D. SUPPLEMENT

D. 補充

I. The Cappadocians’ perceptions of God’s “being”

I. 卡帕多西亞教父們對上帝之存有所作出的識別

a. The “that He is”, the “what He is” and the “how He is” of God

a. 上帝之「有」，「是甚麼」，和「是怎麼樣」

There are certain delicate distinctions in the “what is” God, which did not exist, prior to the Cappadocian Fathers. For example, before the Cappadocians, we do not see, nor do we have, the distinction between the essence on the one hand and the hypostasis on the other. With Saint Athanasios, the essence and the hypostasis are not the same thing. We also note that, in the Council (Synod) of Alexandria (360 A.D.) these terms of ‘essence’ and ‘hypostasis’ are likewise alternated. Subsequently, patristic theology has its own history; it is not monolithic, we do not place all of the Fathers into the same well, and draw from within that well, at random, whatever is to our benefit. To formulate a dogmatic stance, we need to observe history and historical developments; and again I repeat that, prior to the Cappadocians, we do not have any of these delicate distinctions, which have proven to be essential for Dogmatics. Especially the distinction between nature –or essence- on the one hand and hypostasis –or persona- on the other. So, what do these terms mean? To examine this somewhat difficult and complex issue, we shall make two basic observations; two kinds of distinction in ontology, which –again- were introduced by the Cappadocians. These distinctions pertain to the way in which we refer to God’s “being”, God’s existence, and they are distinctions that were not arbitrarily reached, but are found reflected in philosophy. In the first group of distinctions are the ways that we refer to “being” in general, and thence apply it to God’s being. Firstly, there is that which the Cappadocians call “that He is”. That He is God, is a position that merely states that God exists. It is the way that we affirm God’s existence, and rule out His non-existence. Secondly, the way that we refer to God’s “being” (and “being” in general) could be called the “what is”. In the case of God, this also refers to the essence of God; for example, when referring to any existent object –to this table, for example- it is one thing to say that this table exists, “that it is” (thus ruling out the possibility that the table doesn’t exist), and it is another thing to say “what this table is”. According to the standard perception Greek Philosophy, the “what is” pertains to the essence of the table. Thus, the “what is” is the essence. There is also a third way of referring to beings, and that is –according to the Cappadocian fathers- “as it is”, which can be said more simply, as “the way it is”, thus stating what the Cappadocian fathers called the way of being; i.e., the way that this being exists. We shall examine this analytically straight away, and especially in the context of God. Distinguishing between the “what it is” and the “how or as it is” was stressed by the Cappadocian fathers and was introduced into patristic Theology. It became the object –so to speak- of exploitation in a positive manner, by the creative mind of Saint Maximus the Confessor; according to whom, the term “what it is” corresponds to “the reason it is” and the “how or as it is” corresponds to the “way it is”. Here, Saint Maximus follows up on the Cappadocian Fathers who had originally introduced these clear distinctions; he delves even deeper and with his creative mind, he promotes this topic of ontology even more. What is of interest to us, is to see what these three distinctions represent, and how they are applied in the case of God. First, let’s examine the “that it is”. The “that it is” states –as I said- the undeniable fact that God exists. It should be noted that in patristic Theology, we do not have the problem of whether God exists or doesn’t exist, as we do today –especially with the advent of atheism- because even in Hellenic philosophy (which was the chief opponent of patristic Theology), there was no such issue, in the guise of whether God exists or doesn’t exist. The Epicureans may have somehow placed God’s existence in doubt, but they were rather a marginal group, and so the main bulk of Hellenic Philosophy considered the existence of God a given fact. So, the “that it is” was not for discussion, or for doubting. What is important is that in patristic Theology – and subsequently in Dogmatics – we can use the verb “to be” when referring to God. Why is this important? First of all, it is important historically, because at the time of the Fathers, in the presence of Neo-Platonism, an extreme negativity towards ontology had been introduced, and the position of the Neo-Platonists and Plautinus is probably already familiar to you, which appeared in the phrase “beyond the essence”. The “One” that represents the equivalent of God in Neo-Platonism, was believed to be “beyond the essence”. We cannot relate it to the being; we cannot use the term “being”, when referring to the “One”. We can apply it, only to the lower stage - the stage that is below the “One” - thus, one could say, that we are unable to use ontology when speaking of the “One”. This placement of negativist Theology which, as I said, is Neo-Platonic, can also be seen elsewhere; not necessarily in its Neo-Platonic form, but nevertheless, the trend is apparent. These writings bear the name of Dionysios the Areopagite. In them are found expressions such as hyper-ousios (=above the essence) etc., expressly for the purpose of stating that God’s being – that God Himself – is above; that He stands above every ontological category that we can use. Why is that? It is because now, the expression of “beyond the essence” is interpreted in the sense that all the categories that we use, and all the names that we use, are taken from our experience of created things; from the reality of created things. Indeed, in order to apply the above to God, one must surpass the common nature of things. Consequently, one could say that this means we cannot use ontology when dealing with God’s “being”. But this would be wrong. Because in Patristic tradition (and we see this clearly in the Cappadocian Fathers), negation does not surpass ontology; it does not surpass the being. There is an important passage of Saint Vasileios in his work “On the Holy Spirit”, which says that, when examining phrases such as “was within it” and “was the logos” etc., no matter how one tries to retrograde one’s intellect, the word “was” is such that one cannot surpass the “being”. One cannot go beyond the “was”, beyond “being”. Therefore, the verb “is” – that God “is” – that “He is” – is not only permissible when it pertains to God in theology, in ontology, but it applies literally, and only for the being of God. And the proof that “being” (ontology) applies literally in the case of God is the fact that the Fathers use the expression “God is the One Who truly Is”. God is not beyond, or above the concept of “being”. He is the genuine, the true “is”. Already, by the second century in Justinian, this use is clearly evident. Later on, based on the expression “I Am The One Who Is” of the Holy Bible in the Old Testament, the term is again used, to denote that God is – literally – “The One Who Is”; the One Who has an actual existence, which filters through to the heart of the Church, and the heart in collaboration with the mind expresses itself chiefly in the Liturgy of the Church. The Liturgy, the Holy Eucharist, is what joins the mind and the heart. And this referral to God is by no means philosophical; it embodies the elements of worship, personal association and prayer. God – as “being”, as “The One Who Is” – is the One Whom we can address, Whom we can talk to during our prayer and moreso during the Divine Eucharist. In a part of the prayer of reference – at its very beginning – there is the following declaration, the official declaration of the Church, that God is the real, the true “being” : “It is only deserving and fair, to praise You, to benedict You, to thank You, to worship You, in every place of Your Domain. For You are the inexpressible, the inconceivable, the invisible, the incomprehensible God, Who forever Is, and thus Is”. The expression “thus Is” was familiar even in Plato’s time. It is a definition of “being”, of thus being; it states precisely the element of immutability, of non-change. Hence, the term “being” must imply something stable, because to the ancient Greeks, deterioration was always a problem. As it is to everyone. Deterioration and death turn “being” into “non-being”; to something false, deceptive; ….you cannot cross the same river twice, even though the river has been named Axios and must surely be Axios. But what is the essence of Axios? What is its stable element, if it constantly changes? And what is each one of us, if he believes in deterioration and eventually in death? Even non-being can penetrate beings, and consequently render them unreal. Therefore, in ontology, in the “being”, we seek a stability – a “forever thus” and a “thus it is” – and we do find it, but only in God. And we confess it, during the Divine Eucharist and the Liturgy, at the moment of mention of Vasileios the Great’s liturgy ritual: In the prayer that is said after the incantation: “It is only deserving and fair, to praise You, to benedict You……”. It is the prayer that begins with the expression “The One Who Is….Lord God and Lord Almighty…”. It is therefore not only unrelated to the Theology of the Church, but also to the very life of the Church, for one to assert that we do not have ontology in our referral to God. On the contrary, it is not possible to refer to God without this inference of “being” – of true “being”, of an existing “being”, a “being” that actually Is; and that is precisely what is meant by “that He Is”. So, the “that He Is” cannot be doubted. It is not an issue of negativist Theology. We know it. In fact, Saint Gregory the Theologian, who very clearly in his second theological speech refers to the “that He Is” and says that this cannot be doubted by anyone. It is evident, even in the study of nature. So, while in the case of “that He Is” there is no issue of ignorance or negativism in the ontological sense, things are different in the case of “what is”. The “what is” pertains to the essence, as we have already said. And there, in discerning between the “what is” and the “that He Is”, Saint Gregory stresses that we cannot know “what is” the essence of God. We are totally ignorant of “what is” God. In fact, he tries to show us how difficult it is to know the “what is”, or the “nature” or the “essence” of any being whatsoever. And in his second Theological speech, he shows how difficult it is to know the mysteries of nature, the mysteries of man, the mysteries of the human organism. Every single thing that pertains to the “what is” surpasses the human mind’s conception. How much more so, is it impossible –he says- to perceive the “what is”, or the nature, or the essence of God. There, nobody can ever know the essence. But what about the angels, who are also spiritual beings? Neither can they perceive it. And the saints, who have been cleansed of their sins? They neither. Nobody has knowledge of the essence of God. Nevertheless, it is the essence that denotes (as we shall see and analyse it, further along) that stable and unchanging factor in any being whatsoever. That is why Saint Maximus –as we said before- uses the concept of “the logos of nature” in order to denote the unalterable and stable factor in every being, i.e. that which makes it real, which renders it “existent”. Because otherwise, if you were to remove that stability factor, you are at risk of removing its actual existence. Always remember what I told you, about how deterioration constitutes a mocking, a falsifying of the status of “being”. It turns it into something delusive and false. That is why ontology always leans towards the stability of beings. And that is why Saint Maximus uses the concept of “the logos of nature”, to state that which in every being is stable and unchanging. The third category, the third means of reference is the “as He is” or “how He is”. It is perhaps the most significant of all for Theology, because here, we can speak of the “how is” God. This is what is referred to by the Cappadocian Fathers as “the way of existence of God” and they discern three ways of existence that correspond to the three Personae of the Holy Trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not denote “what is” God –given that “what” = God’s essence and we cannot therefore say anything about it- but it denotes the “how” or the “as” He is.

在上帝「是甚麼」之中，有一些微妙的區別， 而在卡帕多西亞教父們之前， 這些區別還未存在。例如，在卡帕多西亞教父們之前，我們不明白，我們也沒有，在本質 (essence; ουσίας) 和位格 (hypostasis) 之間所有的區別。而對 Saint Athanasios 來說，本質和位格不是同樣的東西。我們也注意到，在亞歷山大的會議中 （公元 360 年）， 這兩個字 essence 和 hypostasis 也同樣地被輪換使用著。 隨後， 教父神學有它自己的歷史； 它不是完全統一性的，我們不能够把所有的教父們皆放進同樣的思想屬類中，然後再從其中隨意地取出我們想要的東西。為了能有一個教義性的觀點，我們必需要觀察一下歷史和歷史性的發展； 我想再次重複： 在卡帕多西亞教父們之前，我們並沒有任何這些微妙的區別，而這些區別之後又成為教義學之中絕對必要的。 尤其是在本性或本質 (nature, essence) 以及位格或人格 (hypostasis, persona) 之間所有的差別。那，這些辭是甚麼意思呢？為了能檢討一下這些困難和複雜的問題，我們將做出兩個基本的觀察； 兩種在存在論中所用的區別 -- 再一次，這些區别是由卡帕多西亞教父們所介紹出的。這些區別是有關於我們提及到上帝的「存有」的方式，並且它們不是隨便作出的區別，而是反映在哲學中的區别。 第一組的區別是有關於我們提及到一般「存有」的方式，我們因此將之應用於上帝身上。 首先是卡帕多西亞教父們所謂的「他有, 他是」 (that he is: ότι εστί)。他是上帝，這只是聲明出上帝是存在的。這是我們證明上帝是存在的方式，並且排除他不存在的可能性。 其次，我們提及到上帝的「存有」（以及一般的「存有」）的方式能夠被稱為「是甚麼」。在關於上帝的方面，這也是意味著上帝的本質；例如，當我們提及到一個存有之物的時候 -- 比如說，這張桌子 -- 說這張桌子是存在的，它「是，有」 的(that it is)， 這是一回事 （因此排除了這張桌子不存在的可能性），但是說這張桌子「是甚麼」， 那又是另一回事。依照標準的希臘哲學的理解，「是甚麼」 (what is) 是屬於這張桌子的本質的。因此，「是甚麼」是本質 (essence)。 我們也有第三種提及存有之物的方式，那就是 -- 依照卡帕多西亞教父們的看法 -- 「就是它是的那樣」（as it is; όπως εστί），或者我們可以更簡單地說，「它是（它存有）的方式」，因此表示出卡帕多西亞教父們所謂的存有的方式； 即，這件存有之物存在的方式。我們將立即分析查問這點，尤其是在有關於上帝的方面上。 在「它是甚麼」以及「它是如何存在，或： 就是它存在的那樣」當中作出辨別 -- 卡帕多西亞教父們特别強調這點， 並且將此引進教父神學中。 這點由非常有創作思想的 St. Maximus the Confessor 澈底利用上； 他說，「它是甚麼」相當於「為甚麼有它的理由」， 而「它是的那樣」相當於「它存在的方式」。在這裡，Saint Maximus 追隨著原來介紹出這些清楚的區別的卡帕多西亞教父們； 他甚至以他的創作性的思想法更深深地鑽研這點，並且更加推進這個存在論的主題。 我們所感興趣的則是，來看看這三個區別到底代表著甚麼，以及它們如何能被應用於上帝的身上。 首先，讓我們來看看「它是 （有）」。「他是， 他有」表示著 -- 我已說過 -- 上帝是存在的這件不可否認的事實。 我們應該注意的則是， 在教父神學裡，我們沒有上帝是存在或是不存在的這種我們今天所有的問題 -- 尤其是在無神論出現之後 -- 因為即使是在希臘哲學中 （也就是教父神學的主要對敵），也沒有這樣偽裝為上帝是否存在的問題。 伊比鳩魯主義者不知如何地忽然懷疑到了上帝的存在，但是他們只是一個處於邊緣的團體，所以，希臘哲學的主要學派等等仍皆認為上帝之存有是一件很清楚的事實。因此，「他是， 他有」，這是不用討論的，也不用懷疑的。 在此重要之事則是, 在教父神學中 -- 而隨後也在教義學中 -- 我們在提及到上帝的時候能夠使用 「是， 有」 （to be; είναι） 這個動詞。這為甚麼是重要的？首先，這在歷史上來說是重要的，因為在教父們的時代， 面對著新柏拉圖派的哲學，一種非常極端的否定性 (negativity) 被介紹於存在論之内，並且對於新柏拉圖學派以及 Plautinus 的看法你應該已經是很熟悉的了，這種看法出現在「在本質之外」的說法中。 在新柏拉圖派的哲學中代表著相當於上帝之者的「是一個的」那者，他據信是在「本質之外」的。我們不能把它與存有 （being; το είναι） 相聯繫上；我們在提及到「是一個的」那者的時候不能使用「存有」這字。我們只能夠將這字使用於在更低的階段上所有的事物的身上 （在「是一個的」那者之下的階段上的事物）。 因此，我們可以說，我們在談起「是一個的」那者之時， 不能够用上存在論。 這種否定性的神學，我說過，是屬於新柏拉圖學派的，但我們也能夠在別處看見它； 這未必一定是以其新柏拉圖學派的形式，然而，大概的趨勢是已明顯的。 這些著作的作者是 Dionysios the Areopagite。在其中有一些特别的說法，例如， hyper-ousios （= 在本質之上），這些很明顯地是為了表示，上帝的存有 -- 上帝他自己 -- 是「在上」的： 他是在我們所能夠使用的所有的存在論的類目之上的。為甚麼是如此？因為現在，「在本質之外」這說法是被解釋為， 我們所使用的全部的類目以及全部的名字，都是從我們對受造物的體驗中所抽出的； 也就是來自於受造物之類的現實中。 確實地，為了能把上述之事應用於上帝身上，我們必須超越事物所共有的本性。因此，我們能說，這意味著，我們在講上帝之存有的時候，不能够使用存在論。但是這會是錯誤的。因為在教父的傳統中 （而我們在卡帕多西亞教父們的書寫中可以很清楚地看到這點），否定性的方式仍是未超越出存在論的；它並不超越出一般的存有事物。在 Saint Vasileios 的「關於聖靈」的一書中，有一句重要的話，說道，在檢視著這些短語之時， 如「是（有）在某某以內」 和 「是 logos」等等，無論我們多麼想使我們的智力後退，「是/ 有」這字表示著我們仍不能超越一般的「存有」事物。 我們不能超越到「是/ 有」或「存有」之外。 因此，「是/ 有」這個動詞 -- 「上帝是，上帝有」 ，「他是， 他有」 -- 不僅僅在存在論中或是在神學中可以是有關於上帝的，而且只從字面上來講它也是如此適用的，並且僅僅是對於上帝來說。而「是，有」( 存在論 ) 只從字面上講即可應用於上帝的身上的這事的證據則是， 教父們常說「上帝是唯一的真正地有的那者」。上帝不是超越出「存有」之概念的或是在其之上的。他反而是真正的，真實的「有」的。 到查士丁尼的第二世紀之時，這種語法已經是很平常的了。後來，以在舊約聖經中的那一段「我是那一個自有永有之者」為基礎，這個術詞又再度被使用，以表示上帝是 -- 只從字面上講即是 -- 「那個自有自是的」；那個實際存在之者，而這個存在性過濾到教會的心中，並且心與理智合作，在教會的禮儀文中表達自己。禮儀文，即聖餐禮儀 (the Eucharist)，就是結合理智和心的。而這種提及上帝的方式不是只是哲學性的； 它體現著崇拜、個人私有性的聯繫、以及杞禱文的要素等等。 上帝 -- 如「有」，如「自有的那一者」 -- 是我們所能夠對其稱呼的那一者，他是我們在祈禱之時 -- 而尤其是在聖餐禮儀之時 -- 所能夠與之交談的那一者。在一個引用性的禱文之開頭的部份中， 有如此的教會之正式的宣佈，上帝是真的，真實的「存有者」： 「在您的領域中的每個地方讚揚您，祝福您，謝謝您，崇拜您，這只能是應得的和公正的。因為您是難以形容的，不能想像的，看不見的，不能理解的神，您永遠有，您因而自有」。「因而自有 （thus is; ωσαύτως ων）」這種說法在柏拉圖的時代已是很熟悉的了。這是「有/ 是」 （being, είναι）， 或者，「然 (όπως）」的一個定義；它即是表示著永恒的不變性、不易性的這個要素。因此，「有」這字必須意味著某種有穩定性的東西，因為對於古代的希臘人來說，退化衰老總是一個問題，就如對每個人來說。 退化， 衰老， 和死亡把「存有」轉換為「非存有」； 也就是錯誤的、誤導性的一件東西.... 你不能過同樣的河兩次，即使那河是被命名為 Axios， 並且一定確實是 Axios。但是 Axios 的本質是甚麼？其有穩定性的要素是甚麼，如果它經常改變的話？而我們中的每一個人又是甚麼，如果我們相信退化以及死亡？即使非有性也能夠浸透於存有物之中，以致使他們不再是真實的了。因此，在存在論中，我們在存有中尋找一種穩定性 -- 「永遠如此」以及「因而有」 -- 而我們找到了它，但是僅僅是在上帝之中。 在神聖的聖餐禮儀和同禱禮儀期間，在提及到 Vasileios the Great 的禮儀文的時候， 我們承認了他： 在歌唱之後所說的禱文中是如此的：「讚揚您，謝謝您... 這只能是應得的和公正的.....」。這個禱文是如此開始的： 「是自有永有的那一者.... 天主的神，全能的神...」。 所以，若是宣稱我們在提及上帝之時是没有存在論的，這不僅僅是與教會的神學無關，而也是與教會的生活無關。相反地，在推論上帝的時候要是没有提及到「有」，這根本是不可能的 -- 現有的「有」，真實的「有」，真實地有的「有」； 而那就是「他有，他是」所意味著的之事。 因此，「他有，他是」，這是不能被懷疑的。這不是否定性神學的問題 (negative theology)。我們已知道這點。事實上，聖格利高里神學者 (Saint Gregory the Theologian) 已很清楚地在他的第二次神學談話中提及到「他有，他是」， 並說這是不能被任何人懷疑的。即使是在大自然的研究裡這也是很明顯的。 所以，雖然在「他有，他是」這事中並沒有在存在論的意義中的無知或否定性的問題，在「是甚麼」這事中情況則是不一樣的。「是甚麼」是屬於本質的，如同我們已經說過的了。 而在辨別「是甚麼」和「他有，他是」之時，聖格利高里強調著，我們是不能够知道上帝的本質「是甚麼」的。我們對於上帝「是甚麼」是完全無知的。事實上，他嘗試著對我們顯示出，想要知道任何事物的本質， 本性，或是「是甚麼」， 那是多麼困難的。在他的第二次神學談話中，他顯示出，想要知道大自然的謎，人類的謎，人類機體的謎， 這是多麼困難的。 每一件有關於「是甚麼」的事情皆是超越人類理智所能有的概念的。 他指出，想要察覺到上帝的「是甚麼」，本性，或本質，那又將會是多麼更加困難的。在那裡，沒有人能夠知道本質的。但是， 天使呢，那些靈性的受造物？他們也不能够察覺到。而已經淨化了罪過的聖徒呢？他們也不能。 沒有人有對於上帝的本質的知識的。然而，即是本質表示出（我們將再次看到和分析這點）在任何事物中的穩定性和不易性的因數。那就是為甚麼 Saint Maximus -- 我們在之前已說過 -- 使用「本性的 Logos 」的這個概念，以便表示出在每個存有物中的不易性和穩定性的因數，使其成為真的、「存有的」之因。因為，若不如此，如果你將那個穩定不易性的因數除去，你將有移除其實際存有性的危險。 永遠記住我所告訴你的，退化衰老如何構成對於存有的一種嘲笑和偽曲。它把存有轉換為一件欺騙和錯誤的事情。那就是為甚麼存在論總是傾向於事物的穩定性。而那也就是為甚麼 Saint Maximus 使用「本性的 Logos 」的概念來表示出那個在每件事物中是穩定和不變的東西。 第三個類目、第三個引用法的途徑則是「他是如何」或「就是他是的那樣」。 這對神學來說可能是最有意義的，因為在這裡，我們能夠談起「上帝是如何的」。 這即是卡帕多西亞教父們所謂的「上帝的存在的方式」， 並且他們辨別出三種對應著三個人格的存在方式。父親，兒子，和聖靈並不表示出上帝「是甚麼」 -- 因為「是甚麼」= 上帝的本質， 而我們因此不能提及到甚麼有關於其之事，但是只能表示出「他是如何」或「他是那樣」。