B. ON COGNIZANCE AND FAITH

B. 意識和信仰

I. On cognizance

I. 關於意識

4. Cognizance «in persona»

4. 在人格之中的意識

Part 2 : The element of Love Another basic element is the element of love. Once again, we are not referring to an emotion. There are certain words that we must constantly interpret. We are also not referring to a relationship that arises from a compulsory state, with no liberty. And be careful here, because this is so very profound, that it escapes us. Every relationship contains a compelling factor when it is governed by laws, like for instance the laws of biology. Or aesthetic laws for Plato and especially for the Ancient Greeks for whom Eros was a basic element. Sykoutris analyzes this very capably; you should also definitely read Plato’s Symposium in your free time – especially its Introduction. It discerns between Christian Love and Platonic Eros. And it proves that in Platonic Love, the attraction to something good - which was understood to be beauty - is irresistible. It wasn’t possible to not love a good thing, or not be attracted by good. We therefore have an aesthetic necessity here, which was prevalent in ancient Hellenism. You can furthermore have a moral necessity; one cannot avoid loving a good person. Or even, a biological necessity… Wherever we encounter a necessity, we cannot acknowledge a case of “love” therein. And how do we prove that there is no necessity, or that it does indeed exist? Or, how do we prove that in a certain instance I do not have any such necessity? Only when one can reverse the conditions, and this is exactly where the Gospel introduced the greatest revolution. Sykoutris mentions in a footnote that, If Satan asked God “why do You love people? Tell me, give me one reason, knowing how humans are thus and thus and thus… and even though You can see their pitiful state..”, he would have put God in a tight corner. What sort of excuse would there be for such a love? Where would you find a reason to justify His love towards a sinner, where everything, simply everything indicates that he is worth despising and not loving? Well, it is exactly then that you have proved that you love, of your own free will. You do not love because you have to love; you love because you willingly want to love. Well, I am saying all this to show that when we speak of knowledge that contains love, we must concede that it also has to contain the element of freedom. We are subsequently speaking of a love that does not arise from any necessity whatsoever, of any kind, even the most delicate kind and the most spiritual, or moral, as we would call it. God loves in exactly this manner, and this is exactly what Christ reveals to us. He reveals a Love of God that is liberal to such an extent, that it is not hampered by man’s sinfulness. If you remove the love towards a sinner from the Gospel, the entire notion of the liberty within God’s love will fall through. Because, to love a just person and a good person is almost inevitable; however, to love a sinner and to die for a sinner as Christ did, well that may be sheer madness or foolishness, but it is surely an expression of liberty. The third element that comprises love – which we are describing as a means of cognizance – and notice carefully how we are slowly reaching the crucial point, that is, that one comes to know God only through a lattice of relationships. If there is no loving relationship, if there is no love, no-one can ever know God. And here we stand at a point so outstandingly obvious in the New Testament. We could examine several verses that mention this curious albeit simple point: that if someone does not love God, he will never know God. Paul, in his 1st Epistle to Corinthians – which, as I have said in the past, deals chiefly with the issue of cognizance, and has been elaborated on with precision – concludes that “ ….many boast that they have knowledge..” !! And of course, we must examine what it means, to have knowledge. Paul says in chapter 8: “ knowledge provides something physical, whereas love provides something constructive” . And he mentions the phrase “ if one believes he knows something, he has never known anything whatsoever, in the way that it should be known; if one loves God, he shall be known by Him” (Cor.A’ 8.2-4). Pay attention to this verse, which is pure gnosiology. “if one believes he knows something, he has never known anything whatsoever…..”. A complete absence of knowledge. Then he goes to the point where “if one loves God, he shall be known by Him…”. Even in the critics’ edition, you might observe that many manuscripts have omitted the word “God”, and they may quite possibly be the most ancient ones. It thus becomes obvious that “…. if one loves, he shall be known by God”. That is, love is a prerequisite. As for “known by God” , it basically means (as Paul says elsewhere, in the Galatians Epistle “… having known God…” but afterwards immediately correcting it and saying “… or rather, being known by God..”), that you cannot meet God unless He has acknowledged you; because we - as creatures – do not have the liberty of knowledge that the uncreated God has. Now, God knows us primarily, and He reveals Himself to us; but this cannot occur if the prerequisite of love is not there. If man cannot love, he cannot meet God. When we go to John Ch.1, it becomes quite clear. He says there “.. he that loveth not, knew not God, for God is love “ (John, 1.4,8). The words “ he that loveth not” have a special meaning in this chapter, in this epistle. It denotes the relations within a community, a congregation. One must exist, one must belong in such a lattice of relations, within a congregation. We shall hence examine the significance that ecclesiology has in Gnosiology. It may be quite specific there, in John’s words, but there is also something else that we should also observe. Immediately after he spoke these words, he continued with an explanation of what “God is love” means; this is something that we have frequently misinterpreted. “…. In this, God’s love was made apparent…..”. “….. that God is love…” because “…. He sent forth His only-begotten Son….”. God’s love is not an emotion, nor is it something that flows from His nature, as we sometimes say “God loves us by nature”. The Fathers were also very careful and retracted all such expressions. Because even the ancient Greeks and Plato used to say that God is love, and that He exudes love from His nature. Gregorios Nazianzenos does not acknowledge this either, and attacks it, because as you may remember, it was the cause of the problems created by Eunomius. He attacks precisely this idea of Plato’s. He refers to “the Greek philosopher”, and states that for us, God’s love is not “an effusion from a crater”. It does not proceed from His nature. God’s love consists of His being a Father and having a Son; just as I mentioned shortly before. And this Son “He gave to us”. The Father’s love is His Son; it is a persona, a personal relationship, which henceforth is offered to us also, as a means of knowing God. The conclusion therefore that is reached, is that knowledge springs solely from a love relationship, which God Himself commenced to offer. We cannot begin this relationship ourselves in a state of liberty. This gives rise to a huge philosophical problem; why don’t we as creatures freely know anything?. Why is everything to us a given thing? Well, that is exactly what it means to be a creature, to be something created and not uncreated. In reality, even your very existence is a given thing. Therefore, you are subject to compulsory knowledge. You cannot know anything in absolute liberty. God therefore, who is the only absolutely free Being, is the only One who can love freely. That is why He initially volunteers knowledge of Himself. He acknowledges us as His sons, through His own Son, which is what Paul meant when he said “or rather, being known by God”, and through this means, we henceforth know Him as Father. I will therefore finish off, with the following conclusion. The cognizance of God involves an accession into the love relationship between the Father and the Son in liberty, under our own free will. This relationship is free and not compulsory, because God is not obliged to love us; He does it, of His own free will. Neither are we obliged to love Him. We also enter this relationship voluntarily. Therefore the accession into a loving relationship such as this, contains the potential for the ontological identification of God as existing “in the persona of Jesus Christ”. Because, for us, God exists within this relationship to such an ontological degree, that if this ceased to be, our very existence would also cease to be. In reality, this means that if we don’t accede into the relationship of love that exists between the Father and the Son, we cannot ever know God. We shall know Him in thousands of philosophical ways, pagan ways or mystic ways, but not as a Father; that is, as the Father of the specific Son - a persona - and subsequently as our own Father, because we have related to the persona of the Son as being our father…. The second element is that love should be the factor that creates the lattice of these relations, where all those who acknowledge God as the Father in this manner, through Christ , find themselves in a state of existential inter-dependence amongst themselves. Therefore, one must belong inside the community, inside the body that is formed by these relations. You cannot approach God from outside this body of persons who acknowledge Him in the way the Son does. And this means that God is known fully, only within the Congregation. Only in this way. Otherwise, He will be acknowledged as something else, but not as the Father. But God is the Father. It is how He reveals Himself. It is how He wants to reveal Himself. I don’t know what else He is. He may be many other things, but because – as I said – knowledge presupposes willful revelation, this is the way that freely reveals God to us as the Father. For these things to happen, a cleansing is imperative. You cannot reach this point of knowing God, of knowing Him in this manner, without clearing up your relationship in general; it is because in knowledge, there is interference by all kinds of relationships. In order for me to know about this table, the relationships that I have with the overall physical environment will need to interfere: with colors, with shapes, with everything. We never truly know about an object, without these general empirical relationships. Well, the same thing applies, when attempting to know God. Our entire existence, along with all our empirical relationships, is entangled in the quest to know God. I know God, through all my relationships, through things, through nature, through my senses, through objects. This is not a knowledge that flows only through my mind, nor only through my heart as an emotional center. It is a broader, existential knowledge, which engulfs my entire identity. My identity itself is linked to all the relationships that I have with things, with faces, with objects, with everyone; but especially with my personal relationships, because they can affect my identity. All of these things must therefore undergo a filtering, a cleansing, in order to determine to what extent they can be included in this relationship with God, through which His Son will reveal Him, and make Him known to us in this way. This is where we shall discover that things are not so easy, and that they truly require cleansing. I would say that this is what ascetic living is all about. What is known as cleansing of passions is exactly this clearing up of our existential relations with everything that is entangled in our personal identity. This clearing up is a necessary prerequisite. At this point, the words of Saint Gregorios the Theologian acquire immense significance, as I mentioned in the previous lesson: “…… it is not for everyone…. to philosophize about God..”, but “… for those who have undergone scrutiny and have lived in theory of things, and who have previously cleansed or detached both body and soul….”. But we should not read the Fathers by isolating quotations. Saint Gregorios himself stressed in another of his speeches the same thing that I have tried to extensively analyze here; that is, in order to know God the prerequisite may be cleansing, but it inevitably relates to loving. He writes: “… God may be the ultimate radiance ….. which becomes imaginable as we incessantly detach ourselves, it becomes loved as we incessantly envisage it, and, by incessantly loving, it becomes self-evident..”. Thus, cleansing is not a purpose on its own; An ascetic life will not reveal God to us. Neither do we automatically meet God by cleansing ourselves of our passions. God becomes known, through our communion within the body of Christ; by involving ourselves in the relationships that are created by this body. That is when God reveals Himself, and that is when our relationship with God is an actual relationship between a Father and a Son. And this is what gives a special meaning to what we say (unfortunately only in words most of the time), when we are asked “what is the difference between an ascetic Christian and a guru?”. We often hear the response “but we live that way in Christ”. What do we mean, “in Christ”? Do we simply respond with a word, a name, and the matter is settled? All the rest of the story is Buddhist, and from that point onwards we insert a name – Christ –and that’s the end of the story? What sort of existential face value does Christ have, that makes Him the determining factor? If we don’t set down these elements of Christ’s body, of the relations that Christ creates within the community of His body – the Church – we shall not be able to locate this determining factor in all these issues. So what? A Buddhist comes to know God by cleansing himself of his passions; therefore, his ascetic lifestyle is obviously not his ultimate goal. The cognizance of God does not spring from, nor depend on, nor is it accomplished automatically, by cleansing one’s passions. There must be the positive element of accession into the body in which Christ reveals Himself as a community of many personae who are inter-connected by love, and can therefore see God’s presence, in Christ. And I shall once again reiterate, from another long and tiresome road this time, to something that I mentioned in a previous lesson, with regard to dogmas: That dogmas are interpreted within the Church, and specifically during the Eucharist. It is only here, that God is acknowledged in the fullest possible way that we have. All other ways are provisional, and although I do not disavow their importance and their significance, but, for fear that we are in danger of making them an end in themselves, I am obliged to stress that they are not ends in themselves. Cognizance, therefore, of God presupposes our willing accession into the loving relationships that God Himself has created with us, in Christ. “If God loves my brother in Christ and I hate my brother, I cannot get to know God.” It is imperative that I have the same kind of love for my brother that God has for him. The cognizance of God moves along this crooked path, which is not simply a perpendicular between my heart and God, but something that also has a horizontal dimension to it . That is why “….. he that loveth not, knew not God, for God is love”. Before closing the topic of Gnosiology, we need to clear up the issue of negation, based on everything that we have talked about. With the pretext of Lossky’s writings in his “Mystic Theology” where he has mainly referred to the Cappadocian Fathers and Saint Gregorios of Palamas, the ignorance aspect has become overstressed. Indeed, in their task of refuting Eunomian theories, the Cappadocian Fathers had overstressed the idea that God could not become known, no matter how close one may seem to have approached Him: “ …. Even if one becomes greater than him (Paul) and reaches even closer to God, having attained a smaller distance from Him and from perfect knowledge, or even if he has surpassed us with regard to the complex and humble and earth-infested alloy…..” (Gregorios the Theologian). But we must not forget the following, basic points: a) the ignorance of God is described by the Fathers as “incomprehensibility” or the “incomprehensible” notion of God. It does not therefore imply a denial of any kind of knowledge of God (if this were the case, then the Lord’s words ‘so that they may know You as the only true God’ etc would have no meaning); it rather implies a special kind of knowledge, that of “comprehensibility” which is also an impossible thing. This kind of knowledge – which Eunomians allowed – is the kind that we analyzed above as the “knowledge of things”, and we saw how and why it cannot be applied in the case of God. b) That which the Fathers do not accept, is the knowledge of the nature or of the essence of God; to actually comprehend the “first and unalterable nature, as it is known within the Trinity” (Gregorios the Theologian). This doesn’t mean that the Fathers refuse any talk of God as a Trinity. By relating the nature or the essence of God with the Father, the Eunomians caused confusion by admitting that, if we could know God as the Father, we can also know the nature of God (since divine essence and Father are fully aligned notions). The distinction between essence and the Father, on which the Cappadocian Fathers insisted, ruled out any confusion. Thus, by saying that we do not know God in essence, does not automatically imply that we do not know Him as the Father (or as a Trinity of personae). And reversely, to say that we know God as the Father, does not automatically imply that we know Him in essence or by nature. All of these indicate that the foregoing analysis is in accordance with patristic gnosiology: that God can only be known “in persona”, as persons, and not by nature or in essence. Patristic literature does not provide us with any existential analysis of what it means to know “in persona” or as personae. It does, however, furnish us with the basic principle that there is a fundamental distinction gnosiologically between nature and the persona, since there is absolutely no way of knowing the nature of God, whereas it is possible to acknowledge His personal existence. Subsequently, negation that refers to the nature of God should not be generalized as negation and incomprehensibility with regard to His personal existence. Beyond this general principle of distinction between the essence of God – something that is utterly inconceivable - and His personal-triadic existence which is made known to us through His Son in the Spirit, the Fathers do not offer us – as we said – an analysis of what it means to know God “in the persona of Jesus Christ” and as a Trinity of personae. This analysis was not deemed necessary in the years of the Fathers, but that doesn’t mean it should never be done over the centuries. On the contrary, it is an obligation of Dogmatics – as we said during the first lessons – to proceed to interpret dogmas, provided it doesn’t betray or distort the spirit of the Fathers. That is what all the greater Fathers did: they interpreted their predecessors, according to the needs of their own time, and they sought to analyze basic terminology. One such necessity that historical needs imposed with regard to Gnosiology was, during the Patristic years, the distinction between the essence and the energy of God. This distinction, which appears somewhat hazily in Saint Athanasios and more clearly in the Cappadocian Fathers, is extensively developed by Saint Gregorios of Palamas, as we know. In this way, the Patristic principle of the “incomprehensibility” of God’s essence is preserved, and the energy or the energies of God are offered as a basis of gnosiology. Thus, negation is again confined to the essence of God. The personae, as well as the energies of God, which are both uncreated, allow us to know God and to theologize. But in this case, as we saw from the preceding analysis, cognizance cannot be perceived as comprehension. It is a kind of knowledge that needs analyzing, if the Fathers’ aspect were to be interpreted. This is the analysis that we attempted here.

二：愛的要素 另外一個基本的要素則是愛。再一次，我們不是在講一種情感。有一些字是我們必須經常解析的。我們也不是在講一個被強迫出現的、 没有自由因素的關係。並且， 你得在這裡小心一點，因為這是非常深奧的、我們時常未注意到的問題。每一種關係皆包含着一個強制性的、由法律所牵制 （比如，生物學的法律）的因素。對柏拉圖來說， 尤其是對將愛性 (eros) 看作為一個基本的要素的古代希臘人來說， 這則是美感的法律。Sykoutris 曾經非常有能力地分析過這點；你也應該在你的閒暇時間内讀一讀柏拉圖的 Symposium -- 尤其是其之序言。它在基督徒的愛和柏拉圖的愛性 (eros) 之間作了辨別。它同時也證明了，在柏拉圖的愛性之中， 好的 （也就是美麗的）東西所散發出的吸引力是不能抵抗的。 不去愛一件好的東西，或不被一件好的東西所吸引住，這是不可能的。我們因此在這裡有一種美感的必要性，這在古代希臘裡是非常流行的。你在此外也可有一種道德的必要性：不去愛一個好的人， 這則是不可能的。 我們甚至可有一個生物的必要性 ... 每當我們遇見一種必要性之時，我們皆不能認為在此有「愛」。 但是，我們要如何才能證明在此没有任何的必要性，或者，在此確實有必要性？或者，我們要如何才能證明，在某某事件中，我確實沒有任何的必要性？只有當我們能够將當前的情形顛倒的時候，而這則是聖經福音所作出的最偉大的革命性的貢獻。Sykoutris 曾經在一個註腳中提及過，如果撒旦問上帝， 「你為甚麼愛人？告訴我，給我一個理由，尤其是當你知道人類是多麼地如此和如此和如此 ... 以及當你能夠看見他們是在如此可悲的境界之時 ..」，他將會把上帝擠進了一個無可回答的地步中。如此的愛能有甚麼樣的理由？ 你是在哪裡能够找到一個可以辯護他如此愛罪人的理因，即使全部一切皆顯示着人是只值得蔑視的、而完全不值得愛的？但是，就是在此時， 你才算是證明了你的愛，你完全是自由自願地愛。你不是因為你必須愛而愛；你愛， 那是因為你自願地想要愛。我之所以說這些，是為了顯示出，當我們說到一個包含着愛的知識的時候，我們必須承認， 它也得包含着自由的要素。我們是在說一個没有任何必要性的愛，即使是最微妙的， 最精神性的，或是最道德性的必要性。上帝的愛正好就是這種形式的，而這就是基督所顯示于我們的。他顯示出上帝的一種如此自由的愛，這種愛甚至不會被人的罪孽所阻礙到。如果你將對罪人的愛從福音中除去，在上帝的愛之中的自由性則會全部崩潰。因為，愛一個正當的人或是愛一個好人， 這幾乎是不可避免的；可是，愛一個罪人或是為一個罪人死（也就是基督所作的），這也許是愚蠢的或是神經不清的行為，但它確實是一種自由的表現。 在（我們所認為是意識的一種方式的）愛之中的第三個要素 -- 仔細注意著我們是如何緩慢地抵達到最關建重要的一點 -- 則是，一個人是只有透過與上帝的關係的格架才能認識他的。如果沒有一個親愛的關係，如果沒有愛，人是绝對不能夠認識上帝的。這點在新約聖經中是很明顯地被表現出的。我們可以看一看一些提及到這個既好奇又簡單的問題的詩句：如果某人不愛上帝，他就不會認識到上帝。保羅在他對歌林多人的第一書信中 （我已說過，這件書信主要是關於意識的這個問題的）說道，「.... 很多人自誇有知識 ..」當然，我們必須查看一下，有知識， 這到底是什麼意思。保羅在第八章中說道：「知識提供一些物質性的東西，但惟有愛心能造就人」。他並且提及：「若有人以為自己知道甚麼，按他所當知道的， 他仍是不知道。 若有人愛神，這人乃是神所知道的」（歌林多前書， 8 1-4）。 注意這篇短文，它是一個纯真的知識學 （gnosiology）的例子。「若有人以為自己知道甚麼，按他所當知道的， 他仍是不知道.....」這是毫無知識的情况。然後他再說道「若有人愛上帝，這人乃是上帝所知道的 ...」即使是在評論家的版本中，你也可能注意到，很多文稿省略了「上帝」這個字，並且這些可能是屬於最古老的文稿的。因此， 這就變成：「....若有人愛，這人乃是上帝所知道的」。也就是說，愛是一個先決條件。至於「被上帝所知道的」，它在基本上是意味著（就如保羅在別處所說過的，比如在對加拉太人的書信中，「... 知道了上帝 ...」； 但是之後呢，他立即為此作了改正，再說：「...  但說得更確切些，被上帝所知道..」），除非上帝已承認了你， 不然，你是不能會見上帝的；因為身為受造物的我們， 是沒有未受造的上帝所有的知識的自由性的。 上帝是最先知道我們的，他並且對我們顯露他自己；但是， 愛的這個先決條件若是不在的話，這些是不可能發生的。如果人不能愛，他就不能會見上帝。當我們念約翰之書第一章的時候，這點则成為相當清楚的。他在那兒說：「沒有愛心的，就不認識神，因為神就是愛。」（約翰一書， 4， 8) 「沒有愛心的」這一句在這篇書信中， 在這一章之中， 是有一個特別的意思的。這表示着在一個團體中的，在一個聚會中的， 人際關係。一個人是必須屬於以及存在於這種關係的格架中的，也就是在這個聚會之中。我們因此將看一看教會學 (ecclesiology) 對知識學來說能有什麼樣的意義。這或許在約翰的書寫中會是相當明顯的，但是在此也有其他的我們也該觀察到的某些東西。 在他說了這些之後，他立即繼續地解釋「上帝是愛」這是什麼意思，我們經常誤解這句話。「.... 在這之中，上帝的愛變得很明顯 .....」；「..... 上帝是愛...」因為「...他差他獨生子到世間來....」。 上帝的愛不是一種情感，它也不是從他的本質中所散發出的一種東西，好比我們有時會說「上帝是在他的本質中愛我們的」。教父們在此也是非常小心的， 並且， 他們收起不用所有的這樣的表達方式。因為， 連古代的希臘人和柏拉圖也經常說神是愛，以及神從他的本質中散發出愛。Gregorios Nazianzenos 也不承認這點，反而攻擊這點，因為， 你也許還記得，這是 Eunomius 所造成的問題的起因。 他偏偏就是攻擊柏拉圖的這個想法。他提及到一位「希臘哲學家」，並且聲明， 對我們來說，上帝的愛不是「流出于一個山口的」。它不是從他的本質散發出的。上帝的愛是在于他為一名父親以及他有一個兒子的這回事；正如我不久之前才提及到的。他並且給予我們這個兒子。父親的愛是他的兒子；這是一個人格，一種個人私有性的關係，而這個個人私有性的關係又在以後被給予我們，以便我們能知道上帝。我們的結論因此则是，知識是完全來源于一種愛的關係的，而是上帝自己開始給予我們這個愛的關係的。我們自己是没有開始展開這種關係的自由的。 這則引起了一個很大的哲學性的問題；身為受造物的我們為甚麼不能自由地知道某某東西？為甚麼一切的東西都是給予我們的？但，那就是身為受造物的意思：是為一個受造物，而不是造物之者。實際上，甚至連我們的存有也是一件給予我們的事情。 因此，你只能有強迫性的知識。你是絕對不能在完全自由的情况下知道事物的。 所以呢，上帝是惟一的絕對自由的存有者，他是唯一的能夠自由地愛之者。那就是為甚麼他最初會主動地提供關於自己的知識。他經由他自己的兒子而認我們為他的兒子； 當保羅說「或說得更確切些，被上帝所知道」之時，他就是意味著這點，而我們從此以後也因此將上帝稱為父親。 我因此想以以下來作結論。對上帝的意識是發生於我們自由地以及在自願的情况下進入到在父親和兒子之間所有的愛的關係之中的時候。這種關係是自由的以及没有任何強迫性的，因為上帝没有愛我們的義務；他是自願地如此作的。我們也没有愛他的義務。我們也是自願地進入這種關係之中的。所以，進入於像這種的親愛的關係之中，這包含着存在性地將上帝認作為「是存在于耶穌基督的人格之中」的潛在性。因為，對我們來說，上帝是如此存在性地存在於這種關係之中的；一旦將不是這樣，我們自己的存有也會停止。 實際上，這意味著， 如果我們不進入到在父親和兒子之間所有的愛的關係之中，我們就不能認識到上帝。我們能以千萬種哲學性的方式 （異教的或神秘主義的）來試著認識他，但是總是不能將他認識為一名父親；這也就是說，將他認識為一個特别的兒子 （一個人格）的父親 ， 而隨後將他認識為我們自己的父親，因為我們已將兒子的人格聯繫為我們的父親 .... 在此的第二個要素則是，愛應該是建立起這些關係的格架的因素； 在這些關係中， 所有經由基督而認上帝為父親的人們，皆處於存在性地相互依賴的狀態中。所以，一個人必須屬於在一個團體之中， 屬於在由這些關係所形成的身體之中。 你是不能在這團體之外來接近上帝的， 因為是這個團體以兒子的身份來認識上帝的。這意味著， 上帝是只有在教會團體之內才可完全被認識的。這是唯一的方式。不然，他就只能被認為是其他的某些東西，而不是被認為是父親。但是， 上帝是父親。這是他顯露自己的方式。這是他想要顯露自己的方式。我不知道他還能是其他的甚麼些東西。他或許還能够是很多的其他種類的事物，但是， 因為 （我已說過） 知識是必须先有有意的顯露的這個先决條件的，所以，這就是上帝自由地對我們顯露自己為父親的方式。 為了能使這些事情發生，我們有一個清潔的必要。你不能在這種方式中認識上帝，如果你不先清除一下你的一般的人際關係等等；因為， 在知識中會有各種各樣的其他的關係干涉到。為了能瞭解這張桌子，我與一般的事物的環境的關係必须插入：在顏色方面，在形狀方面，在一切其他方面。若是没有這些其他的關係的經驗的話， 我們是不能真正地瞭解一個物體的。當我們嘗試著認識上帝之時， 也是同樣的。我們的整個存有，以及我們所有的其他的與事物或人們的關係，皆被糾纏于認識上帝的過程中。 我是經由世上的物體，經由我的感覺器官，經由大自然，經由事物，經由我所有的與事物或人們的關係而認識到上帝的。這不是一種只經過我的頭腦的知識，也不是一種只經過是為我的情感中心的心的感情。這是一種更廣闊的，存在性的知識，並且包括住我的自我的整體。我的自我身份是聯繫於我的所有的與事物，人們， 和物體等等的關係；尤其是我的個人私有性的關係，因為這些關係特别地能夠影響到我的自我身份的形成。所有這些東西因此必須經過一種過濾，一個清理，以便決定它們在甚麼程度上能够被包括在我與上帝的關係中 -- 而他的兒子是經由這個關係顯露出上帝並使我們熟知他的。在這裡， 我們將發現事情不是那麼容易的，所有的東西都是真正地需要清理的。我想說， 苦行生活大約就是這樣。所謂的感情的大清理 (the cleansing of passions) 就是這種包括著糾纏於我們的自我身份中的一切的我們的存在性的關係的清理。這種清理是一個必要的先決條件。 在此，Saint Gregorios The Theologian 所說過的話忽然獲得了很大的意義，就如我在以前的課堂中已提及過的：「..... 並不是每個人 .... 都可以搞關於上帝的哲學的 ..」，但是「... 至於那些已經受過了嚴格考驗的以及在對事物的理論中居住過了的，並且已經淨化或分離過了身體和靈魂的人 -- 他們是可以搞哲學的 ....」。但是我們不應該以一句句單獨念的方式來念教父們的著作。 Saint Gregorios 他自己已在他的另外的書寫中強調過同樣的， 我在此嘗試著分析的事情；那就是，為了能認識上帝， 於此的先決條件或許可能是清理，但是， 不可避免的，  這也必定與愛有關係。他寫道： 「...上帝或許是最極端的光輝 ..... 當我們不停地將自己分離開時， 這则變得可以想像的， 當我們不停地想像它時， 它则成為愛，然後，在不停地愛之後，它则會變得自明的 ..」。因此，清理自己不是目的；苦行生活它自己也是不會顯露上帝於我們的。我們自己也不會只因我們淨化了我們的感情而自動地會見到上帝的。 在我們與基督的身體之共融中， 當我們涉及自己於由這個身體所制造出的關係中時， 上帝即被認識到。就是在這個時候， 上帝顯露了自己，就是在這個時候， 我們與上帝的關係成為一個實際的父親與兒子的關係。這就是給予我們常說的話一個特別意思的東西（很不幸地，通常這只是說說而已），當有人問我們 一個苦行的基督徒和一名導師 (guru) 之間的差異是什麼的時候。 我們經常聽到這種答覆， 「但是， 我們是那樣地生活在基督中」。「在基督中」， 這是意味著甚麼？ 我們是不是只以一個字或是一個名字來回答，然後事情就會被解決了？剩下的就如在佛教中一樣，我們只是多插入一個名字 -- 基督 -- 而事情就做完了？基督到底有甚麼種類的存在性的表面價值，以至使他成為一個決定性的因數？如果我們不辨別出這些基督之身體的要素，也就是基督在他的身體的團體中所建立的人際關係的要素 -- 教會 -- 我們就不能在這些問題中發现那些決定性的因數。那又怎麼樣呢？一名佛教徒經由淨化他的情感而認識到神；因此，他的苦行生活顯然地不是他的最終目標。對上帝的意識不是來源於，也不是依賴於，情感之淨化， 而更不是經由這種淨化而被完成的。這是一定得需要進入基督的身體之中的這個正面性的要素，在這個身體之中， 基督顯示自己為一個由很多互相以愛相聯繫的人格們所组成的團體，而這些人格是因此能（在基督中）看見上帝的。在此我將再一次重復我在之前的課堂中在講關於教義的時候已提及過的一些東西 （只是這回是從既長而又煩人的另一條路開始的）：那就是，教條是在教會之內被解釋的，特別是在聖餐的時候。僅僅在這個時候，我們才是最有可能地認識到上帝。所有其他的方式皆是臨時性的，並且， 雖然我不想否認它們可有的重要性和意義，為了避免陷入將它們當成自我目的 (end in themselves) 的危險，我必须強調， 它們不是屬於自我目的的。 所以，對上帝之意識在事前需要我們自願地進入到上帝在基督中為我們所建立的親愛的關係之中。「如果上帝愛我在基督中的兄弟而我憎恨我的兄弟的話，那我就不能認識到上帝。」我必须有與上帝同樣的對我兄弟的愛。對上帝的意識是沿著這種彎路行動的，它不是只是我的心和上帝之間的一條垂直的路，它也有一個平行的方面。那就是為甚麼「..... 沒有愛心的，就不認識神，因為神就是愛」。 在我們結束知識學這個主題以前，我們必需要在我們已談論過了的一切的基礎上弄清楚否定 (negation) 的這個問題。因為 Lossky 的著作「神秘神學」之故 （在其中他主要是提及到 Cappadocian 教父們以及 Saint Gregorios of Palamas）， 無知這方面變得被過度強調的了。確實地，為了反駁 Eunomian 的理論， Cappadocian 教父們過分強調了上帝是不可知的這點，不管你是多麼地接近到上帝： 「.... 即使一個人變得比保羅還要偉大，並且甚至比他更能接近於上帝，以至離上帝以及完美的知識只有一段更小的距離，或者，即使他在這個復雜的和羞辱的以及充滿了泥土的合金方面遠遠地超越了我們 .....」（Gregorios the Theologian）。但是我們不可以忘記以下的基本的幾點： a) 對上帝的無知被教父們描寫為上帝的「不可理解性　（incomprehensibility）」或是「不能理解的」關於上帝的觀念。　因此，這並不意味著關於上帝的任何知識皆是不可能的（如果真是這樣，主的話 「以便他們可以識你為惟一的真正的神 」等等， 皆會沒有意義了）；反而，它是意味著一種特別的知識，一種不可能的「可能理解性」。　這種　（Eunomians 所允許的）知識是我們在之前已分析過的「關於事物的知識」，而我們已經看到它為甚麼不能用在上帝身上。 b.) 教父們所不能接受的事，是關於上帝的本質或本性的知識：也就是，真實地理解到「第一和永不變的、在三位一體中所見的本質」（Gregorios the Theologian）。 這並不意味著教父們拒絕參與任何將上帝作為三位一體的談論。當他們將上帝的本性或本質與父親這個概念聯繫上之時， Eunomians 制作了很多混亂， 因為他們承認， 如果我們能够認識上帝為父親，我們一定也能夠認識到上帝的本質（因為神的本性和父親性是完全對齊的概念的）。然而，Cappadocian 教父們所堅持的本質和父親性之間的差別却排除了任何混亂的可能。因此，若是我們說我們在本質上不能認識上帝，這並不自動地意味著我們不能够認識他為父親（或是三位一體的人格）。相反的，如果我們說我們把上帝認識為父親，這也不自動地意味著我們在本質上或在本性上能認識他。 所有這些皆表示著，之前的這些分析皆是依照於教父們的知識學 （patristic gnosiology）：上帝是只能「在人格中」被認識到的，或是被認識為人格的，而不是在他的本性或本質上。教父性的文學並不给予我們一個到底在人格中認識某某或是認識某某為人格是什麼意思的存在性的分析。可是，它確是使我們了解到在本質和人格之間是有一個知識學性的基本的差别，因為， 認識到上帝的本質是絕對不可能的一件事，然而想要承認他的個人性的存在， 這却是可能的。隨後，與上帝的本質有關的否定性不應該也被當為有關他的個人性的存有的否定性和不可理解性。 在這個（全然不能想像的）上帝的本質以及他的（由他的兒子在聖靈中使我們了解到的）三位一體的個人性的存有之間的差別之外，教父們並没有提供我們 （就如我們已說過的）任何一個「在耶穌基督的人格中」認識上帝， 或是認識上帝為三位一體的人格是什麼意思的分析。這種分析在教父們的時代被認為是不必要的，但是這並不意味著它在後世期間也是不應該被完成的。相反地，繼續地解釋教條， 這是教義學的義務 -- 我們在第一節課堂中已說過這個 -- ，只要它並不背叛或扭曲教父們的精神。這是所有後來的偉大的教父們皆作過的：他們依據他們自己的時代的需求來解釋他們的先輩， 並且他們試著分析一些基本的術語。 在歷史中所出现的關於知識學的一项需求則是，在教父的年代期間，在上帝的本質和他的能源之間辨別出差別。這個差別已朦朧地在 Saint Athanasios 的書寫中以及更清楚地在 Cappadocian 教父們的書寫中出現過，而它後來又由 Saint Gregorios of Palamas 廣大地 發展出。 我們已知道了這個。以這種方式，教父們的上帝的本質之「不可理解性」的原則則可被保持，並且， 上帝的能源可成 為知識學中的一個基礎。 如此，否定性再度只被限於上帝的本質方面。人格以及上帝的能源 -- 這兩者都是未受造的-- 則允許我們認識到上帝以及搞神學。但是在這種情況下，就如我們已在之前的分析中可以看到，意識 (cognizance) 是不能被視為理解 (comprehension) 的。這是需要分析的一種知識，如果父親性的這方面乃然是要被解釋的話。這就是我們在這裡所嘗試做的。