God who became man is common to body and soul, having deified the flesh through the mediation of the soul, so that the works of God are also accomplished through it — so likewise, in the case of spiritual men, the grace of the Spirit, through the mediation of
the soul, being ferried across to the body, grants to it too the experience of divine things, and to co-experience blessedly with the soul that has experienced divine things — which soul, since it experiences divine things, surely also possesses a certain passible element that is praiseworthy and divine; or rather, the passible element within us, being one, is by nature able to be brought to such completion.
Having advanced, then, to this blessed actuality, it also works divinely upon the body — not being then moved by the bodily and material passions, even though it might seem so to those who have had no experience of it, but rather itself turning toward the body, drawing it away from its inclination toward the worse, and breathing into it, through itself, an inalienable sanctification and deification; of which the wonder-working relics of the saints are a clear proof.
And this mutual affection of the two does not become a nail fastening the soul to earthly and bodily mindsets, filling it with darkness, as the philosopher says, but is a certain ineffable bond and union with God, wondrously raising up the body itself from evil and earthly sufferings; for the mighty ones of God, to speak prophetically, were greatly lifted up from the earth.
Such are the ineffable energies you hear of, accomplished in the body of those who throughout life sacredly embrace holy stillness; and what seems irrational in them is superior to reason, and, surpassing it, escapes the understanding of one who examines them by reason rather than by seeking knowledge through practice and the experience gained thereby; and such a one, unless he brings faith — the only faculty able to receive truth beyond reason — takes hold of sacred things in an unhallowed manner and, alas, impiously disparages holy things.
For after this he adduced to us the Apostle — as I said before — who, in respect of that extraordinary rapture, says he did not know whether he was in the body or outside the body, (page
1:1126
) ὡςτοῦπνεύματοςλήθηνἐνιέντοςτῶνκατάτόσῶμαπάντων
……）彷彿聖靈使人對一切與身體有關的事物都失去了記憶。
…) as though the Spirit induced forgetfulness of all things pertaining to the body.
‘But if it is [forgetfulness] of all things,’ says the philosopher, ‘then also of those ineffable sweetnesses and warmths which I learned are accomplished among the hesychasts; and the Holy Spirit, having come to dwell, will produce forgetfulness of these too, but will not furnish them. For necessarily, if what happens to them are gifts of God, it is wrongly said that the one who truly prays must forget everything; for nothing given to him by God for his good ought to escape his notice. But if it is necessary to forget these things, how is it not absurd to attribute directly to God these very things, whose absence and quiet are better for prayer?’
That most of the gifts of the Spirit — indeed almost all of them — come to those who are worthy at the time of prayer, every sound-minded person knows precisely (‘Ask,’ says the Lord, ‘and it shall be given you’) — not only rapture, and that even to the third heaven, but each of the gifts of the Spirit.
That some of these also work through the body is shown by the kinds of tongues and their interpretations, which Paul also instructs us to receive through prayer; for he says, ‘Let the one who speaks in tongues pray that he may interpret.’ And not only these, but also the word of teaching, the gifts of healing, the workings of powers, and the layings-on of Paul’s own hands, through which the Holy Spirit was given.
Now the word of teaching, and the grace and interpretation of tongues, even if they come into being through prayer, nevertheless can operate from the soul alone when prayer is not present.
But healings and powers would never come into operation unless the soul of the one working each of them were praying — chiefly noetically — though at times the body too joins in resonantly.
…) when prayer effects the mystical union of the one praying with the unfailing fountain of this great bounty — not, then, only when prayer operates noetically (since the apostles are not recorded to have said anything vocally on that occasion) — not, then, only when the soul is praying noetically does that impartation operate, but at the same time the body too operates, through the hands which, by touch, transmit the Spirit onto the one whom they hold.
Are they not gifts of the Spirit, nor given for good to those who ask and pray — merely because those who are caught up even to the third heaven must forget everything pertaining to the body?
But if the one who is raised up through prayer must forget these things, how is it not absurd to hold God responsible for these very things, whose quiet and absence are better for prayer?
But, O best of men, God at times causes those who pray sincerely to stand outside themselves, making them beyond themselves and ineffably catching them up into the heavens; but at other times, while they remain within themselves, He Himself works through both their soul and their body things supernatural, ineffable, and incomprehensible to the wise of this age.
For indeed, when all the apostles were once persevering in the temple in prayer and supplication, the Holy Spirit, having come to dwell upon them, did not give them ecstasy, nor snatch them up into heaven, but furnished them with fiery tongues, and through these spoke those things of which all who fall into ecstasy must necessarily be forgetful — if indeed they forget even themselves.
) But while Moses was silent, God says, ‘Why do you cry out to Me?’ — and this word shows that he was praying; and since he was praying in silence, he was surely praying noetically. Was he, then, not in possession of sense-perception at that time, nor perceiving the people and their cries and the imminent danger, nor the perceptible rod in his hand?
How then did God not snatch him up at that time, nor release him from sense-perception (for this alone you yourself hold to be what comes upon those who pray, from God), but instead urged him toward that perceptible rod and put into it that great power — not to the soul alone, but also to the body and the hand — all of which, according to you, the one praying noetically must forget?
And what of when, in silence, he struck the sea with the rod in his hand — first as one about to divide it, then as one about to rejoin it after the crossing?
Did he not have unwandering remembrance of God in his soul, and was he not, through noetic prayer, united above himself to the only One able through him to work such things — while at the same time not being without sense-perception of the energies effected through the body?
But since he has also brought forward testimonies from the Scriptures, let us see whether these too do not stand opposed to his own opinions concerning prayer.
Before all else, then, the great Dionysius is put forward by him as bearing witness — so he supposes — to what seems true to him, writing to the sacred Timothy: ‘By intense application to mystical contemplations, leave behind both the senses and the noetic energies, and all things sensible and intelligible, and be raised up, as far as attainable, to union with Him who is beyond every essence and knowledge.’
This exhortatory saying of the divine Dionysius to Timothy, then, which this wise man has put forward as testifying that he alone thinks soundly concerning noetic prayer, in fact refutes him, as the argument will show. (page
For he who regards as something to be shunned the very beginning of prayer — that is, the fearful, sorrow-laden, and groan-filled standing before God in contrition of heart, accomplished noetically in silence for the greater part of the time, on account of godly despondency; and the prayer offered through the pain felt by touch in fasting and vigil, amid tears and compunction; and the undertaking to lead beginners from the mind’s dividedness up to a more unified and, at that stage, fitting prayer — he who despises all such things will consequently deem also the very end of prayer, and indeed the whole of it, to be for evil, and will strive utterly to remove it from among existing things.
Tell me this first, O philosopher: were not the noetic energies given by God? And are they not shown, if ever, in their most purified form precisely during prayer — is this because the one who is hastening toward divine union through prayer must abandon these as well?
He who dwells in contemplation upon the inner principles of beings, and who gives himself wholly to prayer alone — how would he not, in praying, be operating most fully in accordance with his own [proper nature]?
But you declare that nothing is good, nor from God, in the course of prayers — as regards all that is left behind, and all that the one who has stood outside himself in the better ecstasy must necessarily be without perception of.
Since it is agreed by all that it is fitting for the one hastening toward divine union to be without perception of all things and to have forgotten himself, and that God gives such a one a hand toward being released from all things, and snatches him away from all things — if the one praying has no perception whatsoever of the prayer itself, how is that prayer from God, since he cannot perceive it?
1:1154
Μάτηνγάρἄνγένοιτο, μάταιονδέτῶνἐκΘεοῦοὐδέν
因為那樣一來，它便成了徒然，而凡出於神的，沒有一樣是徒然的。
For it would then be in vain, and nothing from God is vain.
But if the one praying does perceive the prayer, how does God instill it in him, when — as all say — the one who turns to God must be released from it, since God, whomever He shines round about, bestows on him forgetfulness of all things, even of the noetic energies?
But that divinely-inspired man, exhorting the divine Timothy to set up ascents in his heart, leads him up from things high to things higher still, and through these, carrying him upward, sets him upon the very summit of the highest watchtower.
But you — I know not how, being wise in everything — suppose that those on earth touch the heavenly height directly, without mediation; and you bring forward the divine Maximus as a further witness, saying that when the mind departs in the erotic longing of love toward God, then it perceives neither itself nor beings at all.
‘Therefore,’ says this new teacher, ‘he does not perceive even the experiences said to arise in the body through prayer; therefore these necessarily occur in vain.’
But we would say: therefore not of prayer itself either, since he does not perceive even this at that time; praying, then, according to such reasoning, is in vain.
…) nor of beings does it perceive’ — ‘then,’ he says; but when it is within itself, praying noetically, then it will perceive both itself and the blessed experiences accomplished in it and in the body joined to it, by sacred prayer.
A third testimony is added by him, namely that the highest condition of prayer is that the mind become outside flesh and world, and be wholly immaterial and formless while praying, so that — as they say — ‘it will be outside the experiences in the body,’ he says, in such a condition.
Now no one clothed in a body attains this condition unceasingly, so far as we know — unless perhaps this new teacher of surpassing prayer does — and even those who attain it rarely are exceedingly few. Therefore, being in the flesh for the greater part of the time, all who pray do so while at the same time perceiving the experiences within themselves — how much more, then, the sacred experiences arising through prayer, which both perfect and lead upward, and render spiritual those in whom they exist, but do not drag down, render useless, or corrupt them.
) — that which preserves, when present, the grace received from the divine washing, according to Gregory the Theologian, and recalls it when it has departed; and is therefore another washing — of sacred regeneration — being itself a divine baptism, and so called by him; more laborious indeed than the former, yet in no way inferior to it, or rather even greater, just as one of the Fathers plainly declared, saying that after baptism, the fountain of tears stands as greater than baptism. This tear, then — which purifies and snatches one away from earthly things, and raises up and joins one to the grace of divine birth, and through it deifies him who possesses it — is this, then, not a common energy of the body and the passible part of the soul?
How, then, shall we accept the one who says that the soul’s loving the common energies of its passible part and of the body is that which fills it with darkness and prepares it to incline downward?
‘For all the common works of soul and body,’ he says, ‘the more intense a perception of themselves they afford the soul, the more they blind it’ — so shall we deem that such motions, occurring as they do, being common to soul and body, have come about, as he says, for evil, and to the detriment of the mind’s energy toward its ascent?
Is he not shown, through these words, to be both thinking and teaching things contrary to what we have been taught by the saints — or rather by the Holy Spirit?
For some say that there is a certain common energy of body and soul, truly a gift of God befitting His goodness and divine, which becomes for the soul a procurer of divine illumination, freeing it from evil passions and introducing in their stead the whole sacred choir of the virtues (for ‘he who wishes,’ it is said, ‘to rid himself of vices, rids himself of them by weeping, and he who wishes to acquire virtues acquires them by weeping’). Some, then, say that there are common energies of soul and body which are (page