(Philokalia Vol. III, G.E.H Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware)
In this chapter, St. Peter talks about the reading of scriptures and, by extension, the nature of knowledge and learning in a God-centered universe.
Reading the scriptures, he tells us, is not simply a matter of intellectual comprehension but one of “understanding.” “Understanding” takes us beyond simply deciphering words or obscure allusions to uncover “all the mysteries hidden by God in each verse of Scripture.”
The goal of reading the scriptures, then, is not textual understanding but illumination.
He who pays attention to them is illumined, while he who pays no attention is filled with darkness.
St. Peter allows that there can be multiple levels of understanding of the scriptures, and indirectly, of a God-created world depending on. These depend on::
Our ability for inner stillness “because such devotion concentrates the intellect: even if it is attentive for only a short time.”
Our ability for patience and humility in acknowledging our human limitations and the needs of God’s grace:
“God is beyond comprehension, and His wisdom is not limited in such a way that an angel or man can grasp it in its entirety.”
Our own intellectual readiness, ability and the experiences we bring to the text. Knowledge is not absolute or immediate but a continuing process.
This is clear from the fact that we often understand a certain passage in the course of our contemplation, grasping one or two of the senses in which it was written; then after a while our intellect may increase in purity and be allowed to perceive other meanings, superior to the first.
What is significant is that the various levels and types of insight we may derive at different times are not contradictory.
For this reason, the same saint may say one thing about a certain matter today, and another tomorrow; and yet there is no contradiction, provided the hearer has knowledge and experience of the matter under discussion.
While we may perceive only an object’s texture, color, weight, or placement, all these attributes are part of a whole and not at war with each other.
However, to perceive the connections among seemingly disparate or conflicting attributes and the ways these mystically unite into a harmonious whole, we must move beyond intellectual knowledge to a state of union with God. It I then that we will be able to see the world through his eyes rather than our limited, fragmented perception.
This is why the Hesychasts describe theosis as a state, characterized by simplicity and the lack of contradiction. All connections are now visible, and the world makes sense.
New criticism which came into prominence after the 60s with thinkers like Claude Lévi-Strauss (structuralism) and Jacques Derrida (deconstructionism) focused on multiple interpretations of a literary work. Instead of looking only at the text or its author, it aimed at deciphering how the parts (including its patterns and the reader’s perspective) combine to contribute to its meaning.
There is a fundamental difference, however, between St. Peter’s “understanding” and new literary criticism.
Multiple levels of understanding in scriptural reading contribute to the true meaning of the text when “everything said or done should be said or done in accordance with God’s intention…”
In new criticism and much of modern thought there is no agreed-upon purpose and truth. Meaning is not understood as something eternal and immutable but as something constantly shifting, while there is no acknowledgement of the validity of truth.
Knowledge, and the deciphering of meaning, in modern thought depend on the individual while, for St. Peter, understanding depends on the grace of God.
The acquisition of mystical knowledge is like a gradual journey through multiple stages of understanding, not unlike the journey from passions to a state of theosis.
Knowledge and learning then progress from listening in humility to the illumination of understanding the hidden mysteries to a mystical union with God in which we experience the world through his eyes. We now see what might be contradictory in human eyes, as harmonious and complementary through God’s eyes.
St. Peter cites St Dionysios the Areopagite in his observation “that to the ancients the resurrection of the dead appeared contrary to nature, whereas to himself and to St Timothy-and in the eyes of the truth itself- it is not contrary to nature, but it transcends nature.” St. Peter believes that such phenomena do not simply transcend nature but in “god’s eyes” they are nature.
in God’s eyes, however, it does not transcend nature, but is quite natural; for God’s commandment is His nature.
The ultimate level of understanding then is to go beyond our narrow human capabilities and comprehend the scriptures, and a God-created universe, through God’s eyes. Tit is through this union that the invisible threads of meaning are uncovered, and harmony is experienced.
Readings in Philokalia 