9 ESOTERISM AND EXOTERISM

In the course of our preliminary remarks we have had occasion to refer to the distinction, which is fairly generally known to have existed in certain philosophical schools of ancient Greece—if not in all of them—between what is called esoterism and exoterism, that is to say between two aspects of a single doctrine, the one more interior and the other relatively exterior: such in fact is the whole literal meaning of these two terms. Exoterism, comprising the more elementary and easily understandable part of the teaching, which was consequently more readily brought within everybody’s reach, is the only aspect to be expressed through the writings that have come down to us in a more or less complete form. Esoterism, being more profound and of a higher order, addressed itself as such only to regular disciples of the school who were specially prepared to receive it, and was the subject of a purely oral teaching, concerning which it has obviously not been possible to preserve very precise indications. Moreover, since we are here only concerned with a single doctrine regarded under two different aspects and having as it were two different levels of teaching, it should be clearly understood that these aspects could not in any way be opposed or contradictory, but must rather have been complementary to one another. The esoteric branch, by bringing to light the deeper meaning which the exoteric branch contained only virtually, developed and completed the doctrine which the latter had expounded in a rather vague, over-simplified, and sometimes more or less symbolic form, although with the Greeks the symbol too often came to possess a purely literary and poetical character which caused it to degenerate into mere allegory.

On the other hand, it goes without saying that within the school itself esoterism was in its turn capable of being subdivided into several grades of teaching of varying profundity, the disciples passing successively from one grade to another according to their state of preparedness, with the possibility of going just as far as their intellectual aptitudes permitted; but that is about all that can be said for certain.

This distinction between esoterism and exoterism has in no wise been maintained in modern philosophy, which is really nothing more than it appears to be on the surface, and which assuredly has no need of any sort of esoterism for what it teaches, since everything really profound totally escapes its limited viewpoint. Now the question arises whether this conception of two complementary aspects of a single doctrine was peculiar to Greece; in truth, it would be very surprising if a division that seems so natural in principle had remained so exceptional, and in fact such is not the case. First of all, there are known to have existed in the West, since an early date, certain schools, generally very inaccessible and little known for that reason, which were in no sense philosophical schools; their doctrines only found outward expression under the veil of certain symbols that necessarily remained very obscure to those who did not possess the key to them; and this key was only given to adherents who had taken certain pledges, and who had given sufficient assurance of their discretion as well as of their intellectual capacity. This state of affairs, which manifestly implies the existence of doctrines sufficiently profound to be completely foreign to the common mentality, seems to have been especially prevalent during the Middle Ages, and this is one of the reasons why it is always necessary, when speaking of the intellectuality of that period, to make due reservations for anything that may then have existed over and above what is known to us for certain; indeed, as in the case of Greek esoterism, it is evident that many things must have been lost through never having been taught otherwise than orally, a circumstance which, as we have already indicated, accounts also for the almost total disappearance of the doctrines of the Druids.

As an example of the schools just referred to we may take the alchemists, whose doctrines were primarily of a cosmological order, although cosmology must always have for its foundation a more or less extensive body of metaphysical conceptions. It might be said that the symbols contained in the alchemical writings constituted in this instance the exoteric aspect of the doctrine, while the interpretations set apart for the use of the adepts constituted the esoteric aspect; but the part played by exoterism is in that case much reduced, and seeing that it has no real reason for existing except in relation to esoterism, it is even questionable whether these two terms can any longer be applied legitimately. In point of fact, esoterism and exoterism, being words comparative in form, are essentially correlatives, so that where there is no exoterism there is no longer any occasion to speak of esoterism either; the latter term, if one wishes to preserve to it its proper meaning, cannot therefore be applied indiscriminately to any and every doctrine that is set apart for the exclusive use of an intellectual elite.

It would no doubt be possible, though in a much wider sense, to envisage both an esoteric and an exoteric aspect in any particular doctrine, insofar as the conception is to be distinguished from its expression, the first being wholly interior while the second represents only an exteriorization of it; it may thus be said, though by straining the usual meaning of the words somewhat, that the conception represents the esoteric aspect and the expression the exoteric aspect, necessarily so and in a manner resulting from the very nature of things. Looked at in this way, there is something peculiar to metaphysical doctrines, which must always be esoteric, and this is the inexpressible element that, as we have explained, all conceptions of a truly metaphysical order necessarily contain; it represents something which each person can only conceive for himself, with the aid of words and symbols that simply serve as points of support for his conception, and his understanding of the doctrine will be more or less complete and profound according to the measure in which he will conceive it effectively. Even in doctrines of a different order, the meaning of which does not extend to what is really inexpressible (which is the 'mystery' in the etymological sense of the word), it is equally certain that the expression is never completely adequate to the conception, so that here also something analogous occurs, although on a much reduced scale; he who possesses true understanding is always the person who is able to see beyond the words, and it may be said that the 'spirit' of any doctrine is of an esoteric nature, while the 'letter' is exoteric. This is notably the case with all the traditional texts, which moreover usually present a plurality of meanings of varying profundity, corresponding to as many different points of view; but, instead of seeking to penetrate these meanings, people commonly prefer to devote themselves to barren exegetical researches and 'textual criticism', following the methods laboriously worked out by the most modern scholarship; and such work, however wearisome it may be and whatever patience it may demand, is much easier than the other, for it at least lies within the reach of everyone's intelligence.

A noteworthy example of this plurality of meanings is furnished by the interpretation of the ideographic characters that go to make up Chinese writing. All the various meanings of which these characters are capable may be grouped around three principal ones, corresponding to the three fundamental degrees of knowledge, the first belonging to the sensory order, the second to the rational order, and the third to the purely intellectual or metaphysical order; thus, to take a very simple case, the same character may be used analogically to represent at one and the same time the sun, light, and the truth, the context alone making it possible to know which of these meanings is to be adopted—whence manifold errors on the part of Western translators. It may be understood from this how the study of the ideograms, the real significance of which so completely escapes Europeans, can serve as the foundation for a truly integrated teaching, by permitting the development and coordination of all possible conceptions in all the different orders; this study can therefore be resumed from different standpoints at all the successive levels of instruction, from the most elementary to the most lofty, giving an opportunity each time for new possibilities of conception; it is therefore an instrument admirably adapted to the exposition of a traditional doctrine.

Let us return now to the question of whether the distinction between esoterism and exoterism, understood this time in the precise sense, is applicable to the Eastern doctrines. In the first place, in Islam, the tradition appears under a double form, religious and metaphysical, as we have already explained; the religious side of the doctrine, which is in fact the most exterior side and the one that lies within reach of all, may justly be qualified in this instance as exoteric, while the metaphysical side, which contains its innermost meaning, and which is moreover regarded as the doctrine of an elite, may be qualified as esoteric; the precise force of the distinction is well preserved here, since these are two sides of one and the same doctrine. It may also be noted that something analogous is to be found in Judaism, where esoterism is represented by what is called the 'Kabbalah', a word the primary meaning of which is simply 'tradition', and which is concerned with the study of the more profound meanings of the sacred texts, while the exoteric or popular doctrine is confined to their most exterior and literal meaning. However, the Kabbalah is in general less purely metaphysical than Islamic esoterism, and it remains to some extent affected by the influence of the strictly religious point of view, in which respect it is comparable to the metaphysical part of the Scholastic doctrine, which did not keep sufficiently free of theological considerations. In Islam, on the contrary, the distinction between the two points of view is usually very sharp, apart from the case of certain schools that are more or less tinged with mysticism, and in which orthodoxy is moreover less strict than that of the other esoteric schools; it is possible to see here more clearly than anywhere else, by reason of the connection between the exoteric and the esoteric side of the tradition, how theological conceptions can receive a deeper meaning through metaphysical transposition.

To pass now to the doctrines of more easterly traditions, the distinction between esoterism and exoterism can no longer be applied in the same fashion; indeed, in some cases it cannot even be applied at all. Doubtless, in the case of China it might be said that the social tradition, which is common to all, appears to be exoteric, while the metaphysical tradition, the doctrine of the elite, is esoteric as such. However, this would only be strictly exact if one were to consider these two doctrines in relation to the primordial tradition from which both are derived; but notwithstanding this common source, they are in reality too sharply differentiated to be regarded as aspects of one and the same doctrine, which would have to be the case before one could speak of esoterism and exoterism. One of the reasons for this separation lies in the absence of that sort of combined domain associated with the religious viewpoint, in which a union takes place, insofar as this is possible, between the intellectual and the social points of view, always however at the expense of the purity of the former; but the absence of such a domain does not always entail consequences so clearly marked as in China, and this is shown by the case of India, where there is similarly nothing that can properly be called religious but where all the branches of the tradition form nonetheless a single and indivisible whole.

It is precisely of India that it now remains for us to speak, and there least of all is it possible to make a distinction such as that between esoterism and exoterism, because the tradition is in fact too completely unified to appear either in two separate bodies of doctrine or even under two complementary aspects of this kind. The only distinction that can really be made is between the essential doctrine, which is wholly metaphysical, and its various applications, which constitute so many secondary branches of it; but it is quite clear that this is in no way equivalent to the distinction we have in mind. The metaphysical doctrine itself provides no esoterism other than that which is inherent in it in the very wide sense we have already alluded to, and this is natural and inevitable in every doctrine of this kind: all may be admitted to the teaching in all its degrees, on the sole condition of being intellectually qualified to derive effective benefit from it. We are naturally speaking here only of admission to the different degrees of teaching, and not to the exercise of different functions, since other additional qualifications may be required in that respect; but it necessarily happens that among those who receive the same doctrinal teaching, as among those who read the same text, each one understands it and assimilates it more or less completely and more or less profoundly according to the extent of his own intellectual possibilities. For these reasons it is quite incorrect to speak of 'esoteric Brahmanism', as certain people have done, applying this denomination principally to the teaching contained in the Upanishads; it is true that others, speaking in their turn of an 'esoteric Buddhism', have made matters still worse, for under this label they have merely presented quite imaginary conceptions, derived neither from authentic Buddhism nor from any real esoteric doctrine.

In a textbook on the history of religions, which we have already referred to, and which, although distinguished from other works of the same kind by the spirit in which it is written, contains nevertheless many of the usual confusions and in particular that which consists in treating things as religious that cannot in any way be regarded as such, we have come across the following observation: 'An Indian conception rarely finds its exact equivalent outside India; or, to put it less broadly, ways of regarding things which elsewhere are esoteric, individual, and extraordinary, are in Brahmanism and in India, common, general, and normal.'^[1] This is fundamentally correct, but it calls nevertheless for certain reservations, since one can by no means qualify as individual, whether in India or elsewhere, conceptions which, being of a metaphysical order, are on the contrary essentially supra-individual. Moreover, these conceptions find their equivalent, although under different forms, wherever a truly metaphysical doctrine exists, that is to say in all Eastern countries, and it is only in the West that there is nothing to be found corresponding to them even remotely. The truth is that conceptions of this kind are nowhere so widespread as in India, because nowhere else does a people exist endowed so generally and to such an extent with the requisite aptitudes, although these aptitudes are also commonly met with among all Easterners, notably among the Chinese, whose metaphysical tradition has nevertheless remained much more inaccessible. It is the purely traditional character of Hindu unity that has contributed more than anything else to the development of such a mentality; it is impossible really and effectively to participate in this unity without assimilating the tradition, and since the tradition is metaphysical in essence, it may be said that if every Hindu is naturally a metaphysician, he must be one almost by definition.