為神聖靜修者辯護 第 1 章 第 13/21 段

Since, then, all symbols and enigmas whatsoever are fashioned to suit the circumstances that arise, coming into being and passing out of it — existing now, indeed, or rather merely appearing to exist at some given moment, but properly speaking almost never truly existing — how could this most luminous and most divine light, which always is, and properly is, and is unchangeably, not be set apart from that category?

Or shall we say that the sun — the most luminous of all sensible things, which had a beginning from a turning, and is subject to many yearly turnings, and to many (p.

) bodies that obstruct it, now eclipsed, now hidden, and at times even made subject to the commands of holy men, and thereby checked in its motion, made to go backward and to stand still — shall we say that this sun, and the light that comes from it, truly subsists, while that other light — in which there is no variation or shadow of turning, the radiance of the flesh united with God, rich in and bestowing the glory of the Godhead — shall we call this light, then, the beauty of the age to come that abides forever, a mere symbol, an apparition, and something without real subsistence?

No — not so long as we are lovers of that light.

For this light both Gregory the Theologian, and John, golden of tongue, and Basil the Great clearly call "divinity."

"Light," he says, "was the Godhead displayed to the disciples on the mountain"; and again, "the Lord appeared more radiant than Himself, the Godhead having displayed its rays"; and again, "it appeared to those pure in heart, as through glass lamps, this power shining through, through the worshipful body."

So this glory did not belong simply to the body, but to the divine nature, which, being united in one of its holy hypostases to that adorable body, implanted in it all this glory of its own and its God-befitting splendor.

How then could the deity — the brightness and glory of that supra-essential reality — now be and now not be, coming to be and ceasing to be, appearing and vanishing away, hidden not on account of the unworthy but passing into non-being, like phantasms and such symbols and riddles and whatever else is so named by those most audacious men, who have even brought forward as testifying together with them the divine Dionysius and Maximus, not perceiving that these speak analogically and anagogically (p.

For since, by the homonymy of 'symbols,' all subsisting things are both made and spoken of as such in theologies that proceed by analogy and anagogy, he himself there too called this thing such a symbol; wherefore also he plainly entitled those discourses 'contemplation,' just as Gregory, the one named for theology, called the known tree of good and evil 'contemplation,' making it anagogically, according to his own contemplation, a symbol of it — yet that tree was not, for this reason, a phantasm and an unsubstantial symbol.

And what of Peter — would he not become, for one wishing to contemplate by way of anagogy, a symbol of faith; and James, of hope; and John, of love?

And the mountain itself — the mountain of the ascent according to virtue entire — upon which Christ, having gone up, appears to those able to follow him, to speak in the words of that same Maximus, in the form of God in which he existed before the world was?

Do you see what sort of light it was that shone round about the disciples there?

It was accordingly by this that the chosen of the apostles, having beheld the Lord transfigured, passed over from flesh to Spirit, before laying aside the life led through the flesh — as he himself again says — by the alteration of the energies of sense, which the Spirit worked in them.

Do you see how that light was invisible to sense-perception not yet transformed by the Spirit?

Wherefore also it did not appear to those dwelling nearby, although it shone brighter than the sun.

And Dionysius the Great calls this light simple, formless, supernatural, supra-essential — that is, being above all beings.

How, then, could such a thing be sensible, or such a thing be symbolic?

For as this man was about to write sacredly concerning the light, as (p.

...) a sure witness, seer, initiate, and celebrant of the mystery of the light. 'Now,' he says, 'our God-inspired guides have handed down to us the intelligible things through sensible things, and the supra-essential things through beings, and, by the variety of divided symbols, the supernatural and formless simplicity; but when we become incorruptible and immortal, and attain to that most blessed lot conformed to Christ, we shall be, according to the oracle, always with the Lord, being filled full with his visible theophany in all-pure contemplations, which shall shine round about us with most radiant flashes, as it did the disciples in that most divine transfiguration.'

Do you see how this light is not only above sense-perception, but above all beings as well, and how this contemplation is supernatural?

For now we behold it by sense-perception, and through beings and divided symbols; but then, having come to be above these things, we shall see the eternal light immediately, with no veil interposed as mediator — as also the most divine celebrant of such mysteries explained in revealing fashion: 'For now we see through a mirror, in a riddle, but then face to face.'

And he said 'now,' showing the contemplation that is possible and proportionate to our nature; for he himself, having risen above this, and having come to be above sense-perception and intellect, saw the unseen things and heard the unheard things, having received in himself the pledge of that regeneration and of the vision that belongs to it; wherefore also he said, 'I know, having heard and having seen.'

Behold, these things seem to be an operation of sense-perception; but that same man said again, 'I do not know whether it was the mind, or a body perceiving.'

So then this perception is above sense-perception and intellect; for whenever each of these operates, it also perceives and knows that it operates; for this reason he added, 'God knows,' since it was God who was then the one operating.

He himself, having become above man through union with God, saw the unseen things by means of the unseen, that which is above sense-perception not having departed from itself, while the unseen things became visible to it.

And so the great Dionysius, then, did not show the vision to be sensible (p.

...) the beholding of the eternal light, in calling it visible, since he called it visible to those who are Christ-formed.

And you will find him elsewhere too plainly calling the light above sense-perception 'visible': 'For,' he says, 'if the self-determined free autonomy of noetic beings should boldly attempt to leap over the bounds of the visible measure granted to it, the light will do nothing at all contrary to what befits light; but that noetic being will, on its own account, fail even of the measured portion granted it.'

If, then, the contemplation of noetic beings is not excluded from the things above sense, even though it is called visible, how shall the contemplation of those who have attained the Christ-formed lot not be above sense, merely because it is called visible?

...so that God appears through both the soul and the body.

Both the intellect and sense-perception, therefore, will apprehend the same light, each however in proportion to itself, yet the light remains above sense-perception and intellect.

And what the great Dionysius calls, in that place, 'visible theophany' and 'union above intellect' do not differ very greatly from one another; and besides, since, according to those who speak of God, we shall have need there of neither air nor place, how shall we have need of sensible light?

But did Paul, having come to be in God and having beheld in ecstasy the unseen things of God, actually see the essence of God?

In this same manner, too, those purified through stillness are counted worthy of the unseen visions, the essence of God remaining untouched; and moreover, those counted worthy of that vision are initiated into it and reflect upon it, and thus, with an intellect impassible and immaterial, they participate in the noetic illumination of God; and yet, above these contemplations and the initiations belonging to them, they know the divine; and so they possess that (p.

...) apprehension above intellect, which surpasses what belongs to us — not from not seeing, as do those who theologize by way of negation, but knowing that which is above vision by the very act of vision itself, undergoing, as it were, the negation, but not merely reasoning it out.

As, then, to experience and to see the things divine is other and superior to theologizing affirmatively, so also, even within spiritual vision itself, to undergo the negation on account of the surpassing nature of that which is seen, is other and superior to theologizing by way of negation.

For if someone should behold in a mirror a shadow-image of the sun brighter than this one in the sky, so that his own sight is overcome even by that shadowy flash, he would certainly have perceived together with it that the archetype is invisible on account of its transcendence — yet not from a lack of vision, but from vision itself; so, then, also those counted worthy of that most blessed vision know that which is above vision, not from negation, but from the vision in the Spirit of this deifying energy — how much more, then, do they know him who works this energy!

But as many as should be taught by those who have seen, partake of the noetic illumination and are able to ascend to theology by way of negation; but to attain the like vision, and through it and with it to perceive together the invisibility of God, is among the impossible things, unless they too should obtain the supernatural, spiritual, and above-intellect union.

For thus also Stephen, according to the divine Gregory of Nyssa, did not behold the divine while remaining in human nature and power, but having been commingled with the grace of the Holy Spirit — since it is testified by Scripture that like things are beheld by like. For if the glory of the Father and the Son had become receivable by human nature and power, then he who declared the sight to be unreceivable would be false; but it is necessary that neither should that man be lying, nor the narrative fail to be true.

Rightly, therefore, did we also say before that the glory beheld at the Transfiguration of Christ was the glory of the Father, (p.

...) since the glory of the Father and the Son is one; for now too, Stephen, having plainly come to be in God, did not see God in glory only, but that very glory itself, being the glory of the Father.

Was this achievement, then, of human nature?

Or was it that some one of the angels raised up the nature lying below to that height?

It is not so; for it is not written thus, that Stephen, having become great in power or full of angelic assistance, saw what he saw, but that Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God and the Only-Begotten of God; for it is not possible, as the prophet said, for the light to be seen except as it is beheld in light.

But if in the paternal light, that is, the Spirit, we see the Son as light, then there exists for us a certain immediate union with God, and a communication of light from thence, participated in not through the mediation of angels — even though this philosopher denies it, and thinks the great Dionysius teaches this, not comprehending precisely the force of the theology of this hierophant.

Nor does he say that every union, nor every illumination, comes to be through them.

For having spoken of that much-hymned doxology delivered to those on earth by a multitude of the heavenly host at the birth of Christ, and how an angel brought this good tidings to the shepherds — men purified by their withdrawal from the many and by stillness — he did not say that the glory of God which shone round about them came to be through angels; nor indeed did the shepherds receive from the glory that shone round them the revelation of the message of salvation; but since they were afraid — for they were unaccustomed to such visions — the angels announced what the presence of the light meant.

...she was initiated, through an angel, into how she would have God in her womb and would bear him in the flesh; but the union of God with her did not come to be through an angel.

And here too it must be observed that she was not initiated into that union itself, but had need of one who would announce it.

And what need is there of more, since he himself says quite plainly that by that union with the light from above — which exists only in those angels counted worthy of a knowledge beyond the angelic — by this same union the God-formed intellects are also united, in angel-imitating fashion, through the cessation of every noetic operation? And again, just as those skilled in our sacred rites say that the self-manifest fulfillments of the divine things are more perfect than those effected through the participations of others, so too, I think, is it true of the ranks of angels: that the immediate participation of those first stretched out toward God is more efficacious than that accomplished through mediation.

And Zechariah sees one of the first angels stationed around God — as the great Dionysius also teaches this too; and Ezekiel says that this was most sacredly ordained by that supremely glorious deity itself, mounted upon the cherubim.

Thus not only among angels, but also among us, visions of God are accomplished not only mediately and through others, but also immediately and self-manifestly, not passing over to the second ranks by way of ferrying through the first; for the Lord of lords is not subject to the laws of creation.

Wherefore also, according to our sacred traditions, Gabriel alone and first is initiated into the mystery of the ineffable self-emptying of the Word, although he does not belong to the angelic rank established first and immediately around God.

It was fitting, then, that the beginning of the new creation should be new.

For he who came down even to us, emptying himself for our sake, made all things new; wherefore also, in ascending into heaven, he makes the angels of the lower rank — and rather those who surround the cosmos — as St. Cyril says, illuminators and perfecters (p.

...) of the higher rank of order, commanding their rulers to lift up the everlasting gates, and initiating them into the fact that he who is clothed in flesh, on account of ineffable love for mankind, both shall enter and shall ascend, and shall be seated above every rule and authority.

Before the manifestation of God in the flesh, we were taught nothing of this sort among the angels, nor correspondingly among the prophets, except in the case of those who prefigured beforehand the grace that was to come; but now that this grace has appeared, there is no necessity that all things be accomplished through mediation.

For this reason, then, and according to the great Paul, the manifold wisdom of God is now made known to the principalities and powers through the Church; and according to Peter, the foremost of the chorus of the apostles, these things have now been announced to us through those who preached the gospel to us in the Holy Spirit sent from heaven — things into which angels desire to look.

But although, in this respect, greater things are being accomplished through grace by the lesser, nevertheless the order of good arrangement is at the same time securely and marvelously preserved.

But he who uncovers the appellation 'angelic' has explained most excellently, and in a manner that could not be bettered, and has made plain, and has taught us, for what reason these beings were, from the beginning, both brought into existence and so named.

...that some were established immediately around God, you would find declared among the divine prophets; for indeed this one is not summoned by another of those who excel in dignity in a mediating fashion, but hears directly, in a commanding voice: 'Gabriel, make that man understand the vision.'

But it is necessary to take note also in this, that it was not said, 'impart to him the vision,' but 'make him understand'; for the (p.

...) grace of knowledge you would see accomplished through intermediaries for the most part, but of the theophanies, the majority are self-manifest.

Wherefore also, in the case of Moses, theology says that the outline of the Law was given through angels, but not that vision and theophany itself — rather, only the initiation belonging to the vision.

And the manifestation of him who is beyond all things shone forth, according to various causes and powers, in the sacred sanctuaries or elsewhere, to the initiates or to the prophets, as the great Dionysius says — even though this man, who has called himself blind, and who lays hold of all things indiscriminately and in a fittingly named manner — or rather does not lay hold of anything at all — thinks it fit that we, who venerate the eternal light so far as is fitting, should also consider the chariots that appeared, and the wheels, and the swords, and certain other such things, to be of equal honor with the light of the age to come; nor did he hear even this from theology, that instead of all things the divine nature itself will then become all to us, so that from this, at least, he might believe this light to be of God.

And yet no one has seen God, nor will see him — neither man nor angel — except insofar as an angel and a man see, whether sensibly or noetically.

But he who has become spirit and sees in the Spirit — how shall he not behold the like by the like, according to the words of the theologians?

Yet nonetheless, even through this very vision in the Spirit, the divine light that is established far above is shown to be all the more altogether hidden.

For what created being could contain the whole infinitely-powerful power of the Spirit, (p.) so as to behold through it the whole of God?

This very splendor of that light — which paradoxically has, as it were, the beholder's own vision for its matter — increasing that spiritual eye through union with it and rendering it ever more capable of itself, will never cease, throughout the whole age, to shine round about it with ever brighter rays, and to fill it continually with an ever more hidden splendor, and to manifest through itself things never seen before.

Wherefore also the theologians call this light infinite, through which, by the cessation of every cognitive power, in the power of the Spirit, God becomes visible to the saints — as God united to gods, and beheld by them. For, having been transformed for the better through participation in the better, and, to speak in prophetic terms, having changed their strength, they shall bring to cessation every energy of soul and body, so that this light alone appears through them and is seen by them, the natural characteristics being overcome by the excess of glory, that God may be all in all, according to the Apostle.

For we shall be sons of God, being sons of the resurrection, and like the angels of God in heaven, who continually behold the face of our Father who is in the heavens, according to the word of the Lord.

...but from union with the light they know that it is supra-essentially removed from all things.

Being united, then, to this light that is removed from beings, they learn this very thing, that it is removed from created things — not having their union from a process of removal, but rather learning the negation by means of the union; so that this union itself is also removed from created things, and is 'non-being' by way of transcendence. For that which cannot be contained by angels — except as they are counted worthy of a knowledge beyond that of angels — it is impossible for it to be contained or possessed by any noetic power at all, since it transcends this union as well.

But that which has transcended even this altogether, being by nature incapable of being contained, is above all beings; and therefore such a union is above all knowledge, even though it is metaphorically called knowledge; nor, then, is it intelligible, even though it is also so called; for how could that which is above all intellect be intelligible?

This, then, might indeed be called 'ignorance' by way of transcendence, and rather than 'knowledge.'

It will therefore be neither a part of knowledge nor a species of it, just as the superessential is not a species of essence; nor indeed could it be encompassed by universal knowledge, nor would universal knowledge, when divided, hold this under itself — rather unknowing would sooner hold this under itself; but not even that, for by way of transcendence it is unknowing as well, and evidently beyond unknowing too.

This union, then, is unique; and whatever name one might give to it — whether union, or vision, or perception, or knowledge, or intellection, or illumination — either these terms do not properly apply at all, or they properly belong to it alone.

Clear ignorance, then, are the philosopher's arguments in his treatise On Knowledge.

For there he says that it is a part and a species of universal knowledge, since it is called "knowledge," and he compares this union with that universal knowledge and has perceived that, if it will have knowledge as its genus on account of the name, it will also have unknowing as its genus (p.

) since this too — unknowing — is likewise predicated of it, indeed even more than the other, knowledge.

Accordingly, the same thing will fall under contrary genera, and that which transcends will become a subject, and the unique thing, which is exalted above all multiplicity, will be classed together with multiplicity.

But what is even more absurd is that he does not simply say that the union is a species, part, and subject of universal knowledge, but says that this very thing which he himself there calls "beyond knowledge," precisely as species, part, and subject, is inferior to universal knowledge — just as if someone, because the sole superessential reality is called and indeed is "superessential essence," were, on account of this equivocation, to call it a part, species, and subject of essence, and then dared to compare it with the universal genus of essence.

And indeed, let him who mixes together things that cannot be mixed, and ranks together with knowledge that which is beyond knowledge, and calls "beyond knowledge" that which is beyond conception, know this: it is the very addition of "beyond" to "knowledge" that has made knowledge take on, in relation to it, the very form of a comparison — so that, being one and the same thing, it is foolishly set in comparison with itself.

Furthermore, if, on account of the equivocation, the knowledge beyond knowledge is a species of universal knowledge, then those who speak of the ten categories of beings have been deceived; for being is one genus of all things, and the One who is above all falls under it, and being would be superior to this One, and the other things, joined together with this One, would make another being superior to the One.

Furthermore, since there is also a touch beyond touch, and a sight beyond sight, and simply a perception beyond perception — for these too are called by the same name as intellection — if that which is beyond perception is a species of perception, then perception will be superior to that which is beyond perception, and likewise in each of the other cases.

But let us return: what, then, is that union which, by way of transcendence, is none of the things that exist?

Is it, then, the theology by way of negation?

And yet that is a union, not a removal.

Moreover, we too have no need of ecstasy with regard to it; but in the case of the (p.

) that union, even the angels have need of ecstasy. And besides this, one who does not do theology by way of removal is not even pious, whereas of that union, among the pious, only those who are God-like attain it.

Moreover, theology by way of negation is conceived and spoken by us, whereas that union the great Dionysius declared to be unutterable and inconceivable even to those who behold it.

...it is beheld as really subsisting, acting noetically, and communing spiritually and ineffably with the one who is being deified.

And indeed the intellect, doing theology by way of removal, thinks discursively the things that are incongruous with God; it therefore operates in a discursive manner; but that other reality is union. Moreover, together with the other things, it removes even itself from there, whereas that union is the union of the intellect with God, and this is what the fathers called the end of prayer: rapture toward the Lord.

Therefore the great Dionysius also says that it is through this union that we are made one with God.

For in prayer the intellect, laying aside little by little its relations to existing things — first its relations to things base and evil and simply all vile things, then its relations to things of a middling character, which shift toward worse or better according to the disposition of those who employ them, and of which, indeed, all learning and the knowledge derived through it consist (wherefore it is also a patristic precept not to admit knowledge at the time of prayer when it is offered up by the enemy, lest we be robbed of the better thing) — laying aside, then, these relations, and also its relations to things better than these, the intellect, in the course of pure prayer, stands wholly outside all existing things.

This ecstasy is markedly higher than theology by way of removal; for it belongs only to those who have laid hold of dispassion; but it is not yet union — unless the Paraclete, shining down from above upon the one who prays, seated in the upper room of the summits of nature and awaiting the promise of the Father, and through revelation, seizes him toward the (p.

) contemplation of the light.

Of this contemplation there is both a beginning and what comes after the beginning, differing from one another according to being dimmer or more radiant, but there is no end at all — for its progress is unto infinity — and likewise also of the rapture that occurs in revelation. For illumination is one thing, a lasting vision of the light another, and yet another the vision of the things that are within the light, wherein things far off come under one's eyes and things future are shown as though present.

But these things are beyond me to describe and set forth clearly; and even if the things prior to them could be, yet those belong to a subject other than the one before us; let me, then, return to it.

The contemplation of this light, then, is union, even if it is not lasting for those who are imperfect; but what else is union with the light than vision?

And since it is accomplished after the cessation of the noetic operations, how could it be accomplished, if not through the Spirit?

For in the light the light is seen, and in that same light also that which sees — if it operates by nothing else, having withdrawn from all else — itself becomes wholly light and is made like to that which is seen, or rather is unmixedly united with it, being light and seeing light through light. And should it look upon itself, it sees light; and should it look toward that which it sees, that too is light; and should it look to that by which it has the power of seeing, that also is light; and this is the union: that all these are one, so that the one who sees cannot even distinguish that by which, and that into which, and what it is itself, but only this: that it is light, and it sees a light other than all created things.

Therefore the great Paul, too, concerning that rapture which occurred by divine power, says that he himself did not know what he was.

Was he present sensibly, or rationally, or noetically?

But, having been seized, he rose above these faculties.

Therefore he beheld himself as belonging to the Spirit who had wrought that rapture.

But what was he himself, being ungraspable by any natural faculty, or rather having been released from every (p.) natural faculty?

Assuredly, he was that with which he was united, and by which he knew himself, and on account of which he had been released from all things.

For he had this union with the light, which not even the angels could attain, unless through the uniting grace they transcend themselves.

How, then, was he at that time also Spirit — that to which he was united and from which he had his very being-united — having stood outside all existing things, and having become that by grace, and by way of transcendence not being any of the things that are, that is, being above created things, as the divine Maximus also says: for he who has come to be in God has left behind all things that come after God; and again, all things and names and dignities that come after God will be beneath those who, through grace, come to be in God.

...he partook of essence in no way whatsoever. The essence of God, therefore, is beyond that which, by way of transcendence, is non-being — just as it is also above-God; while that which is, by way of transcendence, non-being, and is beheld spiritually through noetic perception, is by no means the essence of God, but rather the glory and inseparable splendor of His nature, by which He is united to the worthy alone, both angels and men.

Nevertheless, since men, just as the angels, behold God in these ways, and are united to God, and hymn God, perhaps even an angel, if he were to declare his own supernatural vision, would say the very words of Paul outright: "I know an angel who saw — whether he was even an angel I do not know, God knows."

These visions of the saints, then, which God alone knows, together with those who are worked upon in accordance with them, as Gregory the Theologian also says — to call these, then, "sensible," and "fantastic," and "symbolic" as though they were sensible, and to compare them with human knowledge — is this the mark of a man who perceives together the infinity of the divine height, and unto what He has, in His love for mankind, drawn our lowliness?

) But behold, three have been brought forward for us, one from each of the three orders within the fullness of those named after Christ: from the apostles, Peter the foremost; from the hierarchs, Dionysius, the expositor of every God-inspired hierarchy; from the anchorites, Isaac, the initiate and celebrant of the way of life according to stillness. And just as it is written concerning the shepherds at the birth of Christ, that immediately, along with the word of the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host stood by, bearing witness together, so also, along with the word of the apostle, a multitude of apostles stood by in agreement, and likewise of the holy and of the priests for each of the remaining two orders.