84

Such as is also he who through his words fashioned for us the spiritual Ladder; for "let the memory," he says, "of Jesus be united to your breath, and then you will know the benefit of stillness." After this, when that holy man says, "force your mind to enter into the heart with the inhaled breath" (that is, to be united to it and to observe the things in the heart, according to the great Macarius; for "the heart," he says, "rules the whole instrument, and when grace takes possession of the pastures of the heart, it rules all the members and the thoughts; there, therefore, one must observe whether grace has inscribed the laws of the Spirit"), while that man, therefore, is in complete agreement with these great ones, this other one again insults him through slander and, having separated "force" from "mind," he connects it to the inhaled "Spirit," and having thus slanderously corrupted the meaning along with the words, he then himself breathes heavily against forceful inhalations, demonstrating that they are of the most absurd kind. But also when that man says "mind," meaning the energies of the mind, and that those who are diligent in prayer must bring back these energies that are poured out through the senses and prepare them to turn inward, the philosopher again slanders him, saying that he means the essence of the mind; for in this way he supposed he could find many arguments against the words of the holy ones.

And when we in turn clarified the truth, he, having nothing to say in reply, says, "let our words be a teaching for those who might have been misled by the apparent absurdity." And so you, who teach what you did not understand, one might say to such a teacher, were you misled or not? (p. 402) For if you were misled, how do you claim to be a teacher on this very subject, having needed someone to teach you and having learned the truth from us; but if you were not misled, how do you insult, on the basis of what appears to you, one who intended nothing absurd, and this not because he spoke badly, but because he thought badly? For if he was wrong in both respects, how could you, being an accuser, having overlooked what was meant, have proceeded against only what was apparent? Therefore, if you yourself were on guard against the deception of words and enjoined others to be on guard, you should have held both the meaning and the father of the meaning in praise and made yourself not an accuser of those words, but an interpreter. For if someone, reckoning that he is responding to the apparent meaning, were to condemn the one who commands the mortification of the body, as if he were teaching people to become murderers of themselves, would you yourself acquit this man, if he did not change his mind about condemning him along with his adversaries? I for my part do not think so. But what about when Basil the Great (that I may use an example similar to those you accuse), what then, when he said that the mind is poured out and brought back again, shall we say he spoke wrongly, as if saying that the immutable essence of the mind is poured out and that which never leaves itself is brought back, or shall we understand him to mean by "mind" its transient energies, whatever these may be?

But the philosopher, being prevented by my arguments from accusing based on the apparent meaning and having been eager to proceed wholly against the intended meaning, and having redirected his struggle against what we had written on behalf of that venerable man, did not forget his slanderous art here either, or rather, was somehow unable to forget it. For how could he have contradicted things that were irrefutable on account of the truth within them and have imputed a charge of impiety to the pious, without weaving slander into them? Therefore, when we first said that the heart is a fleshly, rational instrument, (p. 404) according to the great Macarius, whose sayings declaring this we also set forth there, this man, having erased "fleshly" and having brought forward the divine Gregory of Nyssa, who says that in the subtle and luminous of the

84

οἷάπερ ἐστι καί ἡ διά λόγων ἡμῖν τήν πνευματικήν Κλίμακα τεκντηναμένου˙ «Ἰησοῦ» γάρ, φησί, «μνήμη κολληθήτω τῇ πνοῇ σου καί τότε γνώσῃ ἡσυχίας ὠφέλειαν». Μετά τοῦτο, «βίαζε τόν νοῦν σου» λέγοντος τοῦ ὁσίου ἐκείνου «μετά τοῦ εἰσπνεομένου πνεύματος εἰς τήν καρδίαν εἰσελθεῖν» (τουτέστι κολληθῆναι τούτῳ καί τά ἐν καρδίᾳ σκοπεῖν, κατά τόν μέγαν Μακάριον˙ «ἡ καρδία» γάρ, φησίν, «ἡγεμονεύει ὅλου τοῦ ὀργάνου καί, ἐπειδάν κατάσχῃ τάς νομάς τῆς καρδίας ἡ χάρις, ἡγεμονεύει πάντων τῶν μελῶν καί τῶν λογισμῶν˙ ἐκεῖ τοίνυν χρή σκοπεῖν, εἰ ἐνέγραψεν ἡ χάρις τούς τοῦ Πνεύματος νόμους»), ἐκείνου τοίνυν τοῖς μεγάλοις τούτοις παντάπασι συμφθεγγομένου, πάλιν οὗτος διά συκοφαντίας ἐπηρεάζει καί, διελών ἀπό τοῦ "νοῦ" τό "βίαζε" τῷ εἰσπνεομένῳ συνείρει Πνεύματι, καί συκοφαντικῶς οὕτω διαφθείρας μετά τῶν ρημάτων καί τήν διάνοιαν, εἶτα κατά τῶν βιαίων εἰσπνοῶν πολύς αὐτός πνεῖ, τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων οὖσας ἀποδεικνύς. Ἀλλά καί νοῦν ἐκείνου λέγοντος τάς ἐνεργείας τοῦ νοῦ καί χρῆν εἶναι διά τῶν αἰσθήσεων ταύτας ἔξω χεομένας ἐπανάγειν καί παρασκευάζειν εἴσω νεύειν τούς προσευχῆς ἐπιμελουμένους, ὁ φιλόσοφος νοῦν αὐτόν αὖθις συκοφαντεῖ λέγειν τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ νοῦ˙ καί γάρ οὕτω πολλῶν εὐπορῆσαι τόπων κατά τῶν ὁσίων φωνῶν ὑπενόησεν.

Ἡμῶν δ᾿ αὖθις τἀληθές διευκρινούντων, αὐτός ἀντιπεῖν οὐκ ἔχων, «ἔστωσαν», φησίν, «οἱ ἡμέτεροι λόγοι διδασκαλία πρός τούς ὑπό τοῦ φαινομένου ἀτόπου παρακρουσθέντας ἄν». Καί σύ τοίνυν ὁ διδάσκων ἅ μή συνῆκας, φαίη τις ἄν πρός τόν τοιοῦτον διδάσκαλον, παρεκρούσθης ἤ οὔ; (σελ. 402) Παρακρουσθείς μέν γάρ, πῶς ἀξιοῖς κατ᾿ αὐτό διδάσκαλος εἶναι τοῦ διδάξοντος δεηθείς καί μαθών παρ᾿ ἡμῶν τήν ἀλήθειαν, μή παρακρουσθείς δέ, πῶς ὑβρίζεις ἀπό τοῦ κατά σέ φαινομένου τόν μηδέν ἄτοπον διανοούμενον, καί ταῦτ᾿ οὐχ ὅτι κακῶς ἐξεῖπεν, ἀλλά κακῶς ἐνενόησεν; Εἰ γάρ ἄμφω κακῶς ἐκεῖνος, πῶς ἄν σύ, κατήγορος ὤν, τό νοούμενον παραδραμών, κατά μόνου τοῦ φαινομένου ἐχώρησας; Ἔδει τοίνυν, εἴπερ ἐφυλάξω τήν ἀπό τῶν ρημάτων ἀπάτην αὐτός καί τοῖς ἄλλοις φυλάττεσθαι παρηγγύας, τήν τε διάνοιαν καί τόν πατέρα τῆς διανοίας ἐν ἐπαίνῳ τίθεσθαι καί τῶν ρημάτων ἐκείνων οὐ κατήγορον, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξηγητήν ποιεῖν σαυτόν. Εἰ γάρ τοῦτό τις ὑπολογιζόμενος, ὅτι πρός τό φαινόμενον ἀπαντᾷ, καταλογογραφήσειε τοῦ ἐντελλομένου τήν τοῦ σώματος νέκρωσιν, ὡς αὐτόχειρας γίνεσθαι τούς ἀνθρώπους διδάσκοντος, ἆρ᾿ ἄν αὐτός ἐξαιρήσῃ τοῦτον, εἰ μή μεταβουλεύσαιτο τῆς μετά τῶν ἀντιθέων καταδίκης; Οὐκ ἔγωγε οἶμαι. Τί δ᾿ ὅτε Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας (ἵνα παραπλησίῳ τοῖς ὑπό σοῦ κατηγορουμένοις παραδείγματι χρήσωμαι), τί τοίνυν ὅθ᾿ οὗτος εἶπε τόν νοῦν ἔξω διαχεῖσθαι καί ἐπανάγεσθαι πάλιν, κακῶς ἐροῦμεν αὐτόν ὡς τήν τοῦ νοῦ ἀμετάβατον οὐσίαν διαχεῖσθαι λέγοντα καί τήν μηδέποτε ἑαυτόν ἀπολείπουσαν ἐπανάγεσθαι, ἤ νοῦν νοήσομεν αὐτόν λέγειν τάς μεταβατικάς αὐτοῦ ἐνεργείας, αἵ δή ποτέ εἰσιν αὗται;

Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ φιλόσοφος ἀπό τοῦ φαινομένου κατηγορεῖν ὑπό τῶν ἐμῶν λόγων ἐξελεγχόντων εἰρχθείς καί κατά τοῦ νοουμένου ὅλος χωρῆσαι προθυμηθείς, κατά τε τῶν ὑπέρ τοῦ σεπτοῦ ἀνδρός ἐκείνου γεγραμμένων ἡμῖν τόν ἀγῶνα μετασκευάσας αὑτῷ, τῆς συκοφαντικῆς αὐτοῦ κἀνταῦθα τέχνης οὐκ ἐπιλέληστο, μᾶλλον δ᾿ ἐπιλελῆσθαί πως οὐκ ἐδυνήθη. Πῶς γάρ ἀντειπεῖν τοῖς διά τήν ἐνοῦσαν ἀλήθειαν ἀντιρρήτοις οὖσιν ἔσχεν ἄν καί δυσσεβείας ἔγκλημα προστρίψαι τοῖς εὐσεβέσι, μή τήν συκοφαντίαν τούτοις ἐνείρας; Ἡμῶν τοίνυν πρῶτον σαρκικόν λογιστικόν ὄργανον τήν καρδίαν εἰπόντων, (σελ. 404) κατά τόν μέγαν Μακάριον, οὗ καί τάς τοῦτο δηλούσας ρήσεις ἐκεῖ προὐθέμεθα, τό "σαρκικόν" ἀπαλείψας οὗτος καί τόν Νύσσης θεῖον Γρηγόριοιν παραγαγών λέγοντα τῷ λεπτῷ καί φωτοειδεῖ τῆς