87

descending, so therefore also the deified body, O the wonder, becomes perceptible to corporeal eyes; and sometimes it also speaks clearly to the one seeing through ineffable, so to speak, words, just as also to the divine Paul, "descending from its proper eminence, so that it might at least be moderately contained by a created nature," according to Gregory the Theologian, He who according to His proper nature from ages and unto ages and still to all is both invisible and uncontainable. Then therefore, the name which the children of the Jews gave to the bread descending from above in the desert, calling it manna, this he frequently turns over in his mind. What is this? And this is for them the name of that light; but you, if you would say something more. But let us return to what follows. You for your part say that they speak well again, if indeed they think this light is an angel. But they would never say that this light (p. 430) is an angel; but, having been initiated in the patristic writings, they know that the angelic vision is performed in different ways and suitably to those who see; for either in a density of substance, which also falls under the senses and is not at all invisible even to the passionate or uninitiated, or in a subtlety of substance, by which the soul also somehow moderately perceives, or in a true vision, of which only those who see spiritually through purity are deemed worthy, even if you yourself, being uninitiated in the difference of these modes, show the angels themselves as invisible to one another, thinking and declaring them invisible not in respect to being incorporeal, but in respect to their substance, and in the midst of your arguments you rank the god-seers with the ass of Balaam, because it is recorded that it too saw an angel. And again, you think that the mind, if it sees not "into some other hypostasis, but itself and God in itself as in its own image, when it has been purified from the passions and from ignorance at the same time," is to be considered a god-seer, and you think it agrees with the most mystical tradition of the Christians that they say they see the very substance of the mind as light. But they know that the mind, having been purified and illumined and having clearly come into participation of the grace of God, partakes indeed also of other mystical and supernatural visions, as the argument has exposed a little above, but also, seeing itself, it sees as something else, yet not into something else and not simply its own image but the brightness from the grace of God, which completes the power of the mind to transcend itself and perfects the union with things better and beyond conception, through which the mind, in a way better than human, sees God in the Spirit. And if you are ignorant of this, it is no wonder, since they would not be wonderful either, if you, who place nothing above knowledge, knew the things concerning them. (p. 432) Therefore you for your part say that the mind becomes a god-seer when it is purified not only from the passions, but also from ignorance; but they take no account of the purification from ignorance according to you, but having purified themselves of the evil passions and through persistent and immaterial prayer having ascended beyond all knowledge, they attain to the vision of God, inasmuch as they are not deceived by such arguments, nor neglecting to pay attention to themselves, nor going about and striving to collect wisdom and to learn, if anyone professes to know something, whether he be Scythian or Persian or Egyptian, for the sake of this purification from ignorance, but knowing precisely that such ignorance in no way hinders the vision of God. For if, as you yourself say, the keeping of the commandments provides only the purification from the passions, and in the keeping of the commandments alone, according to the promise of God, His presence and abiding and manifestation are accomplished, is it not then a clear error, this addition of the purification according to you, which you call a purification from ignorance? But this purification from ignorance, even in the preceding arguments, we have shown through many proofs to be a destruction of true knowledge. But now it is necessary to return to the next things said by him against the hesychasts. For even if we convicted him of slandering them and he has become evident against himself

87

κατερχόμενος, οὕτω τοίνυν καί τό σῶμα θεουργῆσαν σωματικοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, ὤ τοῦ θαύματος, γίνεται ληπτόν ἔστι δ᾿ ὅτε καί τῷ ὁρῷντι τρανῶς δι᾿ ἀρρήτων, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ρημάτων ὁμιλεῖ, καθάπερ καί τῷ θείῳ Παύλῳ, «καταβαῖνον τῆς οἰκείας περιωπῆς, ὡς ἄν μετρίως γοῦν κτιστῇ φύσει χωρηθῇ», κατά τόν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον, ὁ κατά τήν οἰκείαν φύσιν ἐξ αἰώνων καί ἐπ᾿ αἰῶνας καί ἔτι τοῖς πᾶσιν ὤν ἀόρατός τε καί ἀχώρητος. Τότε τοίνυν ἥν ἐπωνυμίαν προσεῖπον Ἰουδαίων παῖδες τῷ ἄνωθεν ἐπ᾿ ἐρήμου κατιόντι ἄρτῳ, μάννα προσαγορευόντες αὐτό, τοῦτο συχνῶς στρέφει κατά νοῦν. Τί τοῦτο; Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς τό τοῦ φωτός ἐκείνου ὄνομα˙ σύ δ᾿ εἴπερ φάναι τι πλέον. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπανίωμεν εἰς τά ἑξῆς. Σύ μέν καλῶς λέγειν αὖθις φής ἐκείνους, εἰ καί ἄγγελον τοῦτ᾿ οἴονται τό φῶς. Ἐκεῖνοι δ᾿ ἄγγελον μέν τοῦτο (σελ. 430) τό φῶς οὐκ ἄν ποτε φαῖεν˙ ἴσασι δέ τοῖς πατερικοῖς μεμυημένοι λόγοις διαφόρως καί τοῖς ὁρῶσι καταλλήλως τήν ἀγγελικήν τελουμένην ὀπτασίαν˙ ἤ γάρ ἐν παχύτητι οὐσίας, ὅ καί τῇ αἰσθήσει ὑποπίπτει καί οὐδέ τοῖς ἐμπαθέσιν ἤ ἀμυήτοις πάντῃ ἀόρατόν ἐστιν, ἤ λεπτότητι οὐσίας, καθ᾿ ἥν καί ἡ ψυχή μετρίως πως καθορᾷ, ἤ ἐν ἀληθεῖ θέᾳ, ἧς οἱ διά κακθαρότητος πενυματικῶς ὁρῶντες ἀξιοῦνται μόνοι, κἄν αὐτός τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν τρόπων τούτων ἀμυήτως ἔχων αὐτούς τε τούς ἀγγέλους ἀοράτους ἀλλήλοις δεικνύῃς οἰόμενος, οὐ κατά τό ἀσώματον, ἀλλά κατά τήν οὐσίαν φάσκων ἀοράτους, καί μεταξύ τῶν λόγων τούς θεόπτας τῇ τοῦ Βαρλαάμ συντάττεις ὄνῳ, διά τό ἄγγελον καί αὐτήν ἰδεῖν ἀναγεγράφθαι. Καί τόν νοῦν αὖθις, εἰ μή ὡς «εἰς ἑτέραν τινά ὑπόστασιν ὁρᾷ, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτός ἑαυτόν καί ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὡς ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ εἰκόνι τόν Θεόν, ὅταν τῶν παθῶν ἅμα καί τῆς ἀγνοίας καθαρθῇ», θεόπτην εἶναι τίθεσθαι καί συμβαίνειν οἴει τῇ τῶν χριστιανῶν μυστικωτάτῃ παραδόσει τούς αὐτήν τήν τοῦ νοῦ οὐσίαν, ὡς φῶς οὕτω λέγοντας ὁρᾶν. Ἐκεῖνοι δ᾿ ἴσασιν ὡς ὁ νοῦς καθαρθείς καί φωτισθείς καί τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος τρανῶς ἐν μεθέξει γεγονώς, ματαλαγχάνει μέν και μυστικῶν ὑπερφυῶν ἄλλων θεαμάτων, ὡς μικρόν ἀνωτέρω παρεγύμνωσεν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλά καί ἑαυτόν ὁρῶν ὡς ἄλλο μέν ὁρᾷ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εἰς ἄλλο καί οὐ τήν ἰδίαν ἁπλῶς εἰκόνα ὑπό τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ λαμπρότητα, συμπληροῦσαν τήν εἰς τό ὑπερβάλλειν ἑαυτόν δύναμιν τοῦ νοῦ καί τελειοῦσαν τήν εἰς τά κρείττω καί ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν ἕνωσιν, δι᾿ ἧς ὁ νοῦς κρεῖττον ἤ κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον ἐν Πνεύματι Θεόν ὁρᾷ. Κἄν ἀγνοῇς σύ τοῦτο, θαυμαστόν οὐδέν, ἐπεί μηδ᾿ ἐκεῖνοι ἄν ἦσαν θαυμαστοί, σοῦ τά κατ᾿ αὐτούς γινώσκοντος, τοῦ μηδέν ὑπέρ τήν γνῶσιν τιθεμένου. (σελ. 432) ∆ιό καί σύ μέν τότε λέγεις θεόπτην γίνεσθαι τόν νοῦν, ὅταν μή μόνον τῶν παθῶν, ἀλλά καί τῆς ἀγνοίας καθαρθῇ˙ ἐκεῖνοι δέ τῆς μέν κατά σέ καθάρσεως ἀγνοίας οὐδένα ποιοῦνται λόγον, τῶν δέ πονηρῶν παθῶν ἑαυτούς καθάραντες καί διά τῆς ἐπιμόνου καί ἀΰλου προσευχῆς πᾶσαν γνῶσιν ὑπεραναβάντες, τυγχάνουσι τῆς θεοπτίας, ἅτε μή ἐξηπατημένοι τοῖς τοιούτοις λόγοις, μηδ᾿ ἀφειμένοι τοῦ προσέχειν ἑαυτοῖς, μηδέ παριιόντες καί σπουδάζοντες συλλέγειν τό φρονεῖν καί μανθάνειν, εἴ τις τι ἐπαγγέλλεται εἰδέναι, κἄν Σκύθης κἄν Πέρσης, κἄν Αἰγύπτιος, ᾖ, διά τήν τῆς ἀγνοίας ταύτην κάθαρσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀκριβῶς εἰδότες μηδαμῶς πρός θεοπτίαν ἐμποδίζουσαν τήν τοιαύτην ἄγνοιαν. Εἰ γάρ καί, ὡς σύ γε λέγεις αὐτός, ἡ τῶν ἐντολῶν τήρησις μόνην τήν τῶν παθῶν παρέχει κάθαρσιν, ἐν δέ τῇ τῶν ἐντολῶν τηρήσει μόνῃ κατά τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν ἡ τούτου καί παρουσία καί μονή καί ἐμφάνεια τελεῖται, ἆρ᾿ οὐ πλάνη σαφής ἡ προσθήκη τῆς κατά σέ καθάρσεως ταύτης, ἥν ἀγνοίας λέγεις κάθαρσιν; Ἀλλά τήν μέν τῆς ἀγνοίας ταύτης κάθαρσιν κἀν τοῖς προτέροις λόγοις διά πολλῶν τῆς ἀληθοῦς γνώσεως καθαίρεσιν ἐδείξαμεν οὖσαν. Νῦν δ᾿ ἐπανελθεῖν δέον εἰς τά ἐφεξῆς αὐτῷ κατά τῶν ἡσυχαζόντων εἰρημένα. Εἰ γάρ καί συκοφαντεῖν αὐτούς ἐξηλέγξαμεν αὐτόν καί δῆλος γέγονε καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ