86

thinking it to be an angel, or the very essence of the intellect, when, having been purified from the passions and at the same time from ignorance, it sees itself and in itself, as in its own image, God. If indeed what is said by them is one of these things, one must certainly think that they are quite correct in their opinion about this and that it is consistent with the tradition of the Christians; but if they say that this is neither the superessential essence, nor an angelic one, nor the intellect itself, but that the intellect sees it as another hypostasis, then I for my part do not know what this light is, but I do know that it is not.” And what man ever, O you who speak loftily against real men, would say there is an intelligible light in its own hypostasis, which is neither God nor angel nor human intellect? For one could not even imaginatively fashion an intelligible light in its own hypostasis apart from these. But let us grant this impossibility, let us grant then that one of the hesychasts said this to your cleverness: I do not know who, for you yourself cannot point him out; yet you say he is one of the unlearned. If, then, he was not able to interpret well, which I am more inclined to believe, or even to discern well—for let this also be so, for knowledge does not belong to all—should you not have inquired of those who have the charism of discernment (p. 426) and learned, as far as possible, what this great vision of light is, but instead immediately condemn the divinely inspired as madmen and manifestly suffer what was said by the divine Paul? For if someone enters, he says to the Corinthians, among you, an uninstructed person or an unbeliever, and does not also hear those who are able to discern, he will say that you are mad. Thus the lot of the uninstructed and unbelievers, alas, you yourself have suffered, you the monk and philosopher. But let it be that not one, nor some, but many and all of us say this: was it not enough for you to say this, what you said after your long struggles, that “this light I know that it is not”? For all would have agreed with you that a light in its own hypostasis, which is neither God nor angel nor man, does not exist at all; but also all would have immediately understood that, if someone were to say he sees an intelligible light in its own hypostasis, he means he sees one of these, of which you yourself have said very correctly that he who says so thinks rightly. Against whom, then, are your blasphemies and censures and slanders throughout so many books? Are they not against such men, whom you later declared to think rightly, and with the slander from you not having been refuted? For I do not say this, that they think about this light as you do or theologize as you do, but that they are so far superior to you and your slanders and censures against them. For you say about them: “if they say the intelligible light is God, preserving for him that which is invisible and intangible to all the senses, they speak well”; but they know the essence of God to be even beyond being intangible to all the senses, since not only is God who is beyond beings, but also super-divine, and not only is He beyond all affirmation, but the preeminence of Him who is beyond all things is also beyond all negation and has transcended every preeminence that can in any way come to mind (p. 428). However, the light which the saints see hypostatically in a spiritual manner, as they themselves say, is real and not symbolic, like the phantoms fashioned according to occurring circumstances, but an immaterial divine effulgence and grace seen invisibly and comprehended unknowingly, they know through experience itself; but what it is, they say they do not know. But you, by applying the methods of definition, analysis, and division, know and deign to teach us who are unlearned. For it is not the essence of God, for that is intangible and unparticipated; it is not an angel, for it bears the marks of the Lord and at one time it raises one up from the body or not without the body and bears one up to an ineffable height, at another time also having transfigured the body and imparted its own splendor, as once the great Arsenios was seen struggling in stillness and Stephen while being stoned and Moses from the mountain

86

λέγοντες ἄγγελον εἶναι οἴονται, ἤ αὐτήν τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ νοῦ, ὅταν τῶν παθῶν ἅμα καί τῆς ἀγνοίας καθαρθείς ὁρᾷ αὐτός ἑαυτόν καί ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὡς ἐν ἰδίᾳ εἰκόνι τόν Θεόν˙ εἰ δή ἕν τι τούτων τό παρ᾿ αὐτῶν λεγόμενόν ἐστι, πάνυ γε ὀρθῶς περί τούτου φρονεῖν αὐτούς καί συμβαίνοντα τῇ τῶν χριστιανῶν παραδόσει οἴεσθαί γε χρή˙ εἰ δέ μήτε τήν ὑπερούσιον οὐσίαν τοῦτ᾿ εἶναι λέγουσι, μήτ᾿ ἀγγελικήν μήτε τόν νοῦν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁρᾶν τόν νοῦν εἰς αὐτό ὡς εἰς ἑτέραν ὑπόστασιν, τοῦτο ἔγωγε τό φῶς ὅ τι μέν ἐστιν οὐκ οἶδα, ὅτι δέ οὐκ ἔστιν οἶδα». Καί τίς ποτε ἀνθρώπων, ὦ κατά τῶν ὄντων ἀνθρώπων ὑψηγόρε σύ, φῶς ἄν ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει φαίη νοητόν, ὅ μήτε Θεός ἐστι μήτ᾿ ἄγγελος μήτε νοῦς ἀνθρώπινος; Οὐδέ γάρ φανταστικῶς γοῦν ἀναπλάσαι δύναιτ᾿ ἄν τις τό τούτων ἐκτός νοητόν ἐν ἰδίᾳ ὑποστάσει φῶς. Ἀλλά δῶμεν τουτί τό ἀδύνατον, δῶμεν τοίνυν ὅτι τοῦτ᾿ ἔφη τις τῶν ἡσυχαζόντων πρός τήν σήν λογιότητα˙ οὐκ οἶδα μέν ὅστις, οὐδέ γάρ αὐτός ὑποδεῖξαι δύνασαι˙ τῶν οὐκ ἐλλογίμων δ᾿ ὅμως εἶναι λέγεις αὐτόν. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐκεῖνος μή καλῶς ἑρμηνεῦσαι ἐδύνατο, ὅ καί μᾶλλον πείθομαι, ἤ καί μή διαγνῶναι καλῶς - ἔστω γάρ καί τοῦτο, καί γάρ οὐ πάντων ἡ γνῶσις - , οὐκ ἔδει σε παρά τῶν ἐχόντων τό τῆς διακρίσεως χάρισμα πυθέσθαι (σελ426) καί μαθεῖν, ὡς ἐφικτόν, τί τό μέγα θέαμα τοῦ φωτός τούτου, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μαινομένων εὐθύς τῶν θεολήπτων καταψηφίζεσθαι καί τό παρά τοῦ θείου Παύλου λεγόμενον φανρῶς παθεῖν; Εἰ γάρ εἰσέλθοι τις, πρός τούς Κορινθίους, ἐν ὑμῖν, φησίν, ἰδιώτης ἤ ἄπιστος καί μή ἀκούσει καί τῶν διακρίνειν δυναμένων, ἐρεῖ ὅτι μαίνεσθε. Τό τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τοίνυν καί ἀπίστων, φεῦ, καί αὐτός ἔπαθες, ὁ μοναχός καί φιλόσοφος. Ἔστω δέ μή ἕνα, μηδ᾿ ἐνίους, ἀλλά πολλούς καί πάντας τοῦτο λέγειν ἡμᾶς˙ οὐκ ἤρκει σοι τοῦτ᾿ εἰπεῖν, ὅ μετά τούς μακρούς εἴρηκας ἀγῶνας, ὅτι «τοῦτο τό φῶς οἶδα ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι»; Πάντες γάρ σοι συνεῖπον ἄν ὅτι φῶς ἐν ὑποστάσει ἰδίᾳ, ὅ μήτε Θεός ἐστι μήτ᾿ ἄγγελος μήτ᾿ ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅλως ἀλλά καί πάντες ἄν εὐθύς συνεῖδον ὡς, εἰ φῶς νοητόν ἐν ὑποστάσει φαίη τις ὁρᾶν ἰδίᾳ, τούτων τί φησιν ὁρᾶν, ὅ λέγοντα, πάνυ καί αὐτός ὀρθῶς εἴρηκας φρονεῖν. Κατά τίνων οὖν αἱ διά τοσούτων σοι βιβλίων βλασφημίαι καί μέμψεις καί συκοφαντίαι; Ἆρ᾿ οὐ κατά τῶν τοιούτων, οὕς ὀρθῶς ὕστερον ἀπεφήνω φρονεῖν, καί τῆς παρά σοῦ συκοφαντίας οὐκ ἐξεληλεγμένης; Οὐ γάρ τοῦτο λέγω, ὡς κατά σέ φρονοῦσι περί τοῦ φωτός ἐκεῖνοι τούτου ἤ κατά σέ θεολογοῦσιν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ σέ τοσοῦτον ὑπεραναστήκασι τῶν σῶν κατ᾿ αὐτῶν διαβολῶν καί μέμψεων. Σύ μέν γάρ φής περί αὐτῶν˙ «εἰ νοητόν λέγουσι φῶς τόν Θεόν, φυλάττοντες αὐτῷ τό πάσαις αἰσθήσεσειν ἀόρατον καί ἀνέπαφον, καλῶς λέγουσιν»˙ ἐκεῖνοι δέ καί ὑπέρ τό πάσαις αἰσθήσεσιν ἀνέπαφον τήν οὐσίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ γινώσκουσιν, ἐπεί μή μόνον Θεός ἐστιν ὑπέρ τά ὄντα ὤν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρθεος, καί μή μόνον ὑπέρ πᾶσαν θέσιν ἐστίν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ πᾶσαν ἀφαίρεσιν ἡ ὑπεροχή τοῦ πάντων ἐπέκεινα καί πᾶσαν ὑπεροχήν ὁπωσοῦν ἐπί νοῦν γινομένην (σελ. 428) ὑπερβέβηκεν. Ὅ μέντοι φῶς ἐνυποστάτως οἱ ἅγιοι πνευματικῶς ὁρῶσιν, ὡς αὐτοί φασιν, ὄν μέν καί μή συμβολικόν τοῦτον, οἷα τά διαπλαττόμενα πρός τάς συμβαινούσας περιστάσεις φάσματα, ἄϋλόν τε θείαν ἔλλαμψιν καί χάριν ὁρωμένην ἀοράτως καί νοουμένην ἀγνώστως, δι᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πείρας ἴσασι˙ τί δέ ἐστιν, ἐκεῖνοι μέν οὐκ εἰδέναι λέγουσι. Σύ δέ, προσαγαγών τάς ὁριστικάς καί ἀναλυτικάς καί διαιρετικάς μεθόδους, γνῶθι καί τούς ἀμαθεῖς ἡμᾶς διδάξαι καταξίωσον. Οὐσία μέν γάρ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι, καί γάρ ἀνέπαφος ἐκείνη καί ἀμέθεκτος˙ ἄγγελος οὐκ ἔστι, δεσποτικούς γάρ φέρει χαρακτῆρας καί ποτέ μέν τοῦ σώματος ἀπανιστᾷ ἤ οὐκ ἄνευ σώματος καί εἰς ὕψος ἀναφέρει ἄρρητον, ἄλλοτ᾿ αὖθις καί τό σῶμα μεθαρμοσάμενον καί τῆς οἰκείας μεταδεδωκός λαμπρότητος, οἷός ποτε καί ὁ μέγας Ἀρσένιος ὤφθη καθ᾿ ἡσυχίαν ἀγνωνιζόμενος καί ὁ Στέφανος λιθαζόμενον καί ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἀπό τοῦ ὄρους