To Be Transformed by a Vision of Uncreated Light:
A Survey on the Influence of the Existential Spirituality of Hesychasm on Eastern Orthodox History
(Part 1)
Then Father Seraphim gripped me firmly by the shoulders and said: "My friend, both of us, at this moment, are in the Holy Spirit, you and I. Why won't you look at me?"
"I can't look at you, Father, because the light flashing from your eyes and face is brighter than the sun and I'm dazzled!"
"Don't be afraid, friend of God, you yourself are shining just like I am; you too are now in the fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see me as you do...The fact that I am a monk and you are a layman doesn't make any difference.[1]
- From a conversation with Russian hesychast St. Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833)
Introduction: Setting the Stage for the Development of Hesychasm
At the bottom of Mt. Sinai sits the oldest continuously inhabited Christian monastery in existence - St. Catherine's. In the apse of the monastery's church is a famous sixth century mosaic which depicts the Transfiguration of Christ on Mt. Tabor (Matthew 17.1-9). At the centre of this mosaic is the transfigured Jesus, resplendent in white. Around him are Moses and Elijah, as well as the three disciples who witnessed this event. However, these three disciples are not depicted as being mere witnesses to the Transfiguration; they are also participants. For the light which emanates from Christ's transfigured body also transfigures the disciples watching him - they reflect, and are transformed by, the divine light that is shining all around them.
Perhaps no other piece of artwork so encapsulates the existential element of Orthodox theology as does this mosaic. Orthodoxy is known for the emphasis it places on the authority of the dogmatic assertions formulated by the seven ecumenical councils, which took place between 325-787 C.E.. Through the authority of these councils, Orthodoxy is furnished with official dogma which lays stress on a Trinitarian understanding of God, and on an understanding of Jesus Christ as being fully divine and fully human. These dogmatic formulations are of the utmost importance to Orthodoxy, but it would be a mistake to simply view Orthodox theology as a set of dogmatic assertions which one is to believe. Rather, Orthodox theology is lived and experienced. Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky illustrates this idea most clearly when he states that "the eastern tradition has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology; between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church."[2] In other words, Orthodox theology is inherently and ideally existential.
Central to this existential understanding of theology is the Orthodox concept of theosis (deification). This concept emerged very early in Christian history. In particular, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 202), an important Church Father of the second century, emphasised that the goal of the Christian life is union with God, and that it is through this union that humanity is transformed to become like him. Indeed, Irenaeus was the first to make the statement that "if the Word is made man, it is that men might become gods."[3] Implicit in this statement is the idea that the Incarnation allows humanity to more fully participate in the divine, and that through union with God, humanity is deified. In fact, the Incarnation not only allows for union with God, this union is the very purpose of the Incarnation. This concept of theosis, or union with God, was repeated by later Fathers. For instance, St. Athanasius the Great (c. 298-372) borrowed the above quote by Irenaeus to defend the divinity of Christ against the attacks of the Arians at the time of the first ecumenical council in Nicea (325). In Athanasius' eyes, to attack the divinity of Christ was to attack the very possibility of salvation itself, for to deny that God himself became incarnate was to deny the possibility of union with God. Unless Jesus Christ is "of one substance with the Father," as the Nicene Creed states, there could be no theosis.[4] Therefore, these Fathers stressed the importance of theosis as being the central goal of the Christian life for all Christians, and they vigorously fought any theological formulations which could undermine this soteriology.
However, it was within the East's monastic institutions that the concept of theosis was especially emphasised through the development of hesychasm. This development greatly influenced later Orthodox history and spirituality. With its emphasis on the patristic concept of theosis, hesychastic spirituality focused on the necessity of ceaseless inner prayer as a means of experiencing the divine; an experience which came to be associated with a vision of uncreated light such as that which shone from Jesus at the Transfiguration. For reasons which will be discussed within this paper, hesychastic spirituality came to the forefront in the fourteenth century, and since that time it has played a key role as a renewal movement within Eastern Christianity up to the present day. However, the origins of hesychasm are to be found in the deserts of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Sinai in the third and fourth centuries. Beginning in these centuries Christians started to make an exodus from the cities toward the desert in search of a higher degree of perfection. Interestingly, this exodus towards the desert coincided with the emergence of the "Peace of the Church" in which the persecution of Christians came to a halt under the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine. While this peace brought a certain degree of consolation to many within the Church, it also brought a certain degree of unease amongst a sizeable population of Christians. In the latter's eyes, the martyrs had provided Christian and pagan alike with a supreme example of worldly renunciation which manifested itself in a devotion to Christ to the point of death. The new peace, however, meant that this form of worldly renunciation was no longer available to the believer. The result was the development of a new form of renunciation - ascetic solitude. Derwas J. Chitty, a prominent historian of early desert monasticism, describes this development this way:
In the new worldly security of the Church, the Christian would seek to recover the old martyr spirit; while the pagan brought to the Faith by what he had seen of the life and death of Christians in time of persecution, would seek a way of not less absolute devotion to Christ.[5]
This desire to "recover the martyr spirit" is perhaps most evident in the person of St. Antony (c. 251-356). It was during a time of relative peace in the Church, just before Constantine's reign, that Antony departed for the desert from his home in Upper Egypt. Having been bequeathed a fairly substantial amount of land and money after his parents' death, Antony was given the responsibility of caring for his younger sister. However, at about the age of twenty, Antony walked into a church one day only to hear a gospel reading which convicted him to his depth: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Matt. 19.21).[6] These words of Jesus so struck Antony that he sold all he had, left some possessions for his sister, and gave the rest to the needy. He then departed into the Egyptian desert to live a life of asceticism and solitude in pursuit of perfection. As such, he subjected himself to rigorous ascetic practices, eating rarely and dressing poorly, and he focused upon praying ceaselessly; an activity which he saw as being essential to experiencing the divine.[7] However, this sincere striving towards Christ-like perfection was combined with a sense of the necessity of the grace of God in accomplishing this task. That this was the case is illustrated by one story in which Antony, while in the midst of struggling against demons sent to discourage his progress, received a vision of light which sent these demons fleeing. Recognising this light to be from God, Antony questioned God as to why he had waited so long to help him. The reply was straightforward: "I was here, Antony, but I waited to watch your struggle. And now, since you persevered and were not defeated, I will be your helper forever."[8] This account, told by St. Athanasius in his Life of Antony, illustrates an important feature which would be prominent throughout subsequent Orthodox history and spirituality. That is, it is through diligent effort and prayer, combined with the grace of God, that one is granted a direct experience of God and is transformed in the process.
Antony was among the first Christians to embrace the desert, but he was followed by scores of other believers eager to diligently pursue theosis through rigorous asceticism. The title of Derwas J. Chitty's book on desert monasticism, The Desert a City, is an apt description of the sheer volume of those who migrated into the desert. By the fifth century, the whole length of the Nile Valley was populated by ascetics, with some choosing the cenobitic life after the model of Pachomius (d. 346), and others choosing to live as anchorites after the model of St. Antony.[9] Correspondingly, the deserts of Sinai, Palestine, and Syria became increasingly populated, with important monastic foundations, such as Mar Sabas in Palestine and St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, coming into the forefront of Orthodox spirituality.
The Development of Hesychasm
At the heart of this monastic spirituality was the development of hesychasm as a means toward achieving an experience of the divine (theosis), and this development proved to be of immense importance in the history of the Orthodox Church. The term hesychasm is derived from hesychia; a word which denotes tranquillity, stillness, and concerted concentration.[10] As early as the fourth century, the term hesychia was used to describe the life of the desert monk as being one of interior silence and diligence in pursuit of communion with God. While outward ascetic exercises were seen as being beneficial in purifying oneself for communion with God, in the fourth century increasing emphasis was placed on the necessity of inner ceaseless prayer, achieved through diligence and concentration, as a means of experiencing the divine. It was out of this emphasis that the spirituality of hesychasm developed and flourished.
Within the literature of early desert monasticism, two writers of the fourth century were especially influential in the development of hesychastic spirituality - Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399) and Pseudo-Macarius. A monk of Cellia in the Egyptian desert, Evagrius has been called the first codifier of a monastic doctrine of prayer.[11] In his writings, Evagrius defined prayer as "the ascent of the intellect to God," and in so doing he emphasised the necessity of intellectual prayer, as a means toward achieving union with God.[12] Because Evagrius held to a neo-platonic anthropological dualism reminiscent of Origenist teaching, he elevated the role of the intellect in prayer to the detriment of the role of the body, and as a result, Evagrius taught a mysticism which was purely intellectualistic.[13] The writings of Pseudo-Macarius, an unknown fourth century monk, provided a counterbalance to Evagrius' 'prayer of the mind.' In contrast to Evagrius' dualistic anthropology which elevated the intellect, Macarius elevated the heart as being the "source of all intellectual and spiritual activity" in a human.[14] In other words, Macarius viewed the heart as being the centre of a person's will, intellect, and body. Therefore, by focusing on 'prayer of the heart,' rather than 'prayer of the mind,' Macarius advocated an experience of God which penetrated the heart, thus implying that the body participates in union with God. In other words, Macarius' spirituality entailed more of an affective element than did Evagrius' spirituality.
Later writers attempted to provide a synthesis of Evagrius' 'prayer of the mind' and Macarius' 'prayer of the heart,' and it is in this synthesis that the Jesus Prayer - a prayer which has played a profound role in the spread of hesychast spirituality up to the present day - emerges. Of particular importance to this synthesis was St. Diadochos of Photiki (d. 486). Interestingly, while Diadochos held to the importance of intellectual prayer as a means of attaining union with God, he likewise stressed the importance of the body in prayer. In Diadochos' eyes, one of the chief difficulties in attaining hesychia is the restlessness of the intellect, which is constantly active. He therefore suggested that the intellect should continually invoke the name of Jesus so as to be fully concentrated on ceaseless prayer, and that it is through this intellectual prayer that one achieves union with God. However, this union with God is not purely intellectualistic, as it was for Evagrius. Rather, Diadochos incorporated the affective element of Macarius' spirituality through his suggestion that the experience of God is to be had by the totality of one's being: "[The intellect] is capable of perceiving ineffably the goodness of God. Then, according to the measure of its own progress, the intellect communicates its joy to the body too."[15] Therefore, Diadochus combines intellectual prayer with the idea that the body participates, and reaps the rewards of, union with God. Vladimir Lossky describes the implications of Diadochus' ideas succinctly when he writes that in Diadochus, "the mysticism of the intellect and the mysticism of the heart are united, opening the way for a spirituality which will engage the whole nature of man."[16]
However, Diadochus' emphasis on union with God as an existential experience encompassing 'the whole nature of humanity' was taken to new heights by St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), a monk of the monastery of St. Mamas near Constantinople. His influence on later hesychasts, specifically those who participated in the hesychast controversy of the fourteenth century, should not be underestimated. Of particular note is Symeon's stress on the necessity of experiencing union with God through a vision of divine light. While earlier writers likewise associated union with God with a vision of light, Symeon wrote more explicitly and directly about this idea than any previous Father, even to the point of describing his own mystical experiences of being overcome by divine light while in the midst of praying the Jesus Prayer.[17] Symeon's own mystical experiences illustrate that he viewed the experience of God to be one which was not purely intellectualistic, but was one which encompassed the whole of his being. Referring to himself in the third person, Symeon writes: "He was wholly in the presence of immaterial light and seemed to himself to have turned into light."[18] His was an overtly existential spirituality, and the emphasis he placed on the vision of God as light greatly influenced the development of hesychastic spirituality, which came to associate this divine light with the light that shone from Jesus at the Transfiguration.
One more facet of the development of hesychastic spirituality prior to the fourteenth century must be addressed; that is, the development of a psychosomatic technique by hesychasts as an aid to concentration. As early as the seventh century, St. John Climacus connected the recitation of the name of Jesus, an early form of the Jesus Prayer, with breathing: "Let the remembrance of Jesus be present with your every breath. Then indeed you will appreciate the value of stillness."[19] Similar sentiments are expressed in the writings of St. Hesychius (c. eighth century) and St. Philotheus (c. ninth century), both of Sinai.[20] However, it was not until the thirteenth century that a specific physical technique for praying was written down by Nicephorus of Mount Athos (d. c. 1300). Seen by Nicephorus as an aid to greater concentration, the psychosomatic technique espoused in his treatise On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart became known as the hesychast method of prayer. This technique involved sitting in a particular posture with one's head bowed toward the naval, or toward the heart, in combination with the regulation of one's breathing. The purpose of such an exercise was to, in Nicephorus' words, "enter through [the] intellect into the abode of the heart," and once this was accomplished, one was to continually recite the Jesus Prayer - "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me."[21] At the heart of such terminology is the insistence on the fundamental unity of the human person - mind, heart, and body - in the task of prayer whereby, in the words of Kallistos Ware, "the one who prays is totally united with the prayer itself and with the Divine Companion to whom the prayer is addressed."[22]
Such, therefore, are the basic contours which marked the development of hesychasm up to the thirteenth century. The earliest ascetics had left the world in order to recover a spirit of martyrdom through rigorous ascetic practices and to devote themselves to prayer in search of communion with God. As monasticism developed throughout the Orthodox world, greater emphasis was placed on the determined concentration of mind, heart, and body in the active contemplation of God through hesychia, and it is this emphasis which compelled ascetic writers, like St. Diadochos, to focus on ceaseless inner prayer (such as the invocation of the name of Jesus) as a means experiencing union with God. Underlying this focus on ceaseless prayer was the assertion of the inherent unity of the human person, and as such, hesychasm emphasised the role of the body in prayer through posture and breathing exercises. More importantly, hesychasm emphasised the role of the body in the actual experience of God, whereby the aspirant is transformed - mind, heart, and body - through this encounter with the divine. Finally, the experience of union with God was strongly associated with a vision of uncreated divine light by hesychasts - the same light which shone in Jesus at the Transfiguration - who saw this vision of light as the pinnacle of mystical experience.
The Fourteenth-Century Hesychastic Controversy
Therefore, the broad contours of hesychastic spirituality and practice were well developed by the fourteenth century. Unfortunately, by the fourteenth century, hesychasm was no longer a widespread movement within Orthodox monasticism, as made evident in the example of St. Gregory of Sinai (c. 1255-1346). Gregory was born near the western shores of Asia Minor, but he received the full monastic profession in the desert of Sinai. However, it was not until he left Sinai for Crete that he was introduced to hesychastic spirituality by a monk named Arsenios; a remarkable fact given that Sinaite monasticism played a key role in the development of hesychasm, as seen above. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, Gregory decided to settle at Mount Athos in Greece - one of the key centres of Orthodox monasticism by the time - in search of others who could further him along the path of hesychasm. To his dismay, Gregory testified that he could find only three monks on the whole of the Mount Athos who practised hesychia despite the fact that Nicephorus of Mount Athos had promulgated hesychastic practice almost immediately prior to Gregory's arrival on the Holy Mountain. Instead, Gregory found that emphasis was placed on outward ascetic exercises, manual labour, and liturgical prayer, to the detriment of the cultivation of inner prayer.
St. Gregory of Sinai's influence on Athos helped to remarkably change this situation. Settling in a secluded skete away from the large cenobitic monasteries on the Holy Mountain, Gregory became a spiritual director to a small group of aspirants intent on learning the path of hesychia. Like Nicephorus, Gregory recommended the physical technique of praying the Jesus Prayer: "Sitting from dawn on a seat about nine inches high, compel your intellect to descend from your head into your heart, and retain it there. Keeping your head forcibly bent downwards...persevere in repeating noetically [in the intellect] or in your soul 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy.'"[23] Added to this exhortation, Gregory recommends that the regulation of one's breathing aids in being continually mindful of God, and he quotes St. John Climacus' advice of letting the "remembrance of Jesus be present with your every breath" (see above).[24] For Gregory, the end result of this inner prayer is an experience of God which transforms the aspirant. In some cases, this experience of God results in an inner divine warmth: "Sometimes, as the passions subside through the ceaseless invocation of Jesus Christ, a divine energy wells up in the heart, and a divine warmth is kindled."[25] However, the experience of God is manifested in a vision of uncreated light, after the example of St. Symeon the New Theologian, to those who are advanced in the spiritual life:
In others - particularly in those well advanced in prayer - God produces a gentle and serene flow of light. This is when Christ comes to dwell in the heart, as St. Paul says (cf. Eph. 3.17), mystically disclosing Himself through the Holy Spirit...for it is in this that He attests the perfection of our prayer.[26]
St. Gregory of Sinai's teaching on hesychasm was met with enthusiasm on the Holy Mountain, leading to a renaissance of hesychastic spirituality there. While he started out with relatively few disciples in 1300, by 1325, when he left Athos, Gregory was considered to be an important spiritual father to many disciples all over the Holy Mountain.
At the same time as this hesychastic renaissance was flowering on Athos, Gregory endeavoured to spread this spirituality outside monastic confines to the cities of Byzantium. His words to one of his disciples whom he sent back into the world illustrates this desire to cultivate inner prayer among the laity: "I do not wish you to live here in the wilderness or the mountains - why do that? - but rather in the world, among the monks and the lay people dwelling there, that you may serve as a model to them all."[27] While St. Gregory of Sinai should not be given full credit for the renaissance of hesychasm in Byzantium - other hesychasts such as Theoleptus, bishop of Philadelphia (c. 1250-1322), did play a role in reviving hesychasm within Byzantine society - there can be no doubt that the Sinaite played an overarching role in spreading hesychastic spirituality through his example and through the example of his disciples.[28] As a result, fourteenth century Byzantium witnessed a revival of hesychasm within her monasteries and within society at large.
This revival of hesychasm in the fourteenth century corresponded with a renaissance of a different sort among the intellectuals of Byzantium. While Eastern monasticism was once again recovering the spiritual glory of its past, the Byzantine empire as a whole was only a shadow of what it once had been. Since the eleventh century Turkish pressure had been pervasive, and the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Latin Crusaders greatly diminished the strength of the empire. Though Constantinople did not finally succumb to the Turks until 1453, the Byzantine empire, as it existed in the fourteenth century, was a civilisation in its twilight. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that, among the intellectuals of Byzantium, "notions of impending doom and of inferiority to the past became much more pronounced" in the fourteenth century.[29] Many of these intellectuals compared their plight to that of Hellenistic times, and to that of the West which was in the midst of a cultural renaissance. Such comparison led to a certain nostalgia and longing for the Hellenistic past, and as a result, Hellenistic thought experienced a resurgence within intellectual circles. While still remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church, these fourteenth century humanists endeavoured to interpret theology through the lenses of Hellenistic wisdom. In the words of Vladimir Lossky, "the old hellenism reappears in the writings of the humanists who, formed by their studies of philosophy, wish to see the Cappadocians through the eyes of Plato, Dionysius through the eyes of Proclus, Maximus and John Damascene through the eyes of Aristotle."[30] Therefore, this re-emergence of Hellenistic philosophy owed its origins to a pervading desire to return to an era of bygone greatness, and was not the result of Western influence on the East. At the same time, however, this re-emergence did pose a problem of 'westernisation' for the Eastern Church. By the fourteenth century, scholasticism reigned supreme in the West, meaning that theology largely became subject to rationalistic interpretation on the basis of Aristotelian presuppositions, and became somewhat divorced from personal experience of the divine. Likewise, the humanists in the East endeavoured to bring about a similar form of theological scholasticism whereby reason would be elevated over experience. Consequently, what emerged in Byzantium in the fourteenth century were two very different types of renewal. On the one hand, Byzantine monasticism inaugurated a renaissance of hesychasm - an existential spirituality based on the patristic and ascetic emphasis on theosis. On the other hand, Byzantine humanists inaugurated a renaissance of Hellenism whereby reason prevailed over experience, and patristic theology was subservient to rational thought. It proved to be inevitable that these two schools of thought would come into conflict in what has been labelled as the 'hesychastic controversy.'
The two key players in this controversy were Barlaam the Calabrian (d. 1350), a humanist, and St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), a hesychast. Though Barlaam was Greek, he was educated in southern Italy where he was "imbued with the spirit of the Italian Renaissance."[31] However, despite his western education Barlaam remained a faithful adherent to the Orthodox Church, and in 1330 he arrived in Constantinople where he came under the patronage of the future emperor John Cantacuzene (he came to power in 1347). While under Cantacuzene's patronage, Barlaam spent much of his time producing commentaries on the writings of the great fifth-century apophatic theologian, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and within a short time he gained a reputation as a learned man in Constantinople who was consulted on matters of theology and philosophy.[32] On these matters, Barlaam exhibited the nostalgia and respect for the Hellenistic past which characterised Byzantine humanism at this time, as will be seen shortly. St. Gregory Palamas, on the other hand, was far more influenced by the renaissance of hesychasm in Byzantium. Palamas was born to an aristocratic family in Constantinople, where his father was a senator and a close friend of the emperor Andronicus II. Palamas' family appears to have been very much influenced by the burgeoning renewal of hesychasm at this time, as illustrated in a story told by Gregory's biographer, Philotheus, in which his father did not hear the emperor addressing him during a meeting of the Senate because he was immersed in the practice of inner prayer.[33] Gregory himself was initiated in hesychastic practice in his youth by the aforementioned Theoleptus, bishop of Philadelphia. Upon the death of his father, Palamas was enrolled in the Imperial University by the emperor where the curriculum included the humanistic study of Aristotelian philosophy. However, Palamas cut his education short and at the age of twenty, and having already been influenced by hesychasm as a youth, he left the world to pursue hesychia on Mount Athos. While on the Holy Mountain, Palamas came under the tutelage of experienced hesychasts, and there is evidence to suggest that Palamas was a disciple of St. Gregory of Sinai before both monks were forced off Athos by Turkish incursions in 1325.[34] After a six year hiatus from Athos, Palamas returned to the Holy Mountain in 1331, settled in the hermitage of St. Sabbas where he cultivated hesychia in solitude, and in the process, garnered great respect from monks all over the mountain.
Palamas first became aware of Barlaam in 1335 when he came into contact with one of Barlaam's treatises on the filioque clause. Faithful to the East's rejection of the filioque clause which the Western Church had inserted into the Nicene Creed, Barlaam utilised the apophatic theology of Pseudo-Dionysius and the logic of Aristotle to refute the claim made by the West that the filioque clause could be demonstrated rationally. According to Barlaam, Pseudo-Dionysius made it clear that God was completely unknowable, and that this premise was substantiated by the Aristotelian idea that apodictic demonstration cannot apply to divine truths, which are indemonstrable.[35] However, Barlaam's argument necessarily implied that the Eastern position on the filioque clause was likewise indemonstrable, meaning that the filioque clause should not be seen as an impediment to union between East and West as any doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit can be relegated to mere theological speculation.[36] It was this point which first provoked the ire of Palamas who had already written two treatises against the filioque clause which postulated that apodictic demonstration of the Eastern position was in fact possible. Like Barlaam, Palamas held the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius in great esteem, but he felt that Barlaam's arguments neglected to acknowledge a fundamental antimony of Orthodox theology; that is, that the unknowable God, through his Spirit, has revealed himself to the Fathers of the past, and continues to reveal himself to those who have purified their hearts.[37] As such, to posit divine truths as indemonstrable is to undermine the possibility of theosis as a personal experience of God made possible by his Spirit.
Barlaam and Palamas continued to correspond regarding this issue over the next two years. During this time, Barlaam came into contact with some hesychasts in Thessalonica who discussed with him the hesychast method of prayer, as outlined by Nicephorus of Mount Athos and St. Gregory of Sinai. When he was told by these monks that the human body could participate in prayer and could even sense divine grace in the form of a vision of the uncreated light of Tabor through the practice of inner prayer, Barlaam became indignant. Referring to these hesychasts as omphalopsychoi ('navel-psychics') in mockery of their method of prayer, Barlaam launched a complaint in 1338 against hesychastic spirituality with the Patriarch and the Synod in which he claimed hesychasm to be dangerous and heretical.
As a result of his correspondence with Palamas and his exposure to hesychasts in Thessalonica, Barlaam's position on how knowledge of God could be obtained became more pronounced. According to Barlaam, hesychastic theology offended a principle tenet of Orthodox theology - the way of negation (i.e. apophatic theology). This apophaticism had been emphasised by most of the Greek Fathers, and especially Pseudo-Dionysius who wrote that "we cannot know God in his nature, since this is unknowable and is beyond the reach of mind or of reason."[38] Having been tremendously influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius' writings, as already noted, Barlaam held to a vehement apophaticism which led him to the conclusion that knowledge of God could only occur indirectly "through the mediation of his creatures" and not through direct experience.[39] Consequently, while Barlaam did not deny the existence of visions of light, he believed this Taboric light to be created, and therefore not a direct experience of God.[40] Added to that, Barlaam came to view knowledge of God as being purely intellectual, and as a result, he associated salvation with the casting "off of every kind of ignorance" through the use of the intellect.[41] In his correspondence with Palamas, Barlaam's anthropology showed clear signs of a neo-platonic dualism which prevented him from acknowledging any possibility of the body participating in deification. God's ineffability coupled with this Platonic dualism necessarily led Barlaam to assert that the intellect alone was capable of indirect divine illumination. Due to the fact that God is completely unknowable, knowledge of him is only available through knowledge of the created order of things (i.e. philosophy). As such, Barlaam concluded that the Hellenistic philosophers could be said to have been illumined by God to the same degree as any Church Father due to their exercise of the intellect.[42]
Therefore, Barlaam's arguments undermined the very purpose of hesychastic spirituality - theosis. Because of his strict apophaticism and his neo-platonic dualism, Barlaam explicitly denied any possibility of direct knowledge and experience of God, and relegated knowledge of God to being indirect and purely intellectual. In 1338, once Barlaam launched his formal complaint against hesychasm as being heretical, Palamas was convinced to leave Athos to defend hesychasm from these attacks. While hesychasm had roots stretching back to the fourth century, the circumstances were now calling for "an objective theological basis" for hesychastic spirituality, and it was Palamas who answered this call.[43] As he formulated this theological basis, Palamas could not deny the tremendous emphasis placed on the apophatic way by Pseudo-Dionysius as well as other Greek Fathers; Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215), the Cappadocian Fathers (fourth century), St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), St. Maximus the Confessor (d. 662), St. John Damascene (d. 749), to name just a few, all emphasised that God was unknowable.[44] Given the overwhelming patristic unanimity on this issue, Palamas had to affirm an apophatic theology as well. At the same time, however, Palamas noted that these same Fathers who viewed God as unknowable also stressed the importance of an experiential union with God. Of particular note, St. Symeon the New Theologian, whom we have already noted as placing especial importance on the experience of the divine, held a theology which was apophatic. This paradox was observed by Symeon when he wrote, "[God] appears clearly and is consciously known and clearly seen, though He is invisible."[45] The task for Palamas was to somehow preserve this antimony in such a way as to prove the veracity of hesychastic spirituality. In his own words: "We attain to participation in the divine nature, and yet at the same time it remains totally inaccessible. We need to affirm both at the same time and to preserve the antinomy as a criteria of right devotion."[46]
To accomplish this task, Palamas relied on terminology utilised by the above noted Fathers, that is, he distinguished between the essence of God and the energies of God.[47] With strong patristic support, Palamas declared that God is unknowable and utterly transcendent in his essence, but he has manifested himself in his uncreated energies in order that union with him would be possible:
That which participates in something according to the essence must necessarily possess a common essence with that in which it participates and be identical to it in some respect. But who has ever heard that God and we possess in some respect the same essence? St. Basil the Great says, 'The energies of God come down to us, but the essence remains inaccessible.' And St. Maximos also says, 'He who is deified through grace will be everything that God is, without possessing identity of essence.' Thus it is impossible to participate in God's essence, even for those who are deified by divine grace. It is, however, possible to participate in the divine energy.[48]
Of particular importance to Palamas was the preservation of the experience of theosis, which he saw as being impossible if God's grace was created. In order for union with God to be possible without jeopardising the divine transcendence, God's energies must be affirmed as being entirely divine. Palamas describes this relationship between the essence and the energies of God in this antinomy: "God is entirely present in each of the divine energies...although it is clear that he transcends all of them."[49] To clarify this idea, Palamas compared the essence and the energies of God to the sun and its rays; the sun's rays are the energies of the sun, and therefore still to be associated with the sun, though the sun's essence remains distinct.[50] In Palamas' mind, unless this distinction between the essence and the energies of God was affirmed, there were one of two heretical ideas which resulted. First, if one affirms the possibility of theosis without making a distinction between the essence and the energies of God, then one has to admit the possibility of being united with the essence of God thereby making the created equal with the Creator.[51] Second, if one affirms that the energies of God are created, as Barlaam affirmed, then the possibility of union with the divine (theosis) must be discarded.[52]
However, Palamas saw this distinction between the essence and the energies of God as providing the theological basis for divine union with the divine and the vision of the uncreated light of Tabor. Palamas endeavoured to show that the light which surrounded Christ on Mount Tabor was a vision of God in his energies, and that through this vision, God manifested himself to the apostles and continues to manifest himself to those who, through prayer, are given the grace of this divine light. In contrast to Barlaam, who saw the light of Tabor to be "an apparition and a symbol of the kind that now is and now is not" - in other words 'created' - Palamas refers to it as follows:
For the saints both in hymns and in their writings call this light ineffable, uncreated, eternal, timeless, unapproachable, boundless, infinite, limitless, invisible to angels and men, archetypal and unchanging beauty, the glory of God, the glory of Christ, the glory of the Spirit, the ray of Divinity and so forth.[53]
As such, a vision of uncreated light is a vision of God himself, though not in his essence, and it is through this vision that one is united to God. Condemning Barlaam's notion that salvation is a matter of intellectual effort, Palamas made it clear that this union with God encompassed the whole of a human person:
For once the soul's passible aspect is transformed and sanctified - but not reduced to a deathlike condition - through it the dispositions and activities of the body are also sanctified, since body and soul share a conjoint existence...When saintly people become the happy possessors of spiritual and supranatural grace and power, they see [the uncreated light] both with the sense of sight and with the intellect that which surpasses both sense and intellect.[54]
In his defence of hesychasm, Palamas sought to formulate a theological basis for an existential spirituality which conformed to accepted patristic teachings, and as such, his writings are filled with quotations from the Fathers. In response to Palamas' formulations, Barlaam continued his attacks from a humanist perspective, and he was supported in this quest by many humanists within Byzantium who viewed hesychasm to be anti-intellectual and backward. Despite the fact that the 1341 Council of Constantinople sided with Palamite doctrine, a decision which compelled Barlaam to permanently leave the East for Italy, the controversy between humanists and hesychasts continued for another decade. After Barlaam departed, Gregory Akindynos and Nicephorus Gregoras took up the humanist cause, while Palamas persevered in defending the hesychasts. Finally, in 1351 another council was convened in Constantinople to decisively deal with the conflict, and the decision of this council proved to be monumental for later Orthodox history. A number of issues were discussed in this council. First, the council debated whether there is a distinction between the essence and the energies of God, and if so, whether such a distinction implies a ditheistic theology as the humanists alleged. The council also debated whether the energies of God are created or uncreated, and whether participation in God is a participation in God's essence or his energies. As the council compared Palamite theology with patristic theology, the council determined that Palamas was in full conformity with Orthodox tradition. In its opinion, the council felt that the Fathers did indeed distinguish between the essence and the energies of God, both uncreated, in which participation in God is made possible in his energies but not in his unknowable essence. As such, the council stated that this distinction in God did not imply division or ditheism, for the essence and the energies both belong to the same indivisible God who mysteriously manifests himself fully in his uncreated energies, and it is through these uncreated energies that an experiential union with God is made possible. Finally, the council affirmed that this union with God through his energies is manifested to humans in a vision of the uncreated light of Tabor, which can be seen with bodily eyes even though it is uncreated.[55]
Throughout the whole of the hesychastic controversy, Palamas consistently responded to the Hellenistic encroachments of the humanists by appealing to patristic sources. Therefore, it is significant that the 1351 Council of Constantinople formally accepted Palamas' patristic formulations rather than the rationalistic theology propounded by the humanists, for by this decision, the Council made the existential hesychastic theology official Church dogma. John Meyendorff described the implications of this event as follows:
[Palamas'] thought, taken as a whole, certainly marked a step forward in the progressive liberation of Eastern Christian theology from Platonic Hellenism, and his final victory in 1351 amounted, for Byzantine culture, to a refusal of the new humanist civilization which the West was in the process of adapting.[56]
While the ascetic and patristic Fathers of the past consistently advocated an experiential participation in God, the victory of the hesychasts in the fourteenth century solidified the elevation in the East of an existential, patristic theology over a theological scholasticism marked by the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. In other words, the council's decision essentially amounted to an official rejection of Western scholasticism, and a declaration of Eastern Christian theological distinctiveness. This decision would prove to shape Eastern Christianity up to the present day.