24

he named it: “for,” he says, “you shall know from its energies the noetic light that has shone in your soul, whether it is of God or of satan.” And elsewhere, having called the glory on the face of Moses immortality, even though it then shone around his mortal face, and showing how it now appears to the souls of those who have loved God in truth, “just as the eyes of sensible sight,” he says, “see the sensible sun, so do they through the eyes of the soul see the noetic light, which at the (p. 156) time of the resurrection, coming forth and being poured out upon the bodies, will show these also made beautiful by the eternal light.” At any rate, no one would ever say that the light of knowledge is noetic, but that light sometimes acts as noetic and is seen as intelligible by the mind through noetic sense, and entering into rational souls, it delivers them from the ignorance of disposition, turning them from many opinions to a uniform knowledge. For this reason, that hymnodist of the divine names, undertaking to hymn the light-bearing epithet of the Good, says it must be stated, that “the Good is called intelligible light because it fills every supercelestial mind with intelligible light, and drives out all ignorance and error from all souls in which it may be present.” Therefore, knowledge, which arises when ignorance is driven out, is one thing, and the intelligible light, which is its provider, is another. For this reason, the intelligible light is clearly present in the supercelestial mind, that is, in the one that has ascended above itself. But how could that supercelestial and supramental light be called knowledge, unless metaphorically? But the cleansing of the ignorance of disposition, which this great one called ignorance and error, is naturally accomplished only in the rational soul.

And not only an angelic mind, but also a human mind, having become angel-like through dispassion, ascends above itself; therefore it will also attain that light and be deemed worthy of a supernatural theophany, not seeing the essence of God, but seeing God through a God-befitting manifestation analogous to itself; by negation, not (for it sees something), but better than by negation, God being not only beyond knowledge but also super-unknown and having His manifestation truly hidden (p. 158), the most divine and newest of all things, since even the God-like visions, even if they are symbolic, possess the unknown in a transcendent way; for they are manifested by another law beyond both the divine and human nature and, so to speak, in our manner yet beyond us, so that there is no name that properly signifies them. And this He showed to Manoah who asked "what is your name?", saying that it too is wonderful, as the vision was no less wonderful and, besides being incomprehensible, was also nameless.

Nevertheless, even if the vision is better than by negation, yet the word that interprets it falls short of the ascent by negation, being brought forth by way of example or by analogy, for which reason the word 'as', bearing a meaning of likeness, is for the most part attached to the names, since the vision is ineffable and beyond name. But when the holy men behold within themselves that God-befitting light—and they see it when they attain the deifying communion of the Spirit according to the ineffable visitation of the perfecting illuminations—they see the garment of their divinization, the mind being glorified and filled with a super-beautiful splendor by the grace of the Word, just as by the divinity of the Word the conjoined body was glorified with a God-befitting light upon the mountain. For the glory which the Father gave to him, he has given to his subjects, according to the word in the Gospels, and he willed that they should be with him and behold his glory. But how could this happen corporeally, when he is no longer corporeally present after the ascension into the heavens? It is accomplished therefore of all necessity noetically, whenever the mind, having become heavenly and having served as a follower, so to speak, of him who for our sake ascended above the heavens, clearly and ineffably

24

προσηγόρευσεν αὐτό˙ «εἴσῃ» γάρ, φησίν «ἐκ τῶν ἐνεργημάτων τό ἐλλαμφθέν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ σου νοερόν φῶς, εἴτε τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἴτε τοῦ σατανᾶ πέφυκεν ὄν». Ἀλλαχοῦ δέ τήν ἐπί τοῦ προσώπου Μωϋσέως δόξαν ἀθανασίαν προσειπών, εἰ καί τῷ θνητῷ περιήστραψε προσώπῳ τότε, καί δεικνύς ὅπως ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἀρτίως ἐμφανίζεται τῶν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τόν Θεόν ἠγαπηκότων, «ὡς οἱ τῆς αἰσθητῆς», φησίν, «ὄψεως ὀφθαλμοί ὁρῶσι τόν αἰσθητόν ἥλιον οὕτως ἐκεῖνοι διά τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμῶν τό νοερόν ὁρῶσι φῶς, ὅ κατά τόν (σελ. 156) καιρόν τῆς ἀναστάσεως προκύψαν καί ἐπιχυθέν τοῖς σώμασιν ὡραϊσμένα καί ταῦτα δείξει τῷ αἰνίῳ φωτί». Τό γοῦν φῶς τῆς γνώσεως νοερόν οὐδέποτ᾿ ἄν τις φαίη, τό δέ φῶς ἐκεῖνο καί ὡς νοερόν ἔστιν ὅτε ἐνεργεῖ καί ὡς νοητόν διά νοερᾶς αἰσθήσεως ὐπό τοῦ νοῦ ὁρᾶται καί ταῖς λογικαῖς ἐγγινόμενον ψυχαῖς τῆς κατά διάθεσιν ἀγνοίας ἀπαλλάττει ταύτας, εἰς μονοειδῆ γνῶσιν ἀπό τῶν πολλῶν ἐπιστρέφον δοξασμάτων. ∆ιό καί ὁ τῶν θείων ὀνομάτων ὑμνῳδός ἐκεῖνος, τήν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φωτωνυμικήν ἐπωνυμίαν ἐπιβαλλόμενος ὑμνεῖν, ρητέον, φησίν, ὅτι «φῶς νοητόν ὁ ἀγαθός λέγεται διά τό πάντα μέν ὑπερουράνιον νοῦν ἐμπιπλάναι νοητοῦ φωτός, πᾶσαν δέ ἀγνοίαν καί πλάνην ἐλαύνειν ἐκ πασῶν αἷς ἄν ἐγγένηται ψυχαῖς». Οὐκοῦν ἄλλο μέν ἡ γνῶσις, ἡ καί τῆς ἀγνοίας ἀπελαυνομένης ἐπιγινομένη, ἄλλο δέ τό νοητόν φῶς, ὅ παρεκτικόν ἐστιν αὐτῆς. ∆ιό καί τό μέν νοητόν φῶς τῷ ὑπερουρανίῳ νῷ ἐμφανῶς ἐγγίνεται τουτέστι τῷ ὑπεραναβάντι ἑαυτόν. Πῶς δ᾿ ἄν κληθείη γνῶσις, εἰ μή μεταφορικῶς, τό ὑπερουράνιον καί ὑπέρ νοῦν ἐκεῖνο φῶς; Ἡ δέ τῆς κατά διάθεσιν ἀγνοίας ἀποκάθαρσις, ἥν ἄγνοιαν καί πλάνην ὠνόμασεν ὁ μέγας οὗτος, ἐπί μόνης τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς τελεῖσθαι πέφυκεν.

Ὑπεραναβαίνει δέ ἑαυτόν οὐκ ἀγγέλων μόνον, ἀλλά καί ἀνθρώπινος νοῦς, ἀγγελοειδής δι᾿ ἀπαθείας γεγονώς˙ οὐκοῦν καί τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου τεύξεται καί θεοφανείας ὑπερφυοῦς ἀξιωθήσετγαι, τήν μέν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίαν οὐχ ὁρῶν, Θεόν δέ ὁρῶν διά θεοπρεποῦς ἐκφαντορίας ἀναλόγου ἑαυτῷ˙ κατά ἀπόφασιν μέν, οὐ (ὁρᾷ γάρ τι) κρεῖττον δ᾿ ἤ κατά ἀπόφασιν, τοῦ Θεοῦ μή μόνον ὑπέρ γνῶσιν ἀλλά καί ὑπεραγνώστου ὄντος καί ὡς ἀληθῶς κρύφιον καί τήν ἔκφανσιν (σελ. 158) ἔχοντος, τό θειότατον καί πάντων καινότατον, ἐπεί καί αἱ θεοειδεῖς ὄψεις, κἄν συμβολικαί ὦσιν, ὑπεροχικῶς ἔχουσι τό ἄγνωστον˙ ἑτέρῳ γάρ παρά τήν φύσιν τήν τε θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην θεσμῷ διαφαίνονται καί, ὡς εἰπεῖν, καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, ὡς μηδέ ὄνομα δηλωτικόν αὐτῶν κυρίως εἶναι. Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἔδειξεν ὁ τῷ Μανωέ πυθομένῳ τί τό ὄνομά σου; Φάμενος ὅτι καί αὐτό θαυμαστόν, ὡς καί τῆς ὀράσεως οὐχ ἧττον οὔσης θαυμαστῆς καί πρός τῷ ἀλήπτῳ καί τό ἀνώνυμον ἐχούσης.

Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καί ἡ ὅρασις κρεῖττον ἤ κατά ἀπόφασιν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἑρμηνεύς ἐκείνης λόγος ἀποδεῖ τῆς κατά ἀπόφασιν ἀνόδου, παραδειγματικῶς ἤ κατά ἀναλογίαν προαγόμενος, διό καί τό ὡς, ὁμοιωματικήν φέρον σημασίαν, συνηρμένον ὡς ἐπί τό πλεῖστον ἔχει τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, ὡς ἀρρήτου καί ὑπερωνύμου τῆς ὁράσεως οὔσης. Ὅταν δ᾿ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς οἱ ἱεροί ἄνδρες τό θεοπρεπές ἐκεῖνο θεωρῶσι φῶς, ὁρῶσι δ᾿ ἡνίκα τύχωσι τῆς θεουργοῦ κοινωνίας τοῦ πνεύματος κατά τήν ἀπόρρητον τῶν τελεσιουργῶν ἐλλάμψεων ἐπιφοίτησιν, τό τῆς θέσεως αὑτῶν ὁρῶσιν ἔνδυμα, τοῦ νοῦ δοξαζομένου καί τῆς ὑπερκάλου πληρουμένου ἀγλαΐας ὑπό τῆς τοῦ λόγου χάριτος, καθάπερ ὑπό τῆς τοῦ λόγου θεότητος θεοπρεπεῖ φωτί τό συνημμένον ἐπί τοῦ ὄρους ἐδοξάσθη σῶμα. Τήν γάρ δόξαν ἥν ὁ πατήρ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δέδωκεν αὐτός τοῖς ὑπηκόοις, κατά τόν ἐν εὐαγγελίοις λόγον, καί ἠθέλησεν ἵνα ὦσιν οὗτοι μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καί θεωρῶσι τήν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. Τοῦτο δέ πῶς ἄν γίγνοιτο σωματικῶς, μηκέτι σωματικῶς αὐτοῦ παρόντος μετά τήν εἰς οὐρανούς ἀνάληψιν; Τελεῖται τοίνυν κατά πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην νοερῶς, ὁπηνίκα γεγονώς ὁ νοῦς ἐπουράνιος καί οἷον ὀπαδός χρηματίσας τοῦ ὑπεραναβεβηκότος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς τούς οὐρανούς, ἐμφανῶς καί ἀπορρήτως