"1: the ineffability and indefinability of that which is extinguished by negation, and coincides in this sense with the Greek "α privativum", άπειρον, άοριστον, άμορφον; and 2. Uncertainty as a state of potentiality, inclusion, and not as fundamental indefinability, corresponding to the Greek μή, which in this case should be rendered as "not yet" or "not yet". In the first case, there is no logical transition from an unconditional, non-negative theology to any positive teaching about God and the world; here the opposition is not dialectical, but antinomic; There is no bridge over the abyss here, and one can only bow down before incomprehensibility in the feat of faith. In the second case, "the meonal nothing-something does not conceal any antinomy; it is denied in rational-mystical gnosis, and antinomy is replaced here by dialectical contradiction. In this case, nothing is a kind of divine primordial matter, in which and from which everything arises in a lawful and dialectical way, including divinity, the world, and man" (1351).

It is important that with the first approach, antinomic theology is born. In the second case, "nothing forms the initial moment of the dialectic of being"; in other words: "nothing is." There is no unconditional antinomic transcendence from the absolute to the relative, from the Creator to the creature, these are only dialectical self-positions of one and the same principle taking place within it, a transcensus of its modalities." That is why Fr. S. Bulgakov unites all the Church mystics and Holy Fathers into one antinomic trend: Clement, Origen, the Cappadocians, the Areopagitics, Maximus, Damascene, Palamas and even Nicholas of Cusa, while he considers Eriugena, Eckhart, and Boehme to be representatives of dialectical apophaticism. If in our analysis we made a distinction between the apophatics of the Cappadocians and theologians in general, on the one hand, and the Areopagiticians and other mystics, on the other, this does not in the least contradict the opinion of the Russian learned theologian. The difference we allow relates more to the method of theology or, more precisely, to the path of theological knowledge, whether rational and discursive or primarily secret mystical. But for Origen, the Cappadocians, and Damascene on the one hand, as well as for the mystics on the other, God is absolutely outside this world; there is no dialectical dependence between Him and the world, and there cannot be. That is why the theology of all the Holy Fathers was and remains antinomic. This is also taught by our entire liturgical experience, which will be discussed below.

And St. Gregory Palamas in his works develops an ecclesiastical mystically grounded apophatic theology. In his methods and expressions, he largely repeats the experience of the Areopagitics. And for him, the essence of God is first of all "completely unnameable and completely incomprehensible to the mind" [1352]. And this is because "God is greater than all that exists, and He is above all nature" (1353). His nature is "pre-substantial" [1354], "pre-divine" [1355]. And His essence is "pre-substantial" [1356]. Palamas says: "divine superessence" [1357]. He calls the same Dionysius as his witnesses; Chapter 87 directly refers to De divin nomin., V [1358].

The extent to which this approach to apophatics is indisputable for Palamas, and how much he does not agree to call God by the biblical "This", although, as indicated above, this is allowed by some Fathers as the only acceptable name, is evident from the following passage:

"Every nature is extremely remote and completely alien to the divine nature. For if God is nature, then everything else is not nature; and vice versa, if everything else is nature, then God is not nature. And God is not a being if everything else is. And if He is, then everything else is not being. This applies to wisdom and goodness, and in general to everything that surrounds God or that is said about God, if one theologizes correctly and in accordance with the Holy Fathers. But God is and is called the nature of all beings, because all partake of Him and are held together by this communion; communion, of course, not of the nature of God — away from such a thought! — but by sharing His energy. Thus God is the essence of beings, and in images He is an image, because He is the prototype; and the wisdom of those who are wise, and in general He is all in all. But He is not nature, because He is above all nature. And He is not the Being, because He is above all that exists. And God is not an image and has no image, since He is above the image" [1359].

In another place (Chapter 106) Palamas explains the same idea in a slightly different way:

"The super-substantial, super-living, supernatural, super-good Nature, inasmuch as It is super-good, super-divine, etc., It is unnameable and unknowable, and indeed not contemplated at all, because, standing out from everything, It transcends knowledge; and affirmed by an incomprehensible power above the heavenly minds, it is incomprehensible and ineffable to no one, ever and in no way. His name is not in the present prisoner, and in the future He is unnameable; there is no word for Him, composed in the soul or spoken with the tongue; there is no sensuous or intelligible perception or communion for Him, and indeed no imagination at all. That is why theologians propose to define His unconditional incomprehensibility in their sayings, for He is completely excluded from everything that is or is called in any way. For this reason, it is not permissible to give a proper name to the essence of God or to nature, since here definitions are given to the Truth, which surpasses all truth" [1360].

The incomprehensibility of the essence of God is unconditional, and not only for the human mind, but also for the angelic world, which in its spirituality is closer to God: "There is no one who would see or explain the essence of God and the nature of God. And not only none of the people, but also none of the angels. And even the six-winged Seraphim cover their faces with their wings from the abundance of radiance sent down from there" [1361].

Palamas' apophatic theology is closely connected with the doctrine of the essence and energies in God, which he developed in detail. All negative theology refers precisely to the essence, while the manifestations of God in the world, His "speeches," energies, and Old Testament theophanies, are accessible to our name. He writes: "The God-bearing Fathers say that in God there is something unknowable, that is, His essence; but something knowable, that is, everything that surrounds His essence, namely, goodness, wisdom, power, divinity, or majesty; it is that which Paul called invisible, but which is visible through the consideration of creatures" [1362]. "The essence of God is unconditionally unnameable, since it is completely incomprehensible to the mind; but it is named according to all Its energies, and there none of the names differs in its meaning from the other. For each of them and all of them express nothing except that which is in no way knowable" [1363]. "The essence of God is unconditionally unnameable, because it transcends the name; in the same way it is not participatory, for it transcends communion" [1364]. But this is not the absolute incomprehensibility of the Godhead. It is "incomprehensible and at the same time intelligible" [1365].

In this case, the image of the God-seer Moses, beloved by mystics, is a vivid example of what has been said. Palamas compares two theophanies, one to the God-seer Moses and the God-hater Jacob:

"Are there really two Gods: One, who has a face accessible to the vision of the saints, and the Other, whose face surpasses all vision? Away from such wickedness! The visible face of God (Gen. 2:10). XXXII, 30) is nothing but the energy and mercy of God, manifested as a worthy but invisible person (Exod. XXXIII, 20) He is called the nature of God, which is above all expression and vision. For, according to the Scriptures, no one stands before the face of the Lord (Jer. XXIII, 18) and saw or explained the nature of God" [1366].

Just as St. Basil (see above) noted that nothing that does not belong to God cannot be the essence of God, so St. Gregory Palamas explains this in some detail:

"How could incorruptibility, invisibility, and in general all negative or restrictive determinations, all together or each separately, be essence? That which is not this or that is not an essence is not this. In addition, the essence of God does not express, in accordance with the language of theologians, properties positively combined with God, although when it is necessary we use all these names; but the superessence of God remains completely unnameable" [1367].

Thus, God can be known only by what is around Him, by His actions.