32

prayer, an ineffable vision and ecstasy in the vision and ineffable mysteries; in the same way also after the abstraction of beings, or rather even after the cessation, not only in word, but also accomplished in us by deeds, and after this, therefore, even if it is unknowing, yet it is beyond knowledge, and if it is a darkness, yet it is superluminous; and in that superluminous darkness, according to the great Dionysius, divine things are given to the saints. So that the most perfect contemplation of God and of divine things is not simply abstraction, but after the abstraction it is a participation in divine things and a giving and receiving rather than an abstraction. And those receivings and givings are ineffable, wherefore even if they speak of them, they do so paradigmatically and by analogy, not as if these things are seen by them in this way, but as what is seen by them is not of a nature to be shown otherwise. Therefore, those who do not reverently understand these things thus spoken of paradigmatically as ineffable, consider the supremely wise knowledge to be foolishness, and by slandering, they trample upon the intelligible pearls, and they will tear to pieces with their disputations those who, as far as possible, have revealed them.

But they nevertheless, out of love for humanity, as far as possible, as I said, speak of the ineffable things, removing the error of those who, uninitiated, suppose that after the abstraction of beings there is complete inactivity, and not an inactivity that is beyond activity. But those things again remain ineffable by their own nature. For this reason the great Dionysius says that after the abstraction of beings there is no reason but an unreason, and after every ascent, he says, we shall be united to the Unutterable. But not because they are unutterable will the intellect attain what is beyond the intellect through negation alone; for such an ascent is a kind of intellection of things unlike God and bears an image of that formless contemplation (p. 192) and of the noetic contemplative fulfillment, but it is not that itself. But through this abstraction of all things, those who have been united to that light in an angel-like manner hymn it, having been initiated from their mystical union with it, because it is superessentially removed from all things. And as many as are deemed worthy to receive the mystery from such ones through faithful and well-disposed hearing, these too are able, from the abstraction of all things, to hymn that divine and inconceivable light; but they are not able to be united to it and to see it, unless, having purified themselves through the keeping of the commandments, having occupied their intellect with the most sincere and immaterial prayer, they receive the supernatural power of contemplation.

How then shall we call this, which is neither sensation nor intellection at all? In no other way, surely, than as Solomon, made wiser than all before him, that is, an intellectual and divine sense. For by the conjunction of both he persuades the hearer to consider this as neither, neither sensation nor intellection; for intellection is never sensation, nor is sensation intellection; therefore, intellectual sense is something other than each of them. Therefore one must either call it this, or, as the great Dionysius, union but not knowledge. “For it is necessary,” he says, “to know that our intellect has, on the one hand, the power for intellection, through which it sees intelligible things, and on the other, the union that transcends the nature of the intellect, through which it is joined to the things beyond itself”; and again, “superfluous along with the senses are also the intellectual powers, when the soul, having become godlike through an unknown union, strikes with eyeless assaults the rays of the unapproachable light,” according to which also, according to Maximus, great in divine things, “the saints, beholding the light of the unmanifest and super-ineffable glory, themselves also become receptive of the blessed purity with the powers above.”

(p. 194) And let no one suppose that the great ones are here speaking of the ascent through negations. For that is for anyone who wishes, and it does not transpose the soul to the rank of the angels; and while it separates the thought from other things, it cannot by itself effect union with the things beyond. But the purity of the

32

προσευχήν, θέα ἀνεκλάλητος καί ἔκστασις ἐν τῇ θέᾳ καί ἀπόρρητα μυστήρια˙ τόν αὐτόν τρόπον καί μετά τήν ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν ὄντων, μᾶλλον δέ καί μετά τήν ἀπόπαυσιν, οὐ λόγος μόνον, ἀλλά καί ἔργοις τελουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, καί μετά ταύτην τοίνυν, εἰ καί ἀγνωσία ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπέρ γνῶσιν, καί εἰ γνόφος ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπερφαής˙ καί ἐν τῷ ὑπερφαεῖ ἐκείνῳ γνόφῳ δοτά γίνεται, κατά τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον, τά θεῖα τοῖς ἁγίοις. Ὥστε οὐκ ἀφαίρεσίς ἐστιν ἁπλῶς ἡ περί Θεοῦ καί τῶν θείων τελεωτάτη θεωρία, ἀλλ᾿ ἡ μετά τήν ἀφαίρεσιν μέθεξις τῶν θείων καί δόσις τε καί λῆψις μᾶλλον ἤ ἀφαίρεσις. Ἄρρητα δέ ἐστι τά λήμματα καί τά δόματα ἐκεῖνα, διό κἄν λέγωσι περί αὐτῶν, ἀλλά παραδειγματικῶς καί κατά ἀναλογίαν, οὐχ ὡς ὁρωμένων ἐκείνοις τούτων οὕτως, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή πεφυκότων ἄλλως δειχθῆναι τῶν ἐκείνοις ὁρωμένων. Οἱ τοίνυν τῶν παραδειγματικῶς οὕτω τούτων λεγομένων μή μετ᾿ εὐλαβείας ὡς ἀρρήτων ἐπαΐοντες μωρίαν ἡγοῦνται τήν ὑπέρσοφον γνῶσιν καί τούς νοητούς τῷ διασύρειν καταπατοῦντες μαργαρίτας, τούς ὡς ἔνεστι προδείξαντας αὐτούς τῇ λογομαχίᾳ διαρρήσουσιν.

Ἐκεῖνοι δ᾿ ὅμως ὑπό φιλανθρωπίας κατά τό ἐγχωροῦν, ὡς ἔφην, λέγουσι τά ἄρρητα, τήν πλάνην ἀφαιροῦντες τῶν μετά τήν ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν ὄντων ἀργίαν εἶναι τελείαν ἀμυήτως οἰομένων, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑπέρ ἐνέργειαν ἀργίαν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνα πάλιν ἄρρητα τῇ ἑαυτῶν φύσει διαμένει. ∆ιά τοῦτο ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος μετά τήν ἀφαίρεσιν τῶν ὄντων οὐκ εἶναί φησι λόγον ἀλλά ἀλογίαν καί μετά πᾶσαν ἄνοδον ἑνωθησόμεθα, φησί, τῷ ἀφθέγκτῳ. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ, ὅτι ἄφθεγκτα, δι᾿ ἀποφάσεως μόνης ἐπιτεύξεται ὁ νοῦς τῶν ὑπέρ νοῦν˙ καί ἡ τοιαύτη γάρ ἄνοδος νόησίς τίς ἐστι τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων τῷ Θεῷ καί εἰκόνα μέν φέρει τῆς ἀνειδέου ἐκείνης θεωρίας (σελ. 192) καί τῆς κατά νοῦν θεωρητικῆς ἀποπληρώσεως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ αὐτή ἐστιν ἐκείνη. ∆ι᾿ αὐτῆς δέ τῆς πάντων ἀφαιρέσεως ὑμνοῦσιν ἐκεῖνο τό φῶς οἱ τούτῳ ἀγγελομιμήτως ἑνωθέντες, ἀπό τῆς πρός αὐτό μυστικῆς ἑνώσεως μεμυημένοι, ὅτι πάντων ἐστίν ὑπερουσίως ἐξῃρημένον. Καί ὅσοι περ ἄν ἀπό τῶν τοιούτων δι᾿ ἀκοῆς πιστῆς καί εὐγνώμονος παραδέξασθαι καταξιωθῶσι τό μυστήριον, δύνανται μέν καί οὗτοι ἐκ τῆς τῶν πάντων ἀφαιρέσεως ὑμνεῖν τό θεῖον καί ἀπερινόητον ἐκεῖνο φῶς˙ ἑνοῦσθαι δέ αὐτῷ καί ὁρᾶν οὐ δύνανται, ἄν μή, διά τῆς τῶν ἐντολῶν φυλακῆς ἑαυτούς καθάραντες, τῇ ἀπειλικρινημένῃ καί ἀΰλῳ προσευχῇ τόν νοῦν ἀπασχολήσαντες, τήν ὑπερφυᾶ δύναμιν τῆς θεωρίας δέξωνται.

Πῶς οὖν ταύτην, ἥ μήτ᾿ αἴσθησίς ἐστι μηδ᾿ ὅλως νόησις, ἡμεῖς καλέσομεν; Πάντως οὐκ ἄλλως ἤ ὡς ὁ ὑπέρ πάντας τούς πρό αὐτού σεσοφισμένος Σολομών, αἴσθησιν δηλονότι νοεράν καί θείαν. Τῇ γάρ ἀμφοτέρων συζυγίᾳ πείθει τόν ἀκούοντα μηδέτερον νομίσαι ταύτην, μήτ᾿ αἴσθησιν, μήτε νόησιν˙ οὔτε γάρ ἡ νόησις αἴσθησίς ποτε, οὔθ᾿ ἡ αἴσθησις νόησις˙ οὐκοῦν ἡ νοερά αἴσθησις ἄλλο παρ᾿ ἑκάτερον ἀυτῶν. Ἤ οὖν οὕτω προσρητέον ταύτην, ἤ, ὡς ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος, ἕνωσιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί γνῶσιν. «∆έον» γάρ, φησίν, «εἰδέναι τόν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς νοῦν, τήν μέν ἔχειν δύναμιν εἰς τό νοεῖν, δι᾿ ἧς τά νοητά βλέπει, τήν δέ ἕνωσιν ὑπεραίρουσαν τήν τοῦ νοῦ φύσιν, δι᾿ ἧς συνάπτεται πρός τά ἐπέκεινα ἑαυτοῦ»˙ καί πάλιν, «περιτταί μετά τῶν αἰσθήσεων καί αἱ νοεραί δυνάμεις, ὅταν ἡ ψυχή θεοειδής γενομένη δι᾿ ἑνώσεως ἀγνώστου ταῖς τοῦ ἀπροσίτου φωτός ἀκτῖσιν ἐπιβάλλῃ ταῖς ἀνομμάτοις ἐπιβολαῖς», καθ᾿ ἥν καί, κατά τόν πολύν τά θεῖα Μάξιμον, «τό φῶς τῆς ἀφανοῦς καί ὑπεραρρήτου δόξης οἱ ἅγιοι ἐποπτεύοντες, τῆς μακαρίας μετά τῶν ἄνω δυνάμεων καί αὐτοί δεκτικοί γίνονται καθαρότητος».

(σελ. 194) Καί μή τις ὑπολάβῃ τήν διά τῶν ἀποφάσεων ἄνοδον ἐνταῦθα λέγειν τούς μεγάλους. Ἐκείνη γάρ παντός ἐστι τοῦ βουλομένου καί τήν ψυχήν οὐ μετατάττει πρός τήν τῶν ἀγγέλων ἀξίαν καί χωρίζει μέν ἀπό τῶν ἄλλων τήν διάνοιαν, ἕνωσιν δέ οὐ δύναται μόνη πρός τά ἐπέκεινα ποιεῖν. Ἡ δέ καθαρότης τοῦ