Identity and Difference in the Spiritual Life:

Hesychasts, Yogis, and Sufis

Kallistos Ware

Metropolitan of Diokleia

It is on the other side of the coincidence of contradictories that You may be

seen.

Nicholas of Cusa (14011464)

Opposition and Dialogue

When seeking to appreciate a religious tradition not our own, it is helpful for us to begin
with questions such as these: How do the members of this other tradition pray? In what
spirit do they stand in worship before God? What is their sense of the sacred? In what ways
do they participate in the numinous and the transcendent?
Such is the best approach: not to contrast formal systems of doctrine, taken in isolation,
but to consider how doctrine is lived out in personal devotion and mystical experience.
Once we adopt this existential approach, we shall quickly discover a remarkable fact.
Opposition and dialogue can frequently coexist. Religious groups that diverge sharply in
their doctrinal formulae often agree at many points in their spirituality. Confrontation on
one level is combined on another level with openness and the willingness to borrow from
each other. Outward hostility is mitigated by inner convergence.

Orthodox and Catholics in the Eighteenth Century

In the history of the Orthodox Church, a notable example of this coexistence between
opposition and dialogue is provided by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain (17491809).1
The era in which Nikodimos lived and worked, the second half of the eighteenth century,
was an unhappy period of estrangement and conflict between the Orthodox and the Roman
Catholic Churches. At the height of this bitter controversy, in 1755 the Patriarch of
Constantinople Cyril VI issued a decree entitled A Definition of the Holy Church of Christ,
Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God, and Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which
Are Otherwise Administered. In this document, which was also endorsed by the Patriarchs of
Alexandria and Jerusalem, it was stated that baptisms performed by hereticsand here

1
For bibliography on Nikodimos, see Marnellos 2002:355378; Ware 2005:120121.

1
the Definition had primarily in view the Roman Catholicsare waters that cannot profit
nor give any sanctification to such as receives them, nor avail at all to the washing away of
sins. Heretical baptism is a baptism that is no baptism. In consequence, all non-
Orthodox Christians who desire to enter the Orthodox Church are to be regarded as
unordained and unbaptized, and so they should be received into Orthodoxy through
rebaptism.2
Thus, in a sweeping and comprehensive fashion, the 1755 Definition denied the presence
of any sacramental grace among the non-Orthodox. Roman Catholics, on this view, lack
valid baptism, and therefore a fortiori they possess no valid priesthood and no genuine
eucharist. They are outside the Church.3
Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain, in his classic collection of the church canons entitled
Pidalion (Rudder), first published at Leipzig in 1800, adheres closely to the 1755 Definition,
declaring that all Roman Catholics must be rebaptized. He is aware, however, that in the
early Church rebaptism of heretics had not always been required, and that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate itself, prior to 1755, had received Roman Catholics through anointing with the
Holy Chrism, without requiring a new baptism. This variation in practice he explains by

2
On the baptism controversy at Constantinople in the 1750s, see Ware 1964:65107,
especially 7576.
3
As regards the reception of converts, there was at this time a curious discrepancy in
practice between Greek and Russian Orthodoxy. In the early seventeenth century the
Russian Church rebaptized Roman Catholics, but in 16661667 it stopped doing so, under
Greek pressure, and only required converts to be received through anointing with the Holy
Chrism. Then from 1757, at the very time when the Greeks had begun to practise rebaptism,
the Russian Church ceased to use even chrismation at the reception of Roman Catholics,
and admitted them simply through profession of faith and absolution. This marked
divergence between the Churches of Constantinople and Russia does not seem to have
greatly disturbed either party: such was the mutual isolation in which the various
Orthodox Churches existed at that time (and more recently). In the second half of the
nineteenth century the Greeks began to suspend the application of the 1755 Definition, and
in 1888 the Holy Synod at Constantinople laid down as a general rule that in future the
rebaptism of converts should no longer be required: Let economy be used (see Ware
1964:101, 106). Rebaptism of converts, however, is still sometimes practised today, in
particular on the Holy Mountain of Athos.

2
invoking the double principle of strictness or exactness (akriveia) and economy
(oikonomia) or pastoral flexibility. Economy means, in this context, that the rigorous
application of the canons may be moderated, if this will assist the salvation of human
persons.4
From the viewpoint of strictness, Nikodimos argues, non-Orthodox sacraments are
null and void; and therefore, according to akriveia, converts to the Church require to be
rebaptized. Sometimes, however, outward circumstances make it advisable to apply
economy and to treat the baptism of non-Orthodox converts as valid. Prior to 1755,
Nikodimos continues, the Church of Constantinople had applied to Latin baptism the
principle of economy; for, because of the weakness of the Byzantine Empire, the
Orthodox dared not offend the Papacy and the Western powers. But now Divine
providence has set a guardian over usNikodimos means the Ottoman Empireand so the
Orthodox have no longer any need to fear the Pope. Economy, therefore, should be set
aside and its place taken by strictness and the Apostolic Canons.5 Here Nikodimos has in
mind Apostolic Canon 46: Any bishop, priest, or deacon who accepts the baptism or
sacrifice [i.e. eucharist] of heretics we order to be deposed; for what agreement has Christ
with Belial, or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?6 Thus Nikodimos reaches an
uncompromising conclusion: Latin baptism is baptism falsely so called, and for this reason
cannot be accepted, either on the principle of strictness or on that of economy.7
So speaks Nikodimos the canonist. But when, on the other hand, he was concerned with
prayer and the spiritual life, he adopted a far more positive attitude towards the Latin
West. Despite the fact that he considered the Roman Catholics to be unbaptized and

4
On the different, and often conflicting, ways in which economy is understood, see
Thomson 1965; Psarev 2007.
5
Agapios and Nikodimos 1864:5657; Agapius and Nicodemus 1957:73-74. I have made my
own translation from the Greek. Although the name of Agapios appears on the title page of
the Pidalion, the editor of the book is in fact exclusively Nikodimos: see Marnellos 2002:69
70.
6
Ioannou 1962:31. Cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15. The Apostolic Canons, Syrian in provenance, date
from the late fourth century.
7
Agapios and Nikodimos 1864:55; Agapius and Nicodemus 1957:72. It should be noted that
many Orthodox canonists today disagree with the way in which Nikodimos applies the
principle of economy to the reception of converts: see Erickson 1991:115132.

3
altogether deprived of sacramental grace, he was yet willing to make their works of
devotion available in Greek and to circulate them among the Orthodox faithful.8 The best
known of these translations is the work Unseen Warfare, based on the Combattimento
Spirituale of Lorenzo Scupoli (c. 15301610), a member of the Roman Catholic Theatine
Order (Nikodimos 1952). This work, which enjoyed great popularity in the West, is a classic
expression of Counter-Reformation spirituality. The Greek version of Nikodimos was
translated into Russian by St. Theophan the Recluse (18151894); and in both the Greek and
the Slavic worlds the book has continued to be widely read up to the present day.
Nikodimos and Theophan both made changes in Scupolis text, but alike in the Greek and in
the Russian version it remains substantially Scupolis work.9 Nikodimos nowhere claimed to
be himself the author, but merely stated on the title page that it was composed some time
ago by a certain wise man.10 He was of course well aware that the wise man in question
was Roman Catholic, not Orthodox, but he refrained from pointing this out to his Orthodox
readers.
This was not the only adaptation of a Catholic work that Nikodimos undertook. More
surprisinglyin view of the marked suspicion with which Greek Orthodox customarily
view the Jesuitshe also edited a Greek translation of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius
Loyola (14911556), in the expanded version of Giampetro Pinamonti (16321703).
Furthermore, Nikodimoss widely respected book on confession, Exomologitarion, is for the
most part a direct translation of two works by another Jesuit, Paolo Segneri the Elder
(16241694), Il penitente istruito and Il confessore istruito. On the other hand, the well-known
work On Continual Communion, first published in 1777, and thenwith extensive revisions
and additions by Nikodimosreissued in 1783, does not seem to be based on any single
Western prototype, although it makes heavy use of Roman Catholic sources.

8
On the use made by Nikodimos of spiritual works by Roman Catholics, see Viller 1924;
Citterio 1987:112136; Bobrinskoy 1989; Citterio 2002:943955. It was once thought that
Nikodimos had himself translated the works in question, but doubts have now been
expressed about his knowledge of Italian; he may have used existing translations made by
Emmanuel Romanitis of Patmos. See Phrangiskos 2001.
9
On the changes made by Nikodimos and Theophan, see Hodges 1952:4756, 6067.
10
The title page of the first edition of Unseen Warfare (Venice, 1796) is reproduced in Ladas
and Chatzidimou 1973:16.

4
 Modern Orthodox spokesmen have been perplexed by this readiness on the part of
Nikodimos to draw on Roman Catholic texts. Greek authors, honouring Nikodimos as a
champion of pure and unadulterated Orthodoxy, have often denied all possibility of such
borrowing; but the evidence of his debt to the West is in fact clear and convincing. Other
Orthodox writers, while accepting the fact that he did indeed make use of Catholic works,
have trenchantly censured him for this. Thus the French Orthodox scholar Archimandrite
Lev Gillet (18931980), reviewing the English edition of Unseen Warfare, accuses Nikodimos
and Theophan of literary and spiritual piracy. Dismissing their efforts to give an
Orthodox colouring to Scupolis book, Fr. Lev complains, Far from obtaining a harmonious
fusion we are confronted, as I think, with a clumsy mixture. The thoroughly ascetical text
of the Combat had to suffer mutilations, interpolations, additions, in order to make place
for the mystical methods of Mount Athos. The result is a building where different styles
have been tastelessly mixed. The Combat and Nicodemus, each taken apart, are interesting.
Put together they lose their originality.11 Not everyone would agree with this harsh
verdict. Professor Hodges, for example, in his introduction to the English edition of Unseen
Warfare, as revised by Nikodimos and Theophan, speaks of it as a genuinely Orthodox
work, a worthy modern companion to the Philokalia.12
Why did Nikodimos draw as he did on Roman Catholic sources? Certainly this cannot
have been due to any ignorance on his part of the riches of Greek patristic spirituality, of
which he had in fact an unrivalled knowledge, as is evident from his editions of the
Philokalia and the Evergetinos, and of such classic writers as Barsanouphios, Symeon the New
Theologian, and Gregory Palamas. If, then, he chose to make use of material from the
Counter-Reformation West, it was not because he had nothing else available. He must have
done this because he felt that the Catholic works embodied something of distinctive value
not to be found in the Orthodox sources.
What this element of distinctive value may have been, Nikodimos nowhere explained.
Possibly he valued the acute psychological insight displayed by the western authors, along
with their warmly affective tone. He may also have considered that the techniques of
discursive, imaginative meditation set forth in particular by Ignatius Loyola would help
those Orthodox who found the imageless, apophatic prayer recommended in the

11
Gillet 1952:586.
12
Hodges 1952:67.

5
Philokalia to be largely beyond their capacity. Here, in view of Nikodimoss silence, we can
do no more than speculate.
One thing, however, remains clear. Despite the animosity felt by most Greek Orthodox
towards Roman Catholicism in Nikodimoss dayand despite the fact that, following the
accepted view held by the Greek Orthodox authorities at that time, he believed Catholics to
be outside the Church, unbaptized and deprived of sacramental gracehe was willing to
make use of their devotional writings. This he could scarcely have done, had he believed
these writings to be erroneous and harmful. In this way he provides a striking example of
the coincidence of contradictories. He shows how conflict on the level of official doctrine
and ecclesiastical politics does not necessarily exclude constructive openness and the
discovery of common ground on the level of spirituality. Opposition and dialogue can
indeed coexist.

Glorify God in Your Body

Our first example of convergence and exchange in the realm of spirituality, taken from the
work of St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain, has been confined to the Christian tradition.
The Greek Hesychasts, however, provide us with a second example that is not only inter-
Christian but interfaith. In the physical techniques that they used while reciting the Jesus
Prayer, the Hesychasts of the late Byzantine period display unexpected and remarkable
similarities with Indian yoga and with the Arab and Persian Sufis. Indeed, at any rate so far
as the Sufis are concerned, these similarities are so close that direct influence of some kind
seems extremely probable.
The terms Hesychasm and Hesychast are derived from the Greek word hesychia,
meaning quietness, silence, and inner stillness.13 In this way, Hesychasm signifies the quest
for union with God through apophatic or noniconic prayer, that is to say, prayer that is
free from images and discursive thinking. Such prayer, according to the Hesychasts, leads
the initiate to a vision of Divine Light. From the fifth century onwards, one of the chief
means for fostering such Hesychast meditation has been the constant repetition of the
Jesus Prayer, a short invocation said most commonly in the form Lord Jesus Christ, Son of
God, have mercy on me. There are, however, many variations in the precise formula
employed, and in modern practice the words the sinner are often added at the end.14 By

13
See Hausherr 1956; Ware 2000:89110.
14
See Hausherr 1960; Ware 2003; Alfeyev 2007.

6
the late thirteenth century, if not before, the recitation of the Jesus Prayer had come to be
accompanied by a specific bodily technique or psychosomatic method.15
Fundamental to this tradition of prayer is a sense of profound reverence for the Holy
Name Jesus.16 There is, it is believed, an integral connection between the name and the
person named. To invoke the Son of God by name is to render Him directly and dynamically
present. Thus the Holy Name is felt to act in a semi-sacramental way as a means of grace
and a source of strength. Hesychasm has flourished chiefly in certain monastic centres,
above all on the Holy Mountain of Athos, but it has never been limited exclusively to monks
and nuns. It is in principle a universal path, accessible to all, whether living in the desert
or in the world.
In the Orthodox Church, teaching concerning the Jesus Prayer, and more particularly
concerning the bodily technique, has been transmitted for the most part by word of mouth
through direct contact between the spiritual guide and the disciple. Displaying a deliberate
reserve, Hesychast masters have tended to be reluctant to convey detailed instructions in
written form, in case someone who lacks personal direction should misapply what they say.
St. Kallistos and St. Ignatios Xanthopoulos (late fourteenth century) are expressing a
typical caution when they state in their Directions to Hesychasts, Since, however, I heard
about these matters from a living voice, you too will hear about them in the same way at
the right time. But now is not the right time.17 When, therefore, allusions in the sources to
the physical method strike the modern reader as puzzling and incomplete, this imprecision
is probably intentional. It was assumed that written instructions would be supplemented
by oral teaching.
Cryptic references to some kind of bodily technique occur in Sinaite authors during the
seventh to the ninth centuries, and also in the Coptic Makarian cycle dating from the same
period.18 But it is only in the later Byzantine era that the evidence becomes more explicit.
Descriptions are provided by four writers in particular, whose works are all contained in
the Philokalia, edited by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain:

15
On the physical technique of the Hesychasts and its non-Christian parallels, see Hausherr
1927; Gardet 1952; Cuttat 1960:85159; Monchanin 1975; Ware 1992.
16
Cf. John 16:2324; Acts 4:1012; Philippians 2:10.
17
Century (Directions to Hesychasts) 63. The English translation (Nikodimos 1951:234) omits
this sentence.
18
See Ware 1992:910.

7
1. St. Nikiphoros the Hesychast, On Watchfulness and the Guarding of the Heart (second half of
the thirteenth century).19
2. The text attributed to St. Symeon the New Theologian (9591022), entitled The Three
Methods of Prayer, also known as The Method of Sacred Prayer and Attentiveness (probably
dating likewise from the later thirteenth century; sometimes attributed to Nikiphoros,
although this is open to question).20
3. The treatises of St. Gregory of Sinai (died 1346).21
4. St. Kallistos and St. Ignatios Xanthopoulos, Directions to Hesychasts, also known as Century
(late fourteenth century).22
The physical technique, as described in these four sources, involves three elements:
first, a particular bodily posture (a crouching or foetal position, on a low stool); second,
control of the breathing (coordination of the Jesus Prayer with the rhythm of the
breathing); third, inner exploration (descent of the intellect [nous] into the heart [kardia]).
In addition to this physical technique, a chaplet or prayer rope may be used with the Jesus
Prayer. This is known in Greek as komvoschoinion, and in the Slavic languages as vervitsa or
tchotki. It is similar to the Roman Catholic rosary, but not altogether identical. There is no
mention of the prayer rope in the fourteenth-century sources, but it has been used in
Orthodoxy since at least the seventeenth century, and probably from an earlier date. Let us
consider more fully the three aspects of the physical technique.
(1) Bodily posture. Sit down on a quiet cell, in a corner by yourself, states Pseudo-
Symeon. Rest your beard on your chest, and focus your physical gaze, together with the
whole of your intellect, upon the centre of your belly or your navel.23 Gregory of Sinai is
somewhat more precise: Sit on a seat one span high, that is, about nine inches in height.
He warns the spiritual aspirant that the crouching position will quickly become
uncomfortable: Keeping your head forcibly bent downwards, [you will suffer] acute pain in
your chest, shoulders and neck; nevertheless, it is necessary to persevere (Nikodimos
1995:264). Sometimes a Biblical precedent is noted: Elijah, praying on Mount Carmel,

19
Nikodimos 1995:194206, especially 205206.
20
Nikodimos 1995:6775, especially 7273.
21
Nikodimos 1995:257286, especially 264, 274.
22
Nikodimos 1951:164270, especially 192196. Cf. Ware 1995:1922.
23
Nikodimos 1995:72.

8
bowed himself down upon the earth and put his face between his knees.24 Pseudo-
Symeons reference to gazing upon the navel led the Hesychasts to be ridiculed as
omphalopsychoi, navel-psychics, people who locate the soul in the navel. But more often
the Hesychast texts speak of concentrating the gaze upon the place of the heart.
(2) Control of breathing. While not always precise or consistent with one another, the
Hesychast sources envisage some kind of correlation between the tempo of the Jesus Prayer
and the rhythm of the breathing. The basic point in their instructions is that the speed of
our inhalation and exhalation is to be deliberately slowed down. Restrain the drawing-in
of breath through your nostrils, so as not to breathe easily, writes Pseudo-Symeon.25
Gregory of Sinai speaks in similar terms of the need to restrain or hold back our breath.
The act of breathing out, he believes, produces a dissipation of our attentiveness, and so we
should delay it as long as possible. Restrain your breathing, he insists, so as not to
breath unimpededly; for when you exhale, the air, rising from the heart, beclouds the
intellect and ruffles your thinking, keeping the intellect away from the heart.26 At the
same time, Gregory warns the Hesychast not to hold back his breath to an excessive degree,
for such violence will prove injurious: Excess in anything easily leads to conceit, and
conceit induces self-delusion. Keep the intellect at rest by gently pressing your lips
together when you pray, but do not impede your nasal breathing, as the ignorant do, in
case you harm yourself by building up the pressure.27 In any case, Gregory considers that
control of the breathing possesses only a limited value; what matters much more is to
control our intellect. Holding the breath, he says, also helps to stabilize the intellect, but
only temporarily, for after a little while it lapses into distraction again.28
Nikiphoros and Pseudo-Symeon envisage this control of breathing as a preliminary
exercise that precedes the actual recitation of the Jesus Prayer. In Gregory of Sinai,
however, it does not just precede but accompanies the prayer: Restraining your breathing
as much as possible and enclosing your intellect in your heart, invoke the Lord Jesus
continuously and diligently.29 This is somewhat vagueperhaps on purposebut it may

24
1 Kings 18:42. For an illustration of this, see MS Vaticanus Graecus 1754, in Ware 1992:11.
25
Nikodimos 1995:72.
26
Nikodimos 1995:264.
27
Nikodimos 1995:285.
28
Nikodimos 1995:277.
29
Nikodimos 1995:264.

9
mean that the Jesus Prayer is to be recited in its entirety as we hold our breath, that is to
say, between breathing in and breathing out. That, at any rate, is the practice advocated by
Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain in his Handbook of Spiritual Counsel: Do not breathe
continually as is natural to our nature, but hold your breath until your inner consciousness
has a chance to say the Prayer once.30
Kallistos and Ignatios Xanthopoulos likewise regard control of the breathing not as a
preliminary exercise but as a direct accompaniment of the Jesus Prayer: As you draw in
your breath, introduce at the same time the words of the Prayer, uniting them in some way
with your breathing.31 As with Gregory of Sinai, this is unclear. What do the Xanthopouloi
mean by saying in some way? Possibly their intention is that the whole of the Jesus Prayer
is to be said while breathing in; if so, to the best of my knowledge this is a technique not to
be found elsewhere. But perhaps they intend that the first half of the prayer, Lord Jesus
Christ, Son of God, is to be said while breathing in, and the second half, have mercy on
me [the sinner], is to be said while breathing out. This is in fact the practice recommended
in the anonymous work from nineteenth-century Russia, The Way of a Pilgrim (also known as
The Pilgrims Tale).32 Contemporary Orthodox teachers likewise propose this method. At the
same time they insist that any more elaborate form of breathing control should only be
attempted under the personal direction of an experienced spiritual guide.
In The Way of a Pilgrim it is suggested that the rhythm of the Jesus Prayer may be
coordinated not only with the breathing but with the beating of the heart.

Form an image of your heart. Direct your eyes toward it as though you
were looking at it. Listen attentively with your mind to its beating and how
it pounds, one beat after another. When you have mastered this, begin to
fit the words of the prayer to every beat of the heart, all the while looking at
it. Thus, with the first beat, say or think Lord; with the second, Jesus;
with the third, Christ; with the fourth, have mercy; and with the fifth,
on me. Repeat this over and over again.33

30
Nikodimos 1989:60.
31
Nikodimos 1951:196; translation altered.
32
Pentkovsky 1999:126.
33
Pentkovsky 1999:126.

10
A heart-beat technique of this kind cannot, however, be found in fourteenth-century
Greek sources, and it is not recommended by contemporary Orthodox guides. Many of
them, indeed, consider it to be dangerous. As Frannys boyfriend Lane objects, in J. D.
Salingers novel Franny and Zooey, All this synchronization business and mumbo-jumbo.
You get heart trouble?34 But, while absent from Hesychasm, such a technique is used, as
we shall see, by the Sufis.
(3) Inner exploration. In Pseudo-Symeon, control of the breathing is closely associated
with an interior search for the place of the heart. In words already quoted, he says:
Restrain the drawing-in of breath through your nostrils, so as not to breathe easily; and
then immediately he continues: and search inside yourself with your intellect so as to find
the place of the heart, where all the powers of the soul reside. Initially the results will be
disappointing: To start with you will find there darkness and an impenetrable density.
But if a person persists, he will discover, as though miraculously, unceasing joy. Entry
into the heart leads to a vision of light: For as soon as the intellect attains the place of the
heart, at once it sees things of which it previously knew nothing. It sees the open space
within the heart and it beholds itself entirely luminous. From this point onwards the
spiritual aspirant will be able to pray with full attentiveness, at once expelling every
distractive thought.35 Here Pseudo-Symeon, in common with other patristic authors,
pictures the heart not as a pump but as a receptacle or vessel containing open space.
Nikiphoros offers a more developed rationale of this inner exploration, placing
emphasis on the passage of air through the lungs.

You know that what we breathe is air. When we exhale it, this is for the
hearts sake, for the heart is the source of life and warmth for the body. The
heart draws towards itself the air inhaled when breathing, so that by
discharging some of its heat when the air is exhaled it may maintain an even
temperature. The cause of this process or, rather, its agent, are the lungs.
The Creator has made these capable of expanding and contracting, like
bellows, so that they can easily draw in and expel their contents.

Nikiphoros continues by saying that, at the same time as our breath passes through our
nostrils, down the lungs, and so into the heart, we are to make the intellect pass

34
Salinger 1964:36.
35
Nikodimos 1995:7273.

11
downwards together with our breath, so that we descend in this way from the head into the
heart.

Seat yourself, then, concentrate your intellect, and lead it into the
respiratory passage through which your breath passes into your heart. Put
pressure on your intellect and compel it to descend with your inhaled breath
into your heart.

At first this will prove difficult and even disagreeable; but, once the intellect has grown
accustomed to dwell in the heart, it will be filled with indescribable delight, like a
traveller long absent from his home, who returns at last to his wife and family.36
Gregory of Sinai and the Xanthopouloi also advocate the practice of inner exploration,
but without going into details.
Nikiphoros recommends this technique of inner exploration as an aid to those who
cannot find a spiritual father. Most Orthodox teachers in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, however, express a directly opposite opinion: in their view, no one should
attempt this inner exploration without personal guidance from an expert elder (Greek
geronta; Slavonic starets). For this reason St. Theophan the Recluse, editor of the
Dobrotolubiyethe Russian translation of the Philokaliadrastically abbreviates the
descriptions of the bodily technique provided by Pseudo-Symeon and Nikiphoros. In a
footnote Theophan explains: Here St. Symeon [=Pseudo-Symeon] describes certain
exterior methods which scandalize some and lead them to abandon all practice of the
prayer, while in the case of others such methods bring about a distortion in their actual use
of the prayer. Since, owing to the scarcity of instructors, these methods may lead to evil
effects, while in themselves they are nothing more than external predispositions for inner
work and have no essential value, we omit them. The essential thing is to acquire the habit
of making the intellect stand on guard in the heartin the physical heart, but not in a
physical way.37
It is not at once clear what Theophan has in mind when he speaks of dwelling in the
physical heart, but not in a physical way. To appreciate his meaning, and also to
understand what Orthodox writers intend when they refer to finding the place of the
heart, entering the heart, or descending with intellect (nous) into the heart, it has to

36
Nikodimos 1995:205.
37
Nikodimos 1951:158n33 (translation modified). Cf. Ware 1992:2224.

12
be remembered that for them the term heart (kardia) indicates in the first instance the
physical heart, the bodily organ situated in the chest, but has also a broader symbolic
sense.38 In Greek Hesychast texts, as in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament,
the heart denotes the moral and spiritual centre of the total human person. It signifies, not
primarily the emotions and affections, as in the modern usage of the word, but rather the
focal point of our spiritual nature in its entirety. This double character of the heart, as a
reality both physical and spiritual, is evident from the passages cited above: the heart is, on
the physical level, the source of life and warmth for the body (Nikiphoros), but it is also
spiritually the place where all the powers of the soul reside (Pseudo-Symeon). The
heart is thus the seat of thought, intelligence, and wisdom, the determinant of our moral
action, the place where the voice of the conscience is heard. It is moreover the point of
encounter between the human and the divine, the secret sanctuary where we experience
divine grace and where we know ourselves as created in Gods image and likeness.39
St. Gregory Palamas (12961359), the chief theologian of Hesychasm, when defending
the physical method, uses the term heart in precisely this all-embracing sense. He speaks
of that innermost body within the body that we term the heart, and he calls it the ruling
organ, the throne of grace. In this context he quotes the Homilies of Makarios (? late fourth
century): The heart rules over the whole bodily organism, and when grace takes
possession of the pastures of the heart, it reigns over all our thoughts and members. For
the intellect and all the thoughts of the soul are located there. Developing this theme,
Palamas continues:

Our heart is, therefore, the shrine of the intelligence and the chief
intellectual organ of the body. When, therefore, we strive to scrutinize and
to amend our intelligence through rigorous watchfulness, how could we do
this if we did not collect our intellect, outwardly dispersed through the
senses, and bring it back within ourselvesback to the heart itself, the
shrine of the thoughts?40

38
On the meaning of the terms nous and kardia, see Ware 1999:1622.
39
Genesis 1:2627.
40
Gregory Palamas, Triads 1.2.3, quoting Makarios, Homilies 15.20. In Meyendorff 1959a:80
81.

13
If we understand the heart in this comprehensive way, it is possible to demythologize the
method described by Nikiphoros, dissociating it from the outdated physiology which it
presupposes. When Hesychast texts speak of finding the place of the heart and the like,
they do indeed mean in the first instance that we are to concentrate our attention upon the
region of the physical heart. But, since the heart is at the same time the spiritual centre of
the total human being, through this concentration upon our physical heart we are enabled
to enter into relationship with our deep self and so to discover the true dimensions of our
personhood in God. To make the intellect descend from the head into the heart is to
achieve integration, to realize oneself as a unified whole formed in the divine image. The
outer concentration upon the movement of the breath through the nostrils and down the
lungs is signum efficax, an effective sign, symbolizing and actualizing our inner journey from
dispersal to single-pointedness, from fragmentation to unity in Christ.
The psychosomatic technique of the Hesychasts, especially in the account given by
Nikiphoros, has often been criticized as crude and unsophisticated. Irne Hausherr even
dismisses it as a dformation, due to lhumaine btise.41 Yet in its defence it may be said
that the physical method embodies a principle of the utmost importance: the body
constitutes an essential element in our human personhood, and therefore it can and should
play an active part in the working-out of our meditation and contemplative prayer. I do not
merely have a body, but I am my body and my body is me, viewed from a particular point
of view. The spiritual life, then, is not simply an affair of the soul, while the body is
regarded as, at best, a passive lump of matter to be ignored so far as possible, and at worst
as an active impediment. To repudiate the body in this way is directly to contradict the
Biblical view, as expressed notably by St. Paul. Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,
he affirms. Glorify God in your body; Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and
acceptable to God.42 Paul makes a careful distinction between flesh (sarx) and body
(soma). Flesh denotes not our physicality but the total human person, in a fallen and
sinful state. As Fr. Sergii Bulgakov (18711944) used to say, Kill the flesh so as to acquire a
body.43 Palamas rightly points out that what Paul condemns is not the body in itself but

41
Hausherr 1927:142, 146.
42
1 Corinthians 6:1920 and Romans 12:1, respectively.
43
Quoted by Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom), in Allchin 1967:41. I have modified the
translation.

14
the body of this death,44 that is to say our body in its present sinful condition, alienated
from God and subject to the dominion of death. It is the great merit of the psychosomatic
technique that it endeavours to apply the holistic anthropology of Paul in a practical
manner, assigning to the body a positive role in the spiritual journey.
Palamas sums up the rationale of the psychosomatic technique by saying After the
Fall, our inner being naturally adapts itself to outward forms.45 Between our bodily
organism and our inner activities there exists what Jacques-Albert Cuttat styles an
analogy-participation. The physical and the psychic are joined together by an organic
connection or exact correspondence, by an inner continuity, and it is this connection
or continuity that the Hesychast method seeks to develop and exploit.46 Every alteration in
our physical condition affects our psychic state, and conversely each change in our psychic
state has physical consequences. When we grow angry, the rhythm of our breathing
accelerates; when we are engaged in deep reflection, it slows down. The Hesychast method
is simply an application of this obvious interrelation. Anyone who closes his eyes when
praying, who raises his hands to heaven, who kneels or makes prostrations, has already
admitted the basic axiom determining the physical technique of the Hesychasts.
While Palamas in this way defended the legitimacy of the Hesychast method, as
expressing a unitary and holistic view of human nature, neither he nor any of the other
leading Hesychasts treated it as the essence of the Jesus Prayer. On the contrary, it was for
them no more than an exterior method, to use Theophans phrase, an optional accessory,
useful to some but in no sense obligatory upon all. Palamas suggested that it is chiefly
suitable for beginners, whereas the more advanced can dispense with such exercises.47
He and his colleagues in the Hesychast movement believed that the Jesus Prayer can be
practised in its full integrity, simply through the invocation of the Holy Name accompanied
by fervent faith, without the employment of any physical method at all. The only essential
technique is love and obedience.

44
Triads 1.2.1: in Meyendorff 1959a:7677. Palamas, referring to Romans 7:24, actually says
this death of the body.
45
Triads 1.2.8: in Meyendorff 1959a:9091.
46
Cuttat 1960:9293.
47
Triads 1.2.7: in Meyendorff 1959a:8689. Cf. Ware 1992:21.

15
 Byzantine Yogis?
The anonymous author of The Way of a Pilgrim was dimly aware that there might be
similarities between the physical method of the Hesychasts and the techniques followed in
yoga and Sufism. A Polish steward, a Roman Catholic, notices the book that the Russian
Pilgrim is reading, and comments:

Oh, thats the Philokalia. I used to see that book at our Catholic priests
when I was living in Wilno. I was told, however, that it contains some sort of
strange tricks. Yes, yes, a science for prayer, written down by Greek monks,
similar to the way fanatics in India and Bukhara sit and puff themselves up,
wanting to experience a tickling in their heart. In their stupidity they
consider this natural sensation to be prayer. That is how youll grow crazy,
if youll pardon me, and youll harm your heart as well.

The Pilgrim reacts with a pained protest:

Dear sir, do not think so about this holy book. Simple Greek monks did not
write it, but the ancient, great, and most holy men whom even your church
honors. And the Indian and Bukharan monks adopted the method of the
heart for interior prayer from them; only they spoiled it and perverted it
themselves.48

The Polish steward has a point. There are indeed parallels between Hesychasm and
non-Christian methods of meditation. He thinks that the Hesychasts have borrowed from
yoga and Sufism, while the Pilgrim believes that the borrowing has been the other way
round. Of course it is also possible that there has been no direct influence, for the same idea
might arise independently in separated religious groups. The practice of maintaining inner
recollection, for example, through the repetition of a short formula such as the Jesus
Prayer or any other, is something natural and even obvious, that might easily occur in an
unrelated way within different traditions. The same is true of the further practice of
linking this repetition with the rhythm of the breathing. Is the resemblance between the
Hesychasts, on the one side, and yogis and Sufis on the other, in fact so close that some
kind of direct interaction becomes highly probable?

48
Pentkovsky 1999:97.

16
 As regards the Hindu world, the yogis, in common with the Hesychasts, employ
habitually a short formula of invocation or mantra, often using a chaplet. Their aim is
samadhi (stillness, hesychia), and they may experience a vision of light. The need for an
experienced guide or guru is emphasized, as in Hesychasm. More specifically, we find in
yoga, as among the fourteenth-century Hesychasts:
1. The recommendation of specific bodily postures (sanas).
2. Control of the respiration (pryma): the breathing is to be slowed down; the
adept is told to breathe quietly through the nose, and in general to restrain his
breath.
3. Concentration of the attention upon particular psychosomatic centres (chakras).
Yet, if there are evident similarities, there are also differences. The Hesychast sits with
head bowed and chin resting on his chest; in the lotus position of yoga the back is
upright, although there may be other postures in yoga that involve a crouching position.
The breathing exercises in yoga are far more complex and elaborate than anything
suggested in the Byzantine tradition; the Hesychast method corresponds only to the first
and simplest exercises in yoga. Furthermore, in yoga the inner exploration is extended to
regions below the heart, but in Hesychast teaching this is forbidden. In yoga, there is not
only a movement of descent but also a corresponding movement of ascent from the
kundalini centre up the vertebral column to the chakra in the forehead between the two
eyes (the third eye), and then to the supreme chakra at the top of the head. There is no
equivalent to this in the psychosomatic symbolism of the Hesychasts. Having once
descended into the place of the heart, the Hesychast seeks to remain there and does not
reascend. Most important of all, the Jesus Prayer is specifically an invocation addressed to
Christ as incarnate God. In yoga, on the other hand, we do not find the idea of an encounter
with a transcendent, personal God. Yoga is a technique for concentration, not a
conversation face-to-face with another person.
Taking all this into account, Abb Jules Monchanin concludes, Direct borrowing is
unlikely.49 If there has been any direct borrowing, then it must be the Hesychasts who
have borrowed from yoga, not vice versa, for the Indian practices date back to the pre-
Christian era, long before the emergence of Hesychasm. It is also possible that, while there
was no direct influence, a knowledge of Indian yoga was transmitted through the
intermediary of the Sufis. Yet, even if the parallels between yoga and Hesychasm are due to

49
Monchanin 1975:8592.

17
independent convergence, they are nonetheless not without interest. In both the Indian
and the Byzantine teaching, it is clearly affirmed that there is indeed an analogy-
participation between the physical and the psychic levels, such that the body can and
should play a positive part in meditation and prayer.
When we turn from yoga to Sufism, we are on firmer ground. Here some kind of
immediate interaction does indeed seem probable. Islam shares far more with Christianity
than does Hinduism. Muslims and Christians are People of the Book, with common roots
in the Old Testament. Both believe in a single God, transcendent and personal: in Islam,
exclusively one; in Christianity, one in three. When a Sufi practises dhikrthe memory and
repeated invocation of the Name of God, Allahhe is addressing a particular person in
prayer, just as the Christian is doing through the Jesus Prayer, in a way that is not
necessarily the case when a yogi repeats a mantra. Moreover, in their doctrine of the
human person, and above all in their understanding of the heart, Hesychasts and Sufis are
in close agreement.
It is against this common background that the more particular similarities and
differences between the Jesus Prayer and dhikr are to be assessed. Dhikr is often performed
collectively, whereas the Jesus Prayer is normally recited by the Hesychast alone in the
seclusion of his cell. (An exception here is to be found in the Orthodox Monastery of St.
John the Baptist at Tolleshunt Knights in Essex, where the Jesus Prayer is said communally
in church, for two hours each morning and for another two hours each evening.) But
otherwise Hesychasm and Sufism share many features. In dhikr, as with the Jesus Prayer,
guidance from an experienced master is considered highly desirable, if not essential. A
chaplet may be used. The practice of dhikr involves the same three features already noted
in the bodily method of Hesychasts:
1. Specific bodily postures are recommended, including the resting of the head
upon the chest, and sometimes the placing of the head between the knees. But
in dhikr, as in yoga, the postures are often highly elaborate, far more than is the
case in Hesychasm.
2. In dhikr the initiate practises breathing control, coordinating the invocation of
the Name with the movement of the respiration. Once more, the exercises
employed by the Sufis are more complex than anything found in Hesychasm. At
a more advanced stage, the Sufi may synchronize the invocation with the

18
 beating of the heart. This is something mentioned, as we have seen, in The Way of
a Pilgrim, but not found in Byzantine Hesychast sources.
3. The Sufi is taught to take note of the movement of the prayer from the lips, by
way of the breathing, down to the heart, this last being understood, as in
Hesychasm, to signify the spiritual centre of the total person. Here, due to
shared Biblical roots, dhikr is far closer to Hesychast anthropology than is the
case with yoga.
Weighty though these points of similarity undoubtedly are, research into the origins of
the two traditions has not yet disclosed exactly how mutual influence may have been
exercised. We do not know at what date and in what places the two sides came first into
contact, nor which side was influencing the other. Perhaps the Arab and Persian Sufis,
drawing on yoga, transmitted the Indian observances to the Greek Orthodox world. On the
other hand, the Sufis may have been influenced by Byzantine texts or teachers. The
writings of the Syriac Father St. Isaac of Nineveh (died c. 700), for example, were studied by
ascetic and mystical groups in early Islam. Even though Isaac himself says nothing about
the invocation of the name of Jesus or about breathing techniques in prayer, may there not
have been other Christian ascetics who spoke of these things to the Muslim Arabs? As
mentioned above, Coptic sources dating from the seventh and eighth centuries link the
invocation of Jesus to the breathing: may not these texts have been known in Muslim
circles? Unfortunately, in all this we can do no more than guess; firm evidence is lacking.
It is, however, beyond question that there existed many possibilities for mutual contact.
The Byzantines were often at war with the Arabs and the Turks, but there were also
opportunities for friendly relations. Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, for instance, might
sometimes have talked with Muslims about their respective ways of prayer. It is interesting
to note that in 1354 the Hesychast theologian Gregory Palamas, on his way from
Thessalonica to Constantinople, was captured by the Turks and remained for one year in
custody before he could be ransomed. During this time he had conversations, in a
courteous and reasonably constructive spirit, with local Muslim religious leaders. It is at
least possible that they spoke to each other about the Sufi use of dhikr, even though the
surviving records say nothing of this.50
Hesychasm and Sufism have in fact evolved in opposite directions during the recent
past. Over the last 150 years Russian Orthodox teachers such as St. Theophan the Recluse

50
See Meyendorff 1959b:15762; Philippidis-Braat 1979; Sahas 1980.

19
and St. Ignatii Brianchaninov (18071867) have minimised the role of the bodily techniques,
and even discouraged their use altogether.51 On the other hand, in Muslim confraternities
during the twentieth century the physical exercises have been greatly emphasized. Muslim
masters, however, agree with their Orthodox counterparts that there can be no external
techniques leading automatically to union with God. For both traditions, the essence of the
spiritual way consists not in physical exercises but in the inner attentiveness of the heart.
For both, union with God is entirely a free gift of grace.
At this point, however, despite all the similarities between Hesychasm and dhikr, we are
confronted with a definite divergence. In both traditions, as we have just said, what
matters is not bodily techniques but the encounter with God. Yet is this personal encounter
the same in Hesychasm and in Sufism? One who prays the Jesus Prayer is not simply
invoking God, but he or she is specifically addressing Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the
Holy Trinity. A religion such as Islam, which rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and the
Godhead of Jesus Christ, cannot be invoking the deity in the same way as Hesychasm does.
The Jesus Prayer is not just one among a number of possible mantras, but it is an explicit
confession of faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour.
The decisive criterion, that is to say, is not just outer technique but inner content, not
just how we pray but to whom. Most pictures have frames, and all picture frames have
features in common. What matters is not the frames but the portraits within the frames;
and the latter may be altogether diverse. Physical techniques are no more than a frame for
our prayer; it is the One invoked who is the portrait. Despite the striking resemblances
between the frame of the Hesychast Jesus Prayer and the frame in Sufi dhikr, full weight
needs to be given to the uniqueness, from a Christian standpoint, of the portrait within the
frame.
Notwithstanding this important reservation, it still remains true that there is a
remarkable affinity between Hesychasm and Sufism, and likewise, albeit to a lesser degree,
between Hesychasm and yoga. Divergence in theology is counterbalanced by convergence
in spirituality. Dialogue does indeed coexist with opposition. How necessary it is for me,
says Nicholas of Cusa, to enter into the darkness and to admit the coincidence of
opposites. This is the wall of Paradise, and it is there in Paradise that You, O God, reside.52
Though spoken in a different context, his words have a definite relevance to our present

51
See Ware 1992:2224.
52
The Vision of God X (3637): in Nicholas of Cusa 1997:252252 (translation altered).

20
theme. Hesychasm, yoga, and Sufism are not exactly opposites, but they are certainly
distinct and in their formal expression of doctrine at variance with one another; yet there
is between them a genuine coincidence, not indeed complete, yet certainly far-reaching.
What all three share is not only a recognition of the value of the body in prayer and
contemplation, but also a detailed concurrence about the way in which we may in practice
glorify God in and with our body.

Bibliography
Agapios, Hieromonachos, and Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain, eds. 1864 (third ed.,
reprinted 1970). Pidalion tis noitis nios tis mias hagias katholikis kai apostolikis ton
Orthodoxon ekklisias itoi hapantes hoi hieroi kai theioi kanones. Athens.

Agapius, a Hieromonach, and Nicodemus, a Monk, eds. 1957. The Rudder (Pedalion) of the
Metaphorical Ship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians
or All the Sacred and Divine Canons. Trans. D. Cummings. Chicago.

Alfeyev, H. 2007. Le Nom grand et glorieux. La vnration du Nom de Dieu et la prire de Jsus dans
la tradition orthodoxe. Paris.

Allchin, A. M., ed. 1967. Sacrament and Image. Essays in the Christian Understanding of Man.
London.

Anawati, G. C., and L. Gardet. 1961. Mystique musulmane: aspects et tendancesexpriences et

techniques. Paris.

Bobrinskoy, B. 1989. Encounter of Traditions in Greece: St Nicodemus of the Holy

Mountain (1749-1809). In Dupr and Saliers 1989:447457.

Citterio, E. 2002. Nicodemo Agioreta. In Conticello and Conticello 2002:905978.

Citterio, I. [=E.] 1987. Lorientamento ascetico-spirituale di Nicodemo Aghiorita. Alessandria.

Conomos, D., and G. Speake, eds. 2005. Mount Athos the Sacred Bridge. The Spirituality of the
Holy Mountain. Oxford/Bern.

Conticello, C. G., and V. Conticello, eds. 2002. La thologie byzantine et sa tradition II.
Turnhout.

Cuttat, J.-A. 1960. The Encounter of Religions: A Dialogue between the West and the Orient, with an
Essay on the Prayer of Jesus. New York.

21
Dupr, L., and D. E. Saliers, eds. 1989. Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and
Modern. World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 18. New York.

Erickson, J. H. 1991. The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History.
Crestwood, NY.

Gardet, L. 1952-1953. Un problme de mystique compare: la mention du nom divin

(dhikr) dans la mystique musulmane. Revue Thomiste 52:642679; 53:197216.
Reprinted in Anawati and Gardet 1961:187256.

Gillet, L. 1952. Review of Nikodimos 1952. Sobornost (The Fellowship of S. Alban and S.
Sergius) series 3, no. 12:584586.

Hausherr, I. 1927. La mthode doraison hsychaste. Orientalia Christiana IX, 2 (36):101

210.

. 1956. Lhsychasme. tude de spiritualit. Orientalia Christiana Periodica 22:540,

247285. Reprinted in Hausherr 1966:163237.

. 1960. Noms du Christ et voies doraison. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 157. Rome.
Trans. C. Cummings, 1978. The Name of Jesus. Cistercian Studies Series 44.
Kalamazoo, MI.

. 1966. Hsychasme et prire. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 176. Rome.

Hodges, H. A. 1952. Introduction. In Nikodimos 1952:1367.

Ioannou, P. P., ed. 1962. Discipline gnrale antique (IVe-IXe S.) I, 2. Les canons des synodes
particuliers. Grottaferrata.

Ladas, G. G., and A. D. Chatzidimou. 1973. Elliniki vivliographia ton eton 17961799. Athens.

Marnellos, G. E. 2002. Saint Nicodme lHagiorite (17491809) matre et pdagogue de la

nation grecque et de lglise orthodoxe. Analecta Vlatadon 64. Thessaloniki.

Meyendorff, J. 1959a. Grgoire Palamas, Dfense des saints hsychastes. Spicilegium

Sacrum Lovaniense 3031. Louvain.

. 1959b. Introduction ltude de Grgoire Palamas. Patristica Sorbonensia 3. Paris.

Trans. G. Lawrence, 1964. A Study of Gregory Palamas. Leighton Buzzard, UK.

Monchanin, J. 1975. Yoga and Hesychasm. Cistercian Studies 10, 2:8592.

22
Nicholas of Cusa 1997. Selected Spiritual Writings. Trans. H. L. Bond. The Classics of Western
Spirituality 89. New York.

Nikodimos 1951. Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart. Trans. E. Kadloubovsky and
G. E. H. Palmer. London.

Nikodimos 1952. Unseen Warfare Being the Spiritual Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo
Scupoli as Edited by Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and Revised by Theophan the Recluse.
Trans. E. Kadloubovsky and G. E. H. Palmer. London.

Nikodimos 1989. A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel. Trans. P. A. Chamberas. The Classics of

Western Spirituality. New York.

Nikodimos 1995. The Philokalia. The Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain
and St. Makarios of Corinth IV. Trans. G. E. H. Palmer, P. Sherrard, and K. Ware.
London.

Pentkovsky, A., ed. 1999. The Pilgrims Tale. Trans. T. Allan Smith. The Classics of Western
Spirituality. New York/Mahwah, NJ.

Philippides-Braat, A. 1979. La captivit de Palamas chez les Turcs: dossier et

commentaire. Travaux et mmoires 7:109222.

Phrangiskos, E. N. 2001. La questione della conoscenza delle lingue straniere in Nicodemo

lAghiorita. In Rigo 2001:205222.

Psarev, A. V. 2007. The 19th Canonical Answer of Timothy of Alexandria: On the History of
Sacramental Oikonomia. St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 51:297320.

Rigo, A. 2001. Nicodimo lAghiorita e la Filocalia. Atti dell VIII convegno ecumenico
internazionale di spiritualit ortodossa, sessione bizantina, Bose, 1619 settembre 2000.
Magnano.

Sahas, D. J. 1980. Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (12961360) and the Muslims.
The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25:409436.

Thomson, F. J. 1965. Economy. Journal of Theological Studies 16:368420.

Viller, M. 1924. Nicodme lHagiorite et ses emprunts la littrature spirituelle

occidentale. Le Combat Spirituel et Les Exercises de S. Ignace dans lglise
byzantine. Revue dAsctique et de Mystique 5:174177, 416.

Waller, R., and B. Ward, eds. 1999. An Introduction to Christian Spirituality. London.

23
Ward, B., and R. Waller, eds. 2003. Joy of Heaven: Springs of Christian Spirituality. London.

Ware, T. [=K.] 1964. Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule. Oxford.

Ware, K. 1992. Praying with the Body: The Hesychast Method and Non-Christian Parallels.
Sobornost Incorporating Eastern Churches Review (The Fellowship of St Alban and St
Sergius) 14, 2:635.

. 1995. A Fourteenth-Century Manual of Hesychast Prayer : The Century of St Kallistos and St

Ignatios Xanthopoulos. Canadian Institute of Balkan Studies. Toronto.

. 1999. Prayer in Evagrius of Pontus and the Macarian Homilies. In Waller and Ward
1999:1431.

. 2000. The Inner Kingdom. Crestwood, NY.

. 2003. The Beginnings of the Jesus Prayer. In Ward and Waller 2003:129.

. 2005. St. Nikodimos and the Philokalia. In Conomos and Speake 2005:69121.

24