93

were they formed? And what of Peter, could he not become a symbol of faith to one wishing to contemplate anagogically, and James of hope, and John of love? And the mountain itself, of the ascent according to all virtue, upon which Christ, having ascended, to those who were able to follow, so that, to speak in the words of the same Maximus, He appears in the form of God, in which He existed before the world was? Do you see what kind of light it was that shone around the disciples there? For seeing the Lord transfigured in this way, the chosen among the apostles “passed from the flesh to the Spirit, before putting off the life of the flesh,” as he says again, “by the alteration of the operations of the senses, which the Spirit worked in them.” Do you see how that light was invisible to the sense not transformed by the Spirit? For this reason it did not appear to those nearby, even though it shone brighter than the sun. So, then, he says.

But Dionysius the Great says that this light is simple, unformed, supernatural, super-essential, that is, existing beyond all existing things. How then can such a thing be perceptible to the senses, or such a thing be symbolic? For when he is about to write sacredly concerning the light, as (page 456) a sure beholder and initiate and celebrant of the light, “now,” he says, “our divinely-inspired guides have handed down to us intelligible things through sensible ones, and super-essential things through existing ones, and have delivered to us the supernatural and unformed simplicity through a variety of divisible symbols; but when we become incorruptible and immortal and attain the Christ-like and most blessed state, we shall be ‘always with the Lord,’ according to the scripture, being filled with His visible theophany in all-pure contemplations, which illumines us with the brightest lightnings, as it did the disciples in that most divine transfiguration.” Do you see how this light is not only beyond sense, but also beyond all existing things, and how this contemplation is supernatural?

For now through sense and through existing things and divisible symbols, but then, having become beyond these things, we shall see the eternal light directly, with no intervening veil, as also the most divine initiator of such things has clearly explained: for “now we see through a mirror and in a riddle, but then face to face.” And he said “now” indicating the contemplation that is possible for and proportionate to our nature; for he himself, having ascended beyond this, having gone beyond both sense and mind, saw the invisible and heard the inaudible, having received in himself the pledge of that regeneration and of the vision that belongs to it, wherefore he also said: “I know,” having heard and seen. Behold, these things seem to be an operation of sense; but he again said, that “I do not know whether it was the mind, or the body that perceived.” So that this sensation is beyond sense and mind; for when each of these operates and that it operates, it perceives and understands; for this reason he added that “God knows,” since it was God who was then operating. But he, having become beyond man by union with God, saw the invisible things through the invisible, with the invisible things neither having departed from being beyond sense nor having become visible to him.

And so Dionysius the Great did not show (page 458) the vision of the eternal light to be perceptible by the senses, by calling it visible, since he said it was visible to those who are Christ-like. And you will find him elsewhere clearly calling the light that is beyond sense visible; “for,” he says, “the free self-determination of the intelligible beings, if it should dare to attempt to leap over the bounds of the visible that has been moderately given to it, the light will accomplish nothing at all contrary to the lights, but it will even fail to attain the moderate portion because of itself.” If, then, the contemplation of intelligible beings is not separated from those beyond sense, even if it is visible, how will the contemplation of those who attain the Christ-like state not be beyond sense, because it is visible? And is not that visible theophany not only beyond sense, but also beyond mind, as Saint Maximus also made clear; “for,” he says, “the Spirit will then grant us, through deification, the cessation of all natural operations according to body and mind,

93

διεπλάσθησαν; Τί δέ ὁ Πέτρος, οὐκ ἄν γένοιτο τῆς πιστεως σύμβολον τῷ θεωρεῖν κατά ἀναγωγήν βουλομένῳ καί τῆς ἐλπίδος Ἰάκωβος καί τῆς ἀγάπης ὁ Ἰωάννης; Καί αὐτό τό ὄρος τῆς κατ᾿ἀρετήν ἅπασαν ἀναβάσεως, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ Χριστός ἀνελθών, τοῖς ἀκολουθῆσαι δυνηθεῖσιν, ἵνα κατά τόν αὐτόν εἴπω Μάξιμον, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ἐπιφαίνεται, ἐν ᾗ ὑπῆρχε πρό τοῦ τόν κόσμον εἶναι; Ὁρᾷς οἷον ἦν τό ἐκεῖ τούς μαθητάς περιαστράψαν φῶς; Κατά τοῦτο γοῦν μεταμορφωθέντα τόν Κύριον οἱ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔκκριτοι θεασάμενοι «ἀπό τῆς σαρκός εἰς τό Πνεῦμα μετέβησαν, πρίν τήν διά σαρκός ἀποθέσθαι ζωήν», καθάπερ αὐτός αὖθις λέγει, «τῇ ἐναλλαγῇ τῶν κατ᾿ αἴσθησιν ἐνεργειῶν, ἥν αὐτοῖς τό Πνεῦμα ἐνήργησεν». Ὁρᾷς ὡς ἀθέατον ἦν ἐκεῖνο τό φῶς τῇ αἰσθήσει μή μετασκευασθείσῃ διά τοῦ Πνεύματος; ∆ιό καί τοῖς πλησιοχώροις οὐκ ἐπεφάνη, καίτοι λάμψαν ὑπέρ τόν ἥλιον. Οὕτω μέν οὖν οὗτος.

∆ιονύσιος δέ ὁ μέγας τουτί τό φῶς ἁπλοῦν φησιν, ἀσχημάτιστον, ὑπερφυές, ὑπερούσιον, τουτέστιν ὑπέρ τά ὄντα πάντα ὄν. Πῶς οὖν αἰσθητόν τό τοιοῦτον ἤ συμβολικόν τοιοῦτο; Μέλλων γάρ οὗτος περί τοῦ φωτός ἱερογραφεῖν, ὡς (σελ. 456) τοῦ φωτός ἀσφαλής καί θεατής καί μύστης καί τελετής, «νῦν μέν», φησίν, «οἱ ἔνθεοι καθηγεμόνες ἡμῶν αἰσθητοῖς τά νοητά καί τοῖς οὖσι τά ὑπερούσια, καί τῇ ποικιλίᾳ τῶν μεριστῶν συμβόλων τήν ὑπερφυῆ καί ἀσχημάτιστον ἁπλότητα παρέδωκαν ἡμῖν˙ ὅταν δέ ἄφθαρτοι καί ἀθάνατοι γενώμεθα καί τῆς χριστοειδοῦς καί μακαριωτάτης ἐφικώμεθα λήξεως, πάντοτε σύν Κυρίῳ, κατά τό λόγιον, ἐσόμεθα, τῆς μέν ὁρατῆς αὐτοῦ θεοφανείας ἐν πανάγνοις θεωρίαις ἀποπληρούμενοι, φανοτάταις ἀστραπαῖς ἡμᾶς περιαυγαζούσης, ὡς τούς μαθητάς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ θειοτάτῃ μεταμορφώσει». Ὁρᾷς, ὅπως οὐχ ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν μόνον, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ τά ὄντα πάντα, τοῦτό ἐστι τό φῶς καί ὡς ὑπερφυής ἡ θεωρία αὕτη;

Νῦν μέν γάρ αἰσθήσει καί διά τῶν ὄντων καί τῶν μεριστῶν συμβόλων, τότε δέ ὑπέρ ταῦτα γεγονότες, τό ἀΐδιον φῶς ἀμέσως, μηδενός μεσιτεύοντος παραπετάσματος, ὀψόμεθα, ὡς καί ὁ τῶν τοιούτων ἱεροτελεστής θειότατος ἐκφαντορικῶς ἐξηγήσατο˙ «νῦν μέν» γάρ, «βλέπομεν δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου καί ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δέ πρόσωπον πρός πρόσωπον». Τό δέ νῦν εἶπε τήν δυνατήν καί ἀνάλογον τῇ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φύσει θωρίαν δεικνύς˙ αὐτός γάρ ταύτην ὑπεραναβάς, ὑπέρ αἴσθησίν τε γεγονώς καί νοῦν, εἶδε τά ἀόρατα καί ἤκουσε τά ἀνήκουστα, τόν ἀρραβῶνα τῆς παλιγγενεσίας ἐκείνης καί τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν θέας λαβών ἐν ἑαυτῷ, διό καί ἔλεγεν˙ «οἶδα» ἀκούσας καί ἰδών. Ἰδού αἰσθήσεως ἐνέργεια ταυτί δοκεῖ˙ ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνος αὖθις εἶπεν, ὡς «οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε νοῦς ἦν, εἴτε σῶμα αἰσθόμενον». Ὥστε ἡ αἴσθησις αὕτη ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν καί νοῦν ἐστιν˙ ἡνίκα γάρ ἑκάτερον τούτων ἐνεργεῖ καί ὅτι ἐνεργεῖ, αἰσθάνεταί τε καί νοεῖ˙ διά τοῦτο προσέθηκεν ὅτι «ὁ Θεός οἶδεν», ἐπεί ὁ Θεός ἦν ὁ τότε ἐνεργῶν. Αὐτός δέ ὑπέρ ἄνθρωπον τῇ πρός Θεόν ἑνώσει γεγονώς διά τοῦ ἀοράτου ἑώρα τά ἀόρατα, μήτε τοῦ ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν ἐκστάντα καί ὁρατά τούτῳ γεγονότα.

Καί ὁ μέγας τοίνυν ∆ιονύσιος οὐκ αἰσθητήν ἔδειξε (σελ. 458) τήν τοῦ αἰωνίου φωτός θέαν, ὁρατήν εἰπών αὐτήν, ἐπεί τοῖς χριστοειδέσιν εἶπεν ὁρατήν. Εὑρήσεις δέ αὐτόν καί ἀλλαχοῦ σαφῶς ὁρατόν λέγοντα τό ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν φῶς˙ «ἡ γάρ τῶν νοερῶν», φησίν, «αὐθαίρετος αὐτοεξουσιότης, εἰ τοῦ μετρίως αὐτῇ δοθέντος ὁρατοῦ τούς ὅρους ὑπερπηδῆσαι τολμηρῶς ἐπιχειρῆσοι, τό μέν φῶς ἐνεργήσει παρά τάς φωτός οὐδέ ἕν, αὐτή δέ καί τοῦ μετρίου δι᾿ ἑαυτήν ἀποτεύξεται». Εἰ γοῦν τῶν νοερῶν ἡ θεωρία τῶν ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν οὐκ ἀποδιαστέλλεται, κἄν ὁρατή, πῶς ἡ τῶν τῆς χριστοειδοῦς ἐφικομένων λήξεως ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν οὐκ ἔσται, διότι ὁρατή; Καί μή οὐ μόνον ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν ἡ ὁρατή ἐκείνη θεοφάνεια, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ νοῦν, καθάπερ καί ὁ ἅγιος Μάξιμος διετράνωσε˙ «πασῶν» γάρ, φησί, «τότε τῶν κατά σῶμα καί νοῦν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν τήν ἀπόπαυσιν ἡμῖν χαριεῖσθαι τό Πνεῦμα διά τῆς θεώσεως,