Архиепископ Василий (Кривошеин). Проблема познаваемости Бога: сущность и энергия у святого Василия Великого 376

The problem of the knowability of God is for St. Basil the Great is a private, although at the same time unique in its nature, type of our knowledge in general. Just as in the created world the essence of creations is inaccessible to our mind and we know creations by their properties and qualities, by their appearance, in the same way, or rather, to an immeasurably greater extent, the Divine essence (οὐσία) remains incomprehensible and inaccessible to us, and we know God only from His properties, or, as St. Basil is most often expressed from His actions and manifestations, from His energies (ἐνέργειαι). “The Eunomians,” he says 377, “who do not even know the nature of the earth that they trample under their feet, what it is, have the audacity to penetrate into the essence of the God of all things” 378. “In general, just think,” St. writes there. Vasily, - that you can explore the essence of God, Who is above all, how much pride and arrogance there is in this! 379 “I think,” says St. Vasily, - that comprehension (of the Divine essence) surpasses not only people, but also any rational nature. “Reasonable” is what I call created nature here. For the Father is knowable only by the Son and the Holy Spirit" 380. Thus, this inability to cognize the Divine nature is not limited to people alone, but extends to the angelic world. Only the three Divine Hypostases have complete knowledge of Their common essence. And St. Vasily concludes: “The essence of God, as has been proven, is completely incomprehensible and ineffable for human nature” 381. This does not mean, however, for St. Vasily, that God is completely incomprehensible. Such incomprehensibility would preclude the possibility of conscious worship of God. This is exactly what his opponents, the Eunomians, reproached him for, asking him the following question: “Do you worship what you know or what you do not know?” 382 St. Basil understands the pitfall in this question. “If we answer that we know what we worship, they have a quick answer: “What is the essence of the worshiped?” And if we admit that we do not know its essence, they turn our answer against us and say: “So you worship what you do not know.”383 This Anomean question presupposes that all true knowledge is knowledge of essence, and especially that in God everything is essence. In his answer, St. Vasily disputes both of these statements: “And we say that knowledge is polysemantic. In fact, we say that we know the greatness of God and His power and wisdom, and goodness, and the Providence with which He provides for us, and the righteousness of His judgment, but not the essence itself. So this question has a catching nature” 384. Thus, St. Vasily admits, from the point of view of knowledge, in any case, a difference between the essence of God and His properties and manifestations. In order to better explain the nature of this difference in God, St. Vasily again departs from considering the created world. “In ordinary use,” says St. Vasily, - things that, at the immediate sight of the mind, seem simple and united, but upon detailed examination seem diverse and many, such things, divided by the mind, are called separated by one thought (ἐπίνοια)" 385, - "for example, the first meeting (of the mind) tells us that the body is simple, but subsequent reflection shows that it is different, decomposing it by thought into what it is made of, into color and image and resistance and size, and so on” 386. St. Vasily gives the following definition of this ἐπίνοια (invention), through which we distinguish the properties of things and which seems to be a secondary intellectual act over the immediate data of the senses: “Invention (ἐπίνοια) is called a more detailed and accurate secondary reflection (ἐπενθύμησις) about what was captured by the mind (τοῦ νοηθέντος) after the first thought (νόημα) produced in us by sensation” 387. In other words: “Everything, to put it briefly, known to the senses and seemingly simple in its subject, but after its speculative consideration forms a complex concept, is called a perceived idea” 388. One can generally say that for St. Vasily, since we are talking about the created world, the differences seen in it by our mind correspond to something real in objects. They testify to the complex nature of all things, without, however, introducing division into them and without violating their unity. Something similar, according to St. Basil, could be said regarding our knowledge of God. “We are taught by the Divine Scripture,” he says, “to use imagination (ἐπίνοια) in a way very close (to its usual use)” 389. Just as in created things, we distinguish in God by mental action His unknowable essence and what accompanies it and what is not His essence. These are, firstly, His hypostatic properties, such as ungeneracy (τὸ ἀγέννητον), or properties common to the Divine essence, such as incorruptibility. “If unbornness follows God,” St. polemicizes. Basil versus Eunomius - it is clear that she follows Him from the outside. But what is outside of God is not His essence” 390. Based on these distinctions κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, we apply to God numerous names, each of which corresponds to something real and different in God, but in no way designates His essence. “If all these (names) belonged to one thing signified, it would be absolutely necessary that they should have the same force among themselves... So that one who heard about the immutability of God would be directed to His ungeneracy; and whoever heard about His indivisibility would be led to His creativity. But what could be more absurd than such a mixture” 391. Or rather, as St. writes. Basil in another place, all these names illuminate the same subject from different sides: “If you say “God,” you designate the same One whom you thought through other names. But if all the names attached to the Divine nature are equivalent to each other in designating an object, they, by a different expression, direct our mind to the same thing” 392. However, “there is not a single name that is sufficient to, having embraced the entire Divine nature, be able to express it, but numerous and varied, each with its own meaning, they together form a dull and completely small concept in comparison with the whole, for us, however, quite sufficient” 393. Positive or negative, these names do not reveal the essence of God. So, speaking about the Old Testament patriarchs, St. Basil notes that God did not reveal His name to them, “much less He did not reveal to them His essence, what it is... since this obviously exceeds the ability of human hearing” 394. Even the name “Lord” “is not the name of essence, but of power” 395. Or, as he explains elsewhere: “The naming (of the Divine) bears the indication of some edifying or acting authority, and the Divine nature in all imaginary names remains undesignated, what it is in itself” 396. So the word "God" for St. Basil expresses rather the Divine action than His being, although here St. Vasily prefers to express himself not too categorically in order to avoid unnecessary controversy 397. The names of Divine Persons also do not express their essence 398. Generally speaking, “names do not denote entities, but properties” 399. However, most often used by St. Basil uses the expression ἐνέργεια - action, manifestation, energy in the singular, but usually in the plural, when he talks about God and our knowledge of Him. This word may have St. Vasily has several meanings. In ordinary things, it denotes an action understood as the normal use of some thing. “Have you fully perceived the action (τὴν ἐνέργειαν) of your hand?” - asks St. Vasily his friend 400. In relation to God, the energies, understood as His manifold actions and manifestations, are contrasted with His simple and inexpressible essence. [God], says St. Basil, “is not some multi-named Being (οὐ πολυώνυμός τις ὤν), because not all names mutually refer to the same thing. For some (ἄλλο) are signified by light, others by vines, and others by shepherds. But being one in His subject (ὑποκείμενον) and one simple and uncomplicated essence, He calls Himself differently in different cases, transforming and applying to Himself names that differ from each other by invention (ἐπινοίαι). Consequently, He applies different names to Himself in accordance with the difference in His actions (κατὰ γὰρ τὴν τῶν ἐνεργειῶν διαφορὰν) and according to His attitude towards those whom He benefits” 401. “If (Eunomius) sees absolutely nothing (in God) by imagination (κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν), then he will have to recognize as equally essence everything that is said about God (τὰ ἐπιλεγόμενα τῷ Θεῷ). But how then would it not be ridiculous to say that the creative force is an essence? Or that industry is also an essence? Or that foresight is also an essence? And, simply, consider all energy to be an essence?” 402 The knowledge of God by His energies is sometimes thought of by St. Basil as His knowledge from His creations. “It is natural,” he writes, “that the essence is inaccessible to all vision (ἀπερίοπτον) except that of the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit. But when we rise from His actions (ἐνεργειῶν), comprehending the Creator through His creations, we gain an understanding of His goodness and wisdom. This is precisely what is known in God, which God has revealed to all people” 403. Thus, there is a revelation of God that allows us to know Him without His essence becoming accessible to us: “Creations,” explains St. Basil the Great, - point out to us the powers and wisdom and art (of God), but not His essence” 404. Such knowledge of God from His actions is the only possible way to get any closer to exploring His incomprehensible essence. “If it were possible,” writes St. Vasily to the chief physician Eustathius, - to contemplate the Divine nature itself... we would absolutely not need other words or instructions... But since it is beyond the comprehension of those who seek, and we think about what is not grasped by our knowledge on the basis of some indications, then it is absolutely necessary for us to be guided by the actions of God to study the Divine nature” 405. Thus denying any possibility of direct knowledge of the nature of God, St. Basil again emphasizes the difference between the essence of God and His actions: “Knowing that God is a benefactor and a judge and just. we have learned the difference between actions, but we nevertheless cannot know the nature of the acting from the understanding of actions... So, the other (ἄλλο) is an essence for which a word capable of expressing it has not yet been found, but a different meaning of the names (περὶ αὐτὴν) related to it and called by some action or dignity” 406. Such a distinction (κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν) between the essence of God and His energies, which we perceive in Him by a mental act, which is based on something that really exists in Him, obviously confronts St. Vasily asks about the simplicity of God, which he wants to preserve. This was precisely the main argument of Eunomius in his polemic against St. Vasily: God is completely simple, He is entirely essence, and any difference in Him between His essence and properties would introduce intolerable complexity into Him, even if it were only a matter of tripartite differences. Thus, ungeneracy for Eunomius was not a property, but the very essence of God, who thus becomes completely cognizable by us. St. Basil is fully aware of the importance of this objection. He expresses it as follows: “But God, they say, is simple, and everything that you could enumerate in Him that is knowable belongs to His essence (τῆς οὐσίας ἔστι)” 407. “This is sophistry,” answers St. Vasily, - full of countless absurdities. We have listed so many things, so are these all names of a single entity? And is His formidability mutually equivalent to His love for mankind, justice to creative power, foreknowledge to reward, greatness to providence? Or, when we say any of these names, are we pointing to His essence? 408 Eunomians must, therefore, say that everything that we know about God (that He is terrible, just, benevolent) constitutes the very essence of God, or, “if they say that the essence is something else, then let them not try to deceive us with their reasoning about the simplicity of God” 409. However, it should be noted that St. Basil does not say in his writings that God is simple, but that His essence is simple, or that He is simple in essence, but multiple in His energies and that this multiplicity does not violate the simplicity of His essence. St. Basil often returns to this statement, which may seem paradoxical, explaining to us that these differences in God are outside His essence, even if it is a question of hypostatic differences, and therefore they cannot introduce complexity into Him, and that the energies, just like the Hypostases, are not parts of God, and that God is in all His fullness in each of them. “If we,” writes St. Basil, - took unbornness as part of the essence, the statement (Eunomius) would be appropriate, saying that the complex consists of various things. But if we understand the essence of God as light or life or good, since all that He is is life, all light and all good, and life is followed by ungeneracy, how can He who is simple in essence not be uncomplicated? For the images that reveal His properties do not violate the concept of His simplicity, since otherwise everything that is said about God would make Him complex for us” 410. Therefore, for St. Basil, if we want to preserve the concept of Divine simplicity, we are faced with the following dilemma: or, according to Eunomius, refuse to see any differences in God, but then we refuse all conscious worship of Him; or not to introduce these differences into the essence itself, so as not to make Him complex: “If we want to preserve the concept of the simple and without parts, then we will either say nothing about God except His ungeneracy, and refuse to call Him invisible, unchangeable, Creator, Judge and everything that we have now accepted for His glorification; or, if we accept all these names, then what will we do? Shall we attribute them all to essence and thereby reduce Him and show Him not only to be complex, but also composed of parts unlike each other, because each of these names means something different from the other? But no, we will understand them as being outside the essence” 411. This is how St. protects. Basil the concept of the simplicity of God's being in his polemic against Eunomius. And in his letters, he again emphasizes the inexpressibility of the Divine nature even in His actions and identifies them with the Divine grace descending on us. “All this,” he writes, “works (ἐνεργεῖται) equally for those who are worthy from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit... all grace and power... and whatever other good that comes to us...” 412. “Nevertheless, we will not be able to know the nature of the actor through understanding His actions (energies)” 413. And returning again, in his letter 234 to St. Amphilochius, to his doctrine of the knowability of God, St. Basil writes: “But His actions are varied, and His essence is simple, but we say that we know God from His actions (ἐκ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν), but we do not promise to get closer to the essence itself, for His actions descend to us, and His essence remains inaccessible” 414. This last statement αὐτοῦ μένει ἀπρόσιτος) is especially important. It is not just a matter of an intellectual act on our part, by which we discern in God His essence and His actions, but rather of the movement of God, in which He, remaining inaccessible and united in His essence, multiplies Himself and descends to us in His energies, without the simplicity of His essence being violated by this. In conclusion, I would like to say that at the basis of all these theological and philosophical proofs, St. Basil's Christian traditional faith, which demands the preservation of the transcendence and mystery of God and at the same time insists on the possibility of rendering Him reasonable and genuine worship - two things that were endangered by the teaching of Eunomius. “I,” says St. Vasily, I know that God exists, but what His essence is, I believe is beyond understanding. How then am I saved? By faith, for faith it is enough to know that God exists, and not what He is... therefore, knowledge of the Divine essence is a feeling of His incomprehensibility. And what is honored is not that the essence is known, what it is, but that it is known that it exists” 415. “From action comes knowledge, from knowledge worship... but we know God from His power, so that we believe in Him whom we have known, and we worship Him in whom we have believed” 416 . Published from: Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1968. No. 61. pp. 48–55. – Ed. A report read in a slightly abridged form at the V International Congress of Patrolologists in Oxford on September 19, 1967. We quote St. Basil the Great according to Ming's "Patrology" (PG), and his letters also according to the publication: X. Courtonne. Saint Basile. Lettres. Texte établi et traduit. T. 1–3. Paris, 1957, 1961, 1966. Due to the lack of a Russian edition of the Works of St. Vasily, we do the Russian translation ourselves from the Greek text. Basil. Magn. Adv. Eunom. I, 13 // PG. T. 29. Col. 541С (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 194). Ibid. I, 12 // PG. T. 29. Col. 540A (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 192). Basil. Magn. Adv. Eunom. I, 14 // PG. T. 29. Col. 544A (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 195). Ibid. I, 14 // PG. T. 29. Col. 545A (Russian translation: Ibid.). Basil. Magn. Er. 234, 1 Courtonne 1, 1 (PG. T. 32. Col. 868C) (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 2. P. 815). Ibid. 1, 1–5 (PG. T. 32. Col. 868C) (Russian translation: Ibid.). Ibid. 1, 5–10 (PG. T. 32. Col. 868C) (Russian translation: Ibid.). Adv. Eunom. I, 6 // PG. T. 29. Col. 521C (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 183–184). Ibid. I, 6 // PG. T. 29. Col. 524A (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 183). Ibid. I, 6 // PG. T. 29. Col. 524B (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 183). Ibid. I, 6 // PG. T. 29. Col. 524С; Hom. in Hex. 4, 5 // PG. T. 29. Col. 89B–92В (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 184, 368–369). Adv. Eunom. I, 7 // PG. T. 29. Col. 524C (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 184). Ibid. I, 5 // PG. T. 29. Col. 517BC (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 180). Adv. Eunom. I, 8 // PG. T. 29. Col. 528ВС (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 186). Er. 189, 5; 1, 26–30 (PG. T. 32. Col. 689C) (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 2. P. 713). Adv. Eunom. I, 10 // PG. T. 29. Col. 533C (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 1. P. 190). Ibid. I, 13 // PG. T. 29. Col. 541CD (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 194). Ibid. II, 3 // PG. T. 29. Col. 577B (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 215). Er. 189, 8; 1, 6–9 (РG. T. 32. Col. 696A) (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 2. P. 716). Ibid. 1, 25–31 (PG. T. 32. Col. 696ВС) (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 716). Adv. Eunom. II, 5 // PG. T. 29. Col. 580С (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 216). Ibid. II, 4 // PG. T. 29. Col. 577C (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 215). Er. 293, 1–2 (PG. T. 32. Col. 1033D) (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 2. P. 904). Adv. Eunom. I, 7 // PG. 29. Col. 524D–525A (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 1. P. 184). Ibid. I, 8 // PG. T. 29. Col. 528B (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 186). Adv. Eunom. I, 14 // PG. T. 29. Col. 544ВС (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 195). Ibid. II, 32 // PG. T. 29. Col. 648A (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 253). Er. 189, 6; 1, 6–14 (PG. T. 32. Col. 692CD) (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 2. P. 714). Ibid. 189, 8; 1, 17–20 (PG. T. 32. Col. 696AB) (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 716). Er. 234, 1; 1, 13–14 (PG. T. 32. Col. 868D) (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 815). Ibid. 1, 14–20 (PG. T. 32. Col. 868D–869A) (Russian translation: Ibid.). Ibid. 1, 24–25 (PG. T. 32. Col. 869A) (Russian translation: Ibid.). Adv. Eunom. II, 29 // PG. T. 29. Col. 640V (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 1. P. 250). Adv. Eunom. II, 29 // PG. T. 29. Col. 640BC (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 1. P. 250). Er. 189, 7; 1, 7–12 (PG. T. 32. Col. 693B) (Russian translation: Ibid. T. 2. P. 715). Ibid. 189, 8; 1, 12–13 (PG. T. 32. Col. 696A) (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 716). Ibid. 234, 1; 1, 24–25 (PG. T. 32. Col. 869AB) (Russian translation: Ibid. pp. 815–816). Ep. 2; 1, 8–14 (PG. T. 32. Col. 869ВС) (Russian translation: St. Basil the Great. Creations. T. 2. P. 816). Ibid. 3; 1, 12–13, 19–21 (PG. T. 32. Col. 869D–872A) (Russian translation: Ibid. P. 816).