75

and that one who is being raised up through prayer must forget these things, how is it not absurd to blame God for these things, the tranquility and absence of which is better for prayer?”. But, O best of men, God sometimes puts those who pray sincerely into an ecstasy, making them to be above themselves and snatching them up secretly to the heavens; and at other times, while they are in themselves, he himself, through both their soul and their body, works things that are supernatural and ineffable and incomprehensible to the wise of this age. For to all the apostles too, when they were once persevering in prayer and supplication in the temple, the Holy Spirit, coming upon them, did not give ecstasy nor snatch them up to heaven, but with tongues of fire he gave them utterance and through them spoke those things, all of which it is necessary for those who have been in ecstasy to forget, if indeed they have forgotten even themselves. (p. 378) And while Moses was silent, “Why do you cry to me?” says God; and this voice shows him praying; but since he was praying while silent, he was praying noetically, of course; was he not then in a state of sensation, and was he not aware of the people and their cries and the impending danger, nor of that sensible staff in his hand? How then did God not snatch him away at that time, nor release him from sensation (for you yourself deem this alone to befall those who pray from God), but urged him toward that sensible staff and put that great power into it, not only in the soul but also in the body and in the hand, all of which one who prays noetically must forget? And what of when, while silent, he brought the blow upon the sea by means of the staff in his hand, first as if to divide it, then as if to join it together again after the crossing? Did he not have an unwavering remembrance of God in his soul, nor was he supremely united through noetic prayer to the only One able to work such things through him, while at the same time not being without sensation of the operations performed through the body?

But since he has also brought forward testimonies from the Scriptures, let us see if these too do not oppose his opinions about prayer. First of all, then, the great Dionysius is brought forward by him to bear witness, as he thinks, to his own beliefs, writing to the sacred Timothy: “In the intense practice of mystical contemplation, leave behind both the senses and the noetic energies and all things sensible and intelligible, and be raised up, as far as possible, to union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge”. This saying, therefore, of the divine Dionysius, an exhortation to Timothy, which this wise man brought forward as testifying that he alone thinks securely about noetic prayer, convicts him, as the argument will show (p. 380) as it proceeds, of completely abolishing noetic prayer, which indeed through almost all his former discourses he never ceased to do. For he who considers the beginning of prayer abominable, that is, the fearful and most painful and much-groaning standing before God noetically in silence for the greater part of the time on account of godly sorrow, and the prayer in tears and compunction through the pain in the sense of touch during fasting and vigil, and the attempt to lead up those who are being initiated from the dividedness of the mind to a more unified and at that time suitable prayer—he who scorns all such things, will consequently also consider the end of prayer and simply all of it as evil, and will strive to remove it completely from among existing things. For tell me this first, O philosopher: were not the noetic energies also given by God, and are they not shown to be purified during prayer more than at any other time, because even these must be left behind by one who is hastening toward the divine union through prayer? But truly prayer is, according to the one who said, “the mother of the wisest thoughts”. Then one must also consider this, that the prayer of the perfect is a noetic energy more than anything; for the mind of such men is turned neither to the body nor to the things around it, nor does it operate through sensation and its accompanying imagination, nor through discursive thought and

75

δέ τούτων ἐπιλελῆσθαι χρεών τόν διά προσευχῆς ἀναγόμενον, πῶς οὐκ ἄτοπον τούτων τόν Θεόν αἰτιᾶσθαι, ὧν ἡ ἠρεμία καί ἀπουσία βελτίων πρός τήν προσευχήν;». Ἀλλ᾿ ὦ βέλτιστε, τούς εἰλικρινῶς προσευχομένους ὁ Θεός ποτέ μέν ἐξίστησιν αὑτῶν, ὑπέρ ἑαυτούς ποιῶν καί ἁρπάζων ἀπορρήτως εἰς τά οὐράνια, ποτέ δέ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς οὖσιν αὐτός διά τε τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν καί τοῦ σώματος ἐνεργεῖ τά ὑπερφυᾶ καί ἀπόρρητα καί τοῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου σοφοῖς ἀκατάληπτα. Καί πᾶσι γάρ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ποτε προσκαρτεροῦσι τῇ προσευχῇ καί τῇ δεήσει, τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐπιδημῆσαν οὐκ ἔκστασιν ἔδωκεν οὐδ᾿ ἥρπασεν εἰς οὐρανόν, ἀλλά πυρίναις γλώσσαις ἐστόμωσεν αὐτούς καί δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἐκεῖνα ἐλάλει, ὧν πάντων ἐπιλελῆσθαι τούς ἐν ἐκστάσει γενομένους ἐπάναγκες, εἴπερ καί ἑαυτῶν. (σελ. 378) Τοῦ δέ Μωϋσέως σιωπῶντος, «τί βοᾷς πρός με;» φησίν ὁ Θεός˙ ἡ δέ φωνή αὕτη προσευχόμενον δείκνυσιν αὐτόν˙ ἐπεί δέ σιωπῶν προσηύχετο, νοερῶς δήπουθεν προσηύχετο˙ ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐκ ἐν αἰσθήσει ἦν ἐκεῖνος τότε, οὐδ᾿ ἐπῃσθάνετο τοῦ τε λαοῦ καί τῶν κραυγῶν αὐτῶν καί τοῦ ἐπηρτημένου κινδύνου, οὐδέ τῆς ἐπί τῆς χειρός αἰσθητῆς ἐκείνης ράβδου; Πῶς οὖν οὐχ ἥρπασε τότε αὐτόν ὁ Θεός, οὐδ᾿ ἀπέλυσε τῆς αἰσθήσεως (τοῦτο γάρ μόνον ἀξιοῖς αὐτός τοῖς προσευχομένοις ὑπό Θεοῦ προσγίνεσθαι), ἀλλά πρός τήν αἰσθητήν ἐκείνην ἤπειγε ράβδον καί τήν μεγάλην ἐκείνην ἐνετίθει δύναμιν, οὐ τῇ ψυχῇ μόνον ἀλλά καί τῷ σώματι καί τῇ χειρί, ὧν πάντων ἐπιλελῆσθαι δεῖ τόν νεορῶς προσευχόμενον; Τί δ᾿ ὅτε σιωπῶν ἐκεῖνος διά τῆς ἐν τῇ χειρί ράβδου τῇ θαλάττῃ τήν πληγήν ἐπέφερε, πρῶτον μέν ὡς διαιρήσων, εἶθ᾿ ὡς συνάψων τούτην μετά τήν διάβασιν; Ἆρ᾿ οὐ μνήμην εἶχεν ἀρρέμβαστον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, οὐδέ διά νοερᾶς προσευχῆς ὑπερηνωμένος ἦν τῷ μόνῳ δυναμένῳ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τοιαῦτα ἐνεργεῖν, ἅμα καί τῶν διά τοῦ σώματος ἐνεργειῶν οὐκ ἀναισθήτως ἔχων;

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί καί μαρτυρίας ἀπό τῶν Γραφῶν προήνεγκεν, ἴδωμεν εἰ μή καί αὕται ταῖς αὐτοῦ περί προσευχῆς ἐναντιοῦνται δόξαις. Πρό πάντων οὖν ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος συμμαρτυρήσων, ὡς οἴεται, τοῖς αὐτῷ δοκοῦσιν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ προάγεται, πρός τόν ἱερόν Τιμόθεον γράφων˙ «τῇ περί τά μυστικά θεάματα συντόνῳ διατριβῇ καί τάς αἰσθήσεις ἀπόλιπε καί τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας καί πάντα τά αἰσθητά καί νοητά, καί πρός τήν ἕνωσιν ὡς ἐφικτόν ἀνατάθητι τοῦ ὑπέρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν καί γνῶσιν». Αὕτη τοίνυν ἡ τοῦ θείου ∆ιονυσίου προτρεπτική πρός Τιμόθεον ρῆσις, ἥν ὁ σοφός προήγαγεν οὗτος ὡς μαρτυρήσουσαν μόνον αὐτόν ἀσφαλῶς περί νοερᾶς διανοεῖσθαι προσευχῆς, ἐξελέγχει αὐτόν, ὡς ὁ λόγος δείξει (σελ. 380) προϊών, τήν νοεράν τελέως καταργοῦντα προσευχήν, ὅ καί διά τῶν προτέρων αὐτοῦ πάντων λόγων σχεδόν οὐ διέλιπε ποιῶν. Ὁ γάρ τήν ἀρχήν τῆς προσευχῆς ἀποτρόπαιον ἡγούμενος, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐν συντριβῇ καρδίας ἔμφοβός τε καί πολυαλγής καί πολυστένακτος παράστασις νοερῶς ἐν σιωπῇ τόν πλείω χρόνον διά τήν κατά Θεόν ἀθυμίαν τελουμένη καί ἡ διά τοῦ κατά τήν νηστείαν τε καί ἀγρυπνίαν κατά τήν ἁφήν ἄλγους ἐν δάκρυσι καί κατανύξει προσευχή καί τό ἐγχειρεῖν ἀνάγειν τούς εἰσαγομένους τό τοῦ νοῦ μεριστόν εἰς ἑνοειδεστέραν καί κατάλληλον τηνικαῦτα προσευχήν, ὁ τά τοιαῦτα πάντ᾿ ἐξουθενῶν, ἀκολούθως καί τό τῆς προσευχῆς τέλος καί πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς αὐτήν πρός κακοῦ νομιεῖ καί ἀγωνιεῖται τελέως ἐκ μέσου ποιήσασθαι τῶν ὄντων. Εἰπέ γάρ μοι τοῦτο πρῶτον, ὦ φιλόσοφε˙ οὐδέ αἱ νοεραί ἐνέργειαι ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐδόθησαν, οὐδέ κατά τήν προσευχήν ἀπειλικρινημέναι μᾶλλον εἴπερ ποτέ διαδείκνυνται, διότι καί ταύτας ἀπολιπεῖν δεῖ τόν πρός τήν θείαν ἕνωσιν διά προσευχῆς ἐπειγόμενον; Ἀλλά μήν ἡ προσευχή ἐστι κατά τόν εἰπόντα, «μήτηρ ἐννοιῶν σοφωτάτων». Ἔπειτα κἀκεῖνο διανοητέον, ὡς παντός μᾶλλον νοερά ἐνέργεια ἡ τῶν τελείων προσευχή˙ μήτε γάρ πρός τό σῶμα μήτε πρός τά περί αὐτό ὁ τῶν τοιούτων νοῦς ἐπεστραμμένος, μήτε δι᾿ αἰσθήσεως καί τῆς συζύγου ταύτῃ φαντασίας ἐνεργῶν, μήτε διανοίᾳ καί