34

How then shall we call this, which is neither sensation nor intellection at all? In no other way, surely, than as Solomon, who was wiser than all before him: namely, an intellectual and divine sensation. For by the conjunction of both he persuades the hearer to consider this as neither of them, neither sensation nor intellection; for intellection is never sensation, nor is sensation intellection; therefore, intellectual sensation is something other than either of them. Therefore, one must either call it this, or, as the great Dionysius does, union but not knowledge. For "it is necessary," he says, "to know that our mind has the power for intellection, through which it sees intelligible things, and the union that transcends the nature of the mind, 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 God-like through an unknowable union, with sightless ascents attains to the rays of the unapproachable light," by which also, according to Maximus, great in divine things, "the saints, beholding the light of the unseen and ineffably transcendent 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 it, and it does not transpose the soul to the rank of the angels, and while it separates the intellect from other things, it alone cannot effect a union with the things beyond. But the purity of the passible part of the soul, having actively separated the mind from all things through dispassion, unites it through prayer to the grace of the Spirit, through which it comes to be in the enjoyment of the divine splendors, from which it is rendered angel-like and God-like. Therefore the fathers after the great Dionysius have called it spiritual sensation, which is itself also fitting and somehow more revelatory of that mystical and ineffable contemplation. For then truly man sees by the spirit, but not by the mind, nor by the body. And that he supernaturally sees a light beyond light, he knows precisely; but by what he sees this, he does not then know, nor can he examine its nature, because of the unsearchable nature of the spirit by which he sees. And this is what Paul also said, when he heard unutterable things and saw invisible things: "for I saw," he says, "whether out of the body I do not know, or in the body I do not know;" that is, I did not know whether it was the mind or the body that was seeing. For he sees, not by sensation, but as sensation sees sensible things, clearly and more clearly than it. And he sees himself, by the ineffable sweetness of that which is seen, gone out of himself and seized away not only from every thing and thought of things, but also from himself. And by the ecstasy itself he forgets his prayer to God; and this is what Saint Isaac said, having the great and divine Gregory as a co-witness, that "prayer is a purity of mind, which alone is cut short with astonishment by the light of the holy Trinity;" and again, "it is a purity of mind in which the light of the holy Trinity shines through at the time of prayer, and then the mind becomes above prayer, (p. 196) and one must not call this prayer, but the offspring of pure prayer, which is sent down through the Spirit; nor does the mind then pray with prayer, but it is in ecstasy in incomprehensible realities; and this is the ignorance that is superior to knowledge." That which has seized him, then, and caused the mind to stand outside of all things and turned it wholly to itself, is a most pleasing reality, he sees as it were a light, revelatory indeed, but not of sensible bodies, neither ending below, nor above, nor to the sides, and he sees no limit at all to the light that is seen and shines around him, but as if there were a sun infinitely more brilliant and larger than the universe; and he himself stands in the middle, being all eye: such a thing is that.

34

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 παθητικοῦ μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς, πάντων διά τῆς ἀπαθείας ἐνεργῶς χωρίσασα τόν νοῦν, ἑνοῖ διά τῆς προσευχῆς τῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτι, δι᾿ ἧς ἐν ἀπολαύσει γίνεται τῶν θείων μαρμαρυγῶν, ἐξ ὧν ἀγγελοειδής τε καί θεοειδής καθίσταται. ∆ιό οἱ μετά τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον πατέρες αἴσθησιν πνευματικήν προσηγόρευσαν αὐτήν, ὅ καί αὐτό κατάλληλόν ἐστι καί ἐμφανικώτερόν πως τῆς μυστικῆς ἐκείνης καί ἀπορρήτου θεωρίας. Τότε γάρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος πνεύματι, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί νῷ, οὐδέ σώματι ὁρᾶ. Καί ὅτι μέν ὁρᾷ φῶς ὑπέρ φῶς ὑπερφυῶς οἶδεν ἀκριβῶς˙ τίνι δέ τοῦθ᾿ ὁρᾷ, οὐκ οἶδε τότε, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐξετάζειν δύναται τήν τούτου φύσιν, διά τό ἀνεξιχνίαστον τοῦ πνεύματος δι᾿ οὗ ὁρᾷ. Καί τοῦτό ἐστιν ὅ καί Παῦλος εἶπεν, ἡνίκα ἤκουε τά ἄρρητα καί ἑώρα τά ἀόρατα˙ «ἑώρων» γάρ, φησίν, «εἴτε ἐκτός τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, εἴτε ἐντός τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα»˙ τουτέστιν οὐκ ἤδειν εἴτε νοῦς ἦν, εἴτε σῶμα τό ὁρῶν. Ὁρᾷ γάρ, οὐκ αἰσθήσει μέν, ὡς ἡ αἴσθησις δέ, τά αἰσθητά τρανῶς καί τρανότερον ἤ αὕτη. Ὁρᾷ δ᾿ ἑαυτόν ὑπό τῆς τοῦ ὁρωμένου γλυκυθυμίας ἀπορρήτου ἐκστάντα τε καί ἁρπαγέντα οὐ μόνον παντός πράγματός τε καί νοήματος πραγμάτων, ἀλλά καί ἑαυτόῦ. Καί αὐτῆς ὑπό τῆς ἐκστάσεως ἐπιλανθάνεται τῆς πρός Θεόν δεήσεως˙ καί τοῦτό ἐστιν ὅ εἶπεν ὁ ἅγιος Ἰσαάκ, συνεπιμαρτυροῦντα τόν μέγας καί θεῖον ἔχων Γρηγόριον, ὅτι «προσευχή ἐστι καθαρότης νοός, ἥτις μόνη ἐκ τοῦ φωτός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος μετ᾿ ἐκπλήξεως τέμνεται˙ καί πάλιν, «καθαρότης ἐστί νοός ἐφ᾿ ᾗ διαυγάζει ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς προσευχῆς τό φῶς τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, καί τότε ὁ νοῦς ὑπεράνω τῆς προσευχῆς γίνεται, (σελ. 196) καί οὐ δεἰ καλεῖν ταύτην προσευχήν, ἀλλά τοκετόν τῆς καθαρᾶς προσευχῆς, τῆς διά τοῦ Πνεύματος καταπεμπομένης˙ οὐδέ προσευχῇ τότε προσεύχεται ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἐκστάσει γίνεται ἐν τοῖς ἀκαταλήπτοις πράγμασι˙ καί αὕτη ἐστίν ἡ ἄγνοια ἡ ὑπερτέρα τῆς γνώσεως». Τό γοῦν ἁρπάσαν ἐκεῖνο καί τόν νοῦν ἐκστῆσαν πάντων καί πρός ἑαυτό ὅλον ἐπιστρέψαν θυμηρέστατόν τι χρῆμα, φῶς οἷον ὁρᾷ, ἀποκαλυπτικόν μέν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ αἰσθητῶν σωμάτων, μήτε μέντοι πρός τά κάτω περαινόμενον, μήτε πρός τά ἄνω, μήτ᾿ ἐπί τά πλάγια, καί πέρας ὅλως οὐχ ὁρᾷ τοῦ ὁρωμένου καί περιλάμποντος αὐτόν φωτός, ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ ἄν εἴ τις ἦν ἥλιος ἀπειροπλασίως λαμπρότερός τε καί μείζων τοῦ παντός˙ μέσον δ᾿ ἔστηκεν αὐτός, ὤν ὅλος ὀφθαλμός˙ τοιοῦτόν τί ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο.