Elijah, having rested his head on his knees and thus having gathered his mind more laboriously into himself and into God, loosed that manifold drought.

But since to this noble man, who in his mind was enduring the trembling of Cain, our people advised him to hold his breath for a little, so that he might hold his thought, at least for a short while, and not to turn his eye hither and thither, but as with some support to fix it on his own chest or on his navel and through such a posture of the body to send inward again to the heart the power of the mind which is poured out through sight (for as one of the great ones says concerning these things, “the inner man is accustomed to be conformed to the outer postures after the transgression”); since they suggested these things to him, after a very short time he became unruly, and did not stop at desertion, but also became a bitter accuser of them at a synod, calling them 'navel-souled' (p. 572). Perhaps this man would also call 'belly-souled' or 'belly-lawed' the one who said to God “my belly shall sound like a harp and my inward parts as a brazen wall which you have renewed” and the one who said that “the law of God is in the midst of my belly,” and he would apply a similar epithet to the one writing “let the memory of God be joined to your breath”; and he will slander all those who through bodily symbols typify and name and trace out the intelligible and divine and spiritual things. But this will harm them in no way, while he himself will remain outside the sacred curtains and will not even be able to gaze at the shadows of the truth.

And you will surely not be displeased hearing these things from us; for we make you nearer to God than you make those united to God; for we cast you out of the shadows, but you cast them out even of the shadow of shadows. “But now,” he says, “we see in a mirror,” says the great Paul. What then is the mirror? Does it not have the shadow of a shadow which appears, even if it be less transparent and smooth? And how could it show anything and how could it be a mirror and how do we see anything in it, when it has not even the shadow of a shadow? But when someone makes himself a pure mirror of God and, with God propitious, has Him within himself and encounters Him intellectually, seeing supernaturally light beyond light in light, which in no way defines the seeing eye, how could he not even have a shadow of the shadow of God? And when the mirror is the mind, and a mind purified and stainless, an immaterial nature, a light akin, if one may say, to the highest and first light, how, being illuminated by that first light itself, would it not appear to be by participation that which the archetype is by cause? (p. 574) And how would it not show through itself the beauty of that hidden fairness, just as the prophet also says that “the brightness of our God is upon us”? And how, being and appearing such, a fragrance of Christ, a messenger of his virtues, would he not have even the shadow of a shadow of God? From where have you come to these truly unenlightened and much-shadowed words, O philosopher? For the writings of the great Dionysius are far from these shadows; and he himself shows how great a thing he considers the true and mystical vision of the God-bearers to be, that he even calls the detailed teachings of the Holy Scriptures images of their contemplative fulfillment according to the mind. We shall say from where, having rashly imagined this, he spoke it.

Another of the true theologians, silencing the audacious theologians, says that the knowledge of God that appears to the world is a shadow, and that those who philosophize on visible things have the shadow of this shadow, because they do not even have an accurate comprehension of creation. But this man, who is not spiritual and yet examines spiritual men, not knowing that the vision of God differs from theology, and especially from that which comes from visible things,

Ἠλίας, τήν κεφαλήν τοῖς γόνασιν ἐρείσας καί οὕτω τόν νοῦν εἰς ἑαυτόν καί τόν Θεόν φιλοπονώτερον συναγαγών, τόν πολυειδῆ ἐκεῖνον ἔλυσεν αὐχμόν.

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί καί τῷ γεννάδᾳ τούτῳ τόν τοῦ Κάιν τρόμον ὑφισταμένῳ κατά νοῦν, τήν τε ἀναπνοήν μικρόν ἐπέχειν συνεβούλευον οἱ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ὡς καί τήν διάνοιαν πρός βραχύ γοῦν συνεπισχοίη, τόν τε ὀφθαλμόν μή ὧδε κἀκεῖσε περιάγειν, ἀλλ᾿ οἷον ἐρείσματί τινι τῷ οἰκείῳ στήθει ἤ τῷ ὀμφαλῷ τοῦτον προσερείδειν καί τήν δι᾿ ὄψεως ἔξω χεομένην δύναμιν τοῦ νοῦ τῆς καρδίας εἴσω πέμπειν αὖθις διά τοῦ τοιούτου σχήματος τοῦ σώματος (ὡς γάρ τῶν μεγάλων περί ταῦτά τίς φησι «τοῖς ἔξω σχήμασιν εἴωθεν ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος συνεξομοιοῦσθαι μετά τήν παράβασιν»)˙ ἐπεί ταῦτ᾿ ἐκεῖνοι τούτῳ ὑπετίθεντο, μετά βραχύ λίαν ἀφηνιάσας, οὐ μέχρι τοῦ λειποταξίου ἔστη, ἀλλά καί πικρός αὐτοῖς ἐπί συνόδου κατέστη κατήγορος, 'ὀμφαλοψύχους' (σελ. 572) ὀνόμάζων αὐτούς. Τάχα καί τόν εἰπόντα πρός Θεόν «ἡ κοιλία μου ἠχήσει ὡς κιθάρα καί τά ἐντός μου ὡσεί τεῖχος χαλκοῦν ὅ ἐνεκαίνισας» καί τόν εἰπόντα ὡς «ὁ νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς κοιλίας μου» 'κοιλιοψύχους' ἄν οὗτος ἤ 'κοιλιονόμους' προσαγορεύσειε καί τόν γράφοντα «μνήμη Θεοῦ κολληθήτω τῇ πνοῇ σου» παραπλησίαν ἐπιθείη τήν ἐπωνυμίαν˙ καί διαβαλεῖ πάντας τούς διά σωματικῶν συμβόλων τά νοερά καί θεῖα καί πνευματικά καί τυποῦντας καί ὀνομάζοντας καί ἀνιχνεύοντας. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκείνους μέν παρά τοῦτο βλάψει γε οὐδέν, αὐτός δέ καί τῶν ἱερῶν παραπετασμάτων ἔξω μενεῖ καί οὐδέ καί πρός τάς σκιάς ἀτενίζειν ἕξει τῆς ἀληθείας.

Καί οὐ δυσχερανεῖς πάντως ταῦτα παρ᾿ ἡμῶν ἀκούων˙ ἐγγυτέρω γάρ σε Θεοῦ ποιοῦμεν ἤ σύ τούς ἡνωμένους Θεῷ˙ τῶν γάρ σκιῶν ἡμεῖς σε ἐκβάλλομεν, σύ δ᾿ ἐκείνους καί τῆς σκιᾶς τῶν σκιῶν. «Ἀλλά νῦν», φησίν, «ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ βλέπομεν» ὁ μέγας Παῦλός φησι. Τί οὖν τό ἔσοπτρον; Οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχει τήν ἐμφαινομένην, κἄν ἧττον διειδές καί λεῖον ἦ; Καί πῶς ἄν δεικνύοι τι καί πῶς ἄν ἔσοπτρον εἴη καί πῶς βλέπομεν ἐν αὐτῷ τι μηδέ γοῦν σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχοντι; Ὅταν δέ καί αὐτός τις ἑαυτόν ἔσοπτρον ἀκραιφνές κατασκευάσῃ Θεοῦ καί τοῦ Θεοῦ τυχόν ἵλεω τοῦτον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχῃ καί τούτῳ νοερῶς ἐντυγχάνῃ, φῶς ὑπέρ φῶς ὑπερφυῶς ἐν φωτί θεώμενος, τόν ὁρῶντα μηδαμῶς ὁρίζον ὀφθαλμόν, πῶς κἄν οὐδέ σκιάν ἔχοι τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ σκιᾶς; Ὅταν καί νοῦς ᾖ τό ἔσοπτρον, καί νοῦς κεκαθαρμένος καί ἀκηλίδωτος, φύσις ἄϋλος, φῶς συγγενές, εἰ χρή λέγειν, τῷ ἀνωτάτῳ καί πρώτῳ φωτί, πῶς ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πρώτου καταλαμπόμενος φωτός οὐκ αὐτό φαίνοιτ᾿ ἄν μέθεξιν ὅ τό ἀρχέτυπον κατ᾿ αἰτίαν ἐστί; (σελ. 574) Πῶς δ᾿ οὐκ δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ φαίνοι τοῦ κρυφίου κάλλους ἐκείνου τήν ὡραιότητα, καθά καί ὁ προφήτης λέγει ὅτι «ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς»; Πῶς δέ τοιοῦτος ὤν τε καί φαινόμενος, εὐωδία Χριστοῦ, τῶν ἀρετῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελος, οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς σχοίη τοῦ Θεοῦ; Πόθεν εἰς τούτους τούς ὄντως ἀφωτίστους καί πολυσκίους λόγους ἐλήλυθας, ὦ φιλόσοφε; Τῶν γάρ σκιῶν τούτων πόρρω τά ∆ιονυσίου τοῦ μεγάλου συγγράμματα˙ τοσοῦτο δέ αὐτός μέγα τι χρῆμα δείκνυσιν οἰόμενος τήν τῶν θεοφόρων ἀληθῆ καί μυστικήν ἐποψίαν, ὡς καί τῆς κατά νοῦν αὐτῶν θεωρητικῆς ἀποπληρώσεως ἀπεικονίσματα λέγειν τάς τῶν ἱερῶν Γραφῶν διεξοδικάς μαθητείας. Πόθεν οὖν τοῦτο προπετῶς φαντασθείς ἐξεῖπεν, ἐροῦμεν ἡμεῖς.

Ἕτερός τις τῶν ἀληθινῶν θεολόγων, τούς θρασεῖς θεολόγους ἐπιστομίζων, σκιάν μέν λέγει τήν ἐμφαινομένην τῷ κόσμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, καί τήν σκιάν ἔχειν ταύτης τῆς σκιᾶς τούς ἐν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις φιλοσοφοῦντας τῷ μηδέ τῆς κτίσεως τήν ἀκριβῆ κατάληψιν ἔχειν. Οὗτος δέ ὁ μή πνευματικός καί τούς πνευματικούς ἀνακρίνων, μή εἰδώς ὅτι διαφέρει θεοπτία θεολογίας, καί τῆς ἀπό ὁρωμένων ἐς τά μάλιστα,