Obviously it wouldn't be hesychasm as it was explained by Palamas,
As to another matter implied by this sentence, there is a gravitation among certain OO right now to accept the Theology of Palamas, particularly the Essence-Energies distinction. I believe that minasoliman addressed this matter in a couple of posts awhile ago. Actually coming from the Byzantine tradition myself, I have retained this understanding, and have seen no reason so far to abandon it.
Do you mind explaining this a bit more? As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian who worships at a Greek Orthodox Church, perhaps I have unwittingly absorbed some theological errors. Also, since much of my understanding of Orthodoxy has come via the OSB, and books by EO scholars, (and also The Way of A Pilgrim, etc.) I may have erroneously accepted hesychasm as a tradition common to both Churches. It does seem that Ethiopians understand the Jesus Prayer to be the Lord's Prayer. But anyway, the excerpt I posted in reply # 4 seems to indicate that hesychasm is indeed a tradition all Orthodox share, EO and OO alike.
Gebre, I am talking about something rather different. Most of this thread is discussing the praxis of Hesychasm. In this post I started talking about the most theological implications of Hesychasm that were discussed in the mid-14th century at the so-called "Fifth Council of Constantinople" which some Byzantines recognize as the Ninth Ecumenical Council. One of the most significant points was the distinction of God's Essence and His Energies. One (the Essence) refers to His infinite inner being that is completely incomprehensible and even imperceptible by us. The Energies, on the other hand, are the eternal emanations from God which constitute His divine livelihood. In the Byzantine Palamite (after Gregory Palamas, the Archbishop of Thessaloniki of the time) theology, it is understood that we are able (sometimes) to perceive the Energies of God and (sometimes) also able to participate in them.
This touches on what the whole hoopla about the "light" is about. Some of the 14th century Hesychasts claimed that, while in the midst of practice, some of them could perceive an awesome light which they claimed was an eternal emanation (Energy) of God. There was a fellow named Barlaam of Calabria who began to denounce the Hesychasts and say that such a thing was impossible, and that there was no way that God could be in any way perceived as such. Gregory Palamas was his primary opponent and upheld that they were perceiving eternal Energies of God. Her elaborated his belief that the light that the Apostles perceived when they say Christ transfigured was the same eternal Energies of God, and as such the light came to be known as "the Tabor Light". The doctrine of Palamas is what won out in the Byzantine church. The dimensions in which we attain to theosis (God's grace, glory, actions, etc.) all came to be understood as not creations but rather eternal emanations of God, inherent to His life.
Now, regarding the Byzantines as having been outside the Church at that time, I don't particularly care to speculate whether or not their claims of experiencing the Energies of God were correct or not. On the other hand, I accepted the Palamite Essence-Energies distinction while I was part of their church. I have not discontinued to uphold this theology after having rejected Chalcedon, as I have not seen yet far any reason why it would contradict Oriental theology. However, I may eventually turn out to be wrong about that, and I will willingly shed myself of this teaching if it turns out that it actually is error.