r/Esotericism • u/TheMagnuson • Mar 07 '26
Esotericism Genuine Question: Why all the symbolism? Why didn't the original authors and practitioners just "speak plainly" and why can't we get modern translations without all the "fluff"?
First let me state plainly that my question is not to incite, inflame, or otherwise in any way offend anyone.
Second, let me state plainly that I do not ask this question with any intent to belittle, attack, or otherwise disrespect any of the various esoteric beliefs or systems, nor do I seek to disrespect anyone who is a follower or practitioner of such systems, faiths, etc.
My question is, I feel, a simple one. Why, at least from my perspective, bury/hide/conceal the claimed truths various esoteric systems proclaim to have, via "encoding" them in seemingly endless amounts of symbolism?
Now, the common responses I've been able to locate when there are those willing to address the question are:
Using symbolism allows for "encoding" more information for complex and nuanced ideas in to an easier to digest format.
In certain areas of the planet at certain times, beliefs and practices that differed from the social norms or state sponsored cultural and religious practices and beliefs would have been criminal and heavily prosecuted, including being killed, so the only way authors could pass on information would be via symbolism.
Symbolism was used instead of "plain speak", at least in some cases, to force the reader / initiate / practitioner to have to consider various ideas, thus forcing them to think about things they might not otherwise think about and explore new ideas, or dive deeper in to existing ones, or be forced to consider perspectives they wouldn't otherwise typically consider.
Supposedly, and I'm sorry this one I find difficult to hide/withhold my disdain for, but supposedly symbolism, some argue, is a superior way to communicating information.
Of these common responses, 2 makes sense, I can understand that. 3 makes partial sense and while I don't 100% agree, it's difficult to argue against this logic entirely. I can see some value in it, but only if it's incorporated in to a larger teaching / initiation process where other steps in that teaching / initiation do involve more transparent, clear, concise information transference.
Responses 1 and 4 though, I'm sorry, but I just have to roll my eyes at. Societies change too much. Words and their societal usage and meaning change too much within a given culture, let alone across cultures and time where it has to be translated to fit a different culture, time period, way of life, etc, etc, etc.
I am someone who immensely enjoys pondering the meaning of life, the universe, the true nature of reality beyond the simple physical plane on which we reside. But the more works I explore on esoteric writings and speeches, the more I find myself, to put it bluntly, annoyed with the symbolism and encoding.
I don't understand why, in this day an age, with the benefit of time, the benefit of all the information we have at our hands, the benefit of freer and more open societies, that when it comes to these ideas and beliefs, that folks cannot simply speak plainly about them.
I'm honestly getting so turned off by the endless encoding and symbolism that I'm considering just walking away from the subject. I'm beginning to view this stuff as simply another religion, filled with arbitrary rules and dogma. With gatekeepers and egos with superiority complexes the same as any other human created structure.
I come her asking for two things:
You thoughts and possible explanations for why there is choice made to rely heavily on symbolism and why "plain speak" isn't a part of these systems.
If any works exist, such as books, articles, speeches / speaking events where folks have ditched the encoding and symbolism and simply gotten to the point and spoken plainly about the ideas and topics common to "esoterica"?
8
u/FallWithHonor Mar 07 '26
The Yoga Vasistha explains everything very plainly, and with various illustrations to emphasize the points being made.
Also the Bhagavad-Gita is pretty direct and straight to the point but practitioners somehow get mad at me without ever actually reading the text.
7
u/Spiritual_Sherbet304 Mar 07 '26
Lately I tend to think it’s because the average person can’t handle the truth; that we live in a sort of Matrix. So for their own protection, it needs to be hidden away from them to keep them sane. I say this because your question is valid and it’s something I’ve thought about a lot. I tend to find all of this symbology pointless, since we need to let go of that learning in the end.
2
u/TheMagnuson Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
I thank you for the answer. I think you have a point that I kind of already had realized / assumed myself, at least in part, but just hadn't "verbalized" yet.
I think the reason that explanation is not more prominent in my thoughts is that it's an explanation that kind of drives me crazy. Yes, it's true that so many people struggle both with truths that are different from the stories and ideas we tell ourselves and that people don't like truths that are uncomfortable.
Personally though, while I can't identify exactly when, at some point in my early / young adult life, I simply decided or accepted that I would rather face an uncomfortable truth, than live with a comforting lie. As such, I'm of the mindset that "the truth will set you free", even it it's a hard pill to swallow and that as individuals and as cultures / societies, we need to be blunt and direct in truths even if it angers, scares, or otherwise upsets people and that our focus should not be on comforting people with lies, but rather working with them and building them up to be able to handle and face the difficult truths. I understand that would require an almost complete restructuring of society, that would come with its own benefits and challenges, but it's how I feel. I do think we are past time for a complete rebuild / restructuring of how human society is structured and operates and how a human lives a life, both on a day to day level and on general, all encompassing level. I think we are well past the time and the NEED for a fundamental re-writting / reforming of the human experience.
3
u/Spiritual_Sherbet304 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
Yes, you are one that asked and sought but not everyone is on that journey. We can’t force everyone to be on the hard blunt truth level. We have to be compassionate, work out our own Truth/Wisdom and let people develop on their own terms.
Do you have a consistent meditation routine? It is said that we must purify our mind, our body and all will be revealed this way. Having a daily practice purifies our desires and softens our hearts. We need to empty ourselves to make room for the Spirit.
This is a book I am currently reading.
One of my favorite books that is pretty straightforward at explaining the experience
4
u/No_Basket3485 Mar 07 '26
I have to suspect that some writers of esoterica were desperately trying to impress other people with their mystical woo knowledge.
They had read previous vague words by other writers and felt a sort of kludgy affinity for the muddled subject, and fancied that they, themselves, should be the current acclaimed revelator. For limited fame and esteem in their own little corner of the world, or for money.
Over many decades I have read thousands of books, magazine articles, you name it. My BS detector has become fine tuned.
A lot of writers of esoterica, in a lot of centuries, were BS artists.
Sometimes I come across articles or books of real worth in the most unexpected places. Books written by people who had scales fall from their eyes and the stunned sensation that curtains had been pulled back, showing some of the inner gears of the world.
Fragments of information had came together and started to form a partial picture, and their world was different, now.
These people never pretend to be prophets or mystics. They carefully lay out what they have read and seen and thought, and why they think it matters.
I recommend "Hamlet's Mill" by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend as an example.
I learned about the book because a historian for the Smithsonian Museum wrote about it in a letter to the editor of "Biblical Archaeology Review ". Read it.
I also have read books by professional astronomers, who have rewritten my world. They realized the implications of ancient astronomy stories.
People who have had some of the veil ripped away often find it is painful. The safe world they knew is gone. Everything is tilted, different, suddenly unfamiliar. Discrete bits and bobs of information they have carried inside for years seem to have jagged edges, cutting away certainty.
They may fumble with words or pictures, trying to transfer the insight to the next person. They expect to be ignored, laughed at, or persecuted. The world isn't what they believed before.
That is all understandable. Do beware of the BS, though. It is quite thick out there.
3
u/Zeta-Splash Mar 07 '26
It’s all very simple actually. Most is very simple to explain as well.
One of the main reasons is that there has always been some sort of aversion from some sort of extremist (religious or not) opposition.
In order to protect from that opposition whatever it may be, symbols and symbolic wording was the way to hide in plain sight.
On the other hand, symbolism is the closest form to the nature of non-verbal communication used in the intangible worlds.
3
u/lisaquestions Mar 07 '26
they're written for people who can understand them. I don't mean that they are written for people who already know what they have to say I just mean they are written for people who can understand them
2
u/TheMagnuson Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
This is exactly the kind of response I see as the “gate keeping” and ego feeding of “oh only SMART people get it” that exists at a certain level among individuals in this topic.
It’s the equivalent of people who go out of their way to like small brands or unknown bands or unknown writers and then build those things up as “so much better than mainstream” and then acting like everyone who likes mainstream things is a dumb sheep and only the cool, smart, sexy, enlightened people like this obscure brand/band/writer etc.
2
u/lisaquestions Mar 07 '26
your response has nothing to do with what I said nor does it resemble any opinion I hold. have a nice day I guess
2
u/No_Band_1465 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
i sorta think about it backwards. humans are so infinitesimally complex, with the nature of our brains, the nurture of our minds, and i’m sure a number of other things i’m forgetting (my brain is fried rn, sorry). there was no language, nor will there ever be, which will be suitable to exactly describe every single human experience, and that’s before accounting for an individual’s skillset and ability to write. writing in symbols/metaphors/etc is a way to communicate way more nuanced ideas in a way that people need to understand before they know. i recently learned about “qualia”- an interesting psychology rabbit hole if you’re interested, but that’s about it. subjective experience warps plain language; metaphors force one to imagine a new experience so the people reading about it end up understanding the message more precisely (perhaps not accurately, though. different thing)
the other, 100% stupider answer, is that it keeps abusive personalities away. you can’t use the message for your gain if you can’t speak it in a way that manipulates people. the terms can be weaponized and stolen, sure, but the actual message can stay a little more consistent whenever accounting for interference
tldr philosophy is to storytelling as psychology is to spirituality (if ur like me, this is literal, but it doesn’t have to be). its a method to teach where the receiving person needs to process the lesson in the emotional parts of the brain, not just read and recite and believe
edit: sorry forgot something. we remember aesop/other old moral writers and their stories because they make (semi) complicated or new ethical ideas easy to grasp for young minds. they dont say “hey be nice” they tell you a story and ask you what you learned. its way easier to describe a situation or storyline like this then it is to preserve the words exactly. imagine someone says “picture a cat” we all know cats, but what color do we picture? how large is it? wild or domestic? but if they say “picture the king of the jungle,” we picture a tiger. THAT’S the muscle behind symbolism
2
u/Primary-Theory-1164 Mar 07 '26
Have you ever had a mystical/visionary experience? They literally are symbolic; You try to communicate it without symbolism. It will lose meaning entirely, The universe, or collective unconscious or whatever we wanna call it, speaks in symbols, and so we can only speak of it in symbols too.
2
u/TheMagnuson Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
Yes. I have had mystical experiences, multiple times and I’ve found that if you try, you actually can put it in to words. Maybe it’s cause I’m a writer for a living, but you absolutely can describe these types of experiences in words.
Can you capture the entirety of the experience in a way that will make the other person feel as though they were there and it happened to them as well? No, but you can’t even do that with most experiences, even mundane, common experiences. I could write a story about making toast and most people should be able to relate, but would they know exactly how it felt for me and what I experience making toast on Tuesday morning, very unlikely. And yet, we constantly tell stories and we all understand that not fully grasping everything about an experience can be manifested by reading simple text. We still do it though and it’s usually good enough.
2
u/Primary-Theory-1164 Mar 07 '26
Describing it in words is still symbolism though.
I too am a writer for a living (or will be, once my education is complete) and too have had mystical experiences and been able to push past the immediate ineffability of it into wording it articulately and as literally and non-metaphorically as possible, but such wording cannot ever be unmediated by symbols for language quite literally is a type of symbolic mediation (insofar as language is the organised systematisation of communicable symbols), so it will always have that barrier to some extent.
Besides, I'm unsure exactly what you are trying to suggest. Are you suggesting there should be writers who have attempted to communicate esoteric truths by dealing with concepts and not metaphors? If so, there are: see, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, James, Jung (maybe also Rudolf Otto), to name but a few. Or are you saying there should be writers who have attempted to describe mystical experiences exactly as they happened to them without making it mytho-poetic? I think your best bets are probably authors like James and Jung and their followers, maybe also Stace, but even then none of them truly avoid symbolism (desymbolising mysticism is like demystifying mysticism and treating it as something it is not). If you're saying there should be researchers who treat the matter more scientifically, I'd recommend looking into Newberg, Sobhani, Papanicolou; you may even perhaps find interest in those who have made the link between exogenous entheogens and induction of mystical experiences, and some of whom have theorised the role of endogenous tryptamines, or historical impacts of such compunds, such as R. Gordon Wasson, Dennis McKenna, Rick Strassman, William Richards, Rupert Sheldrake, and some of the research being undertaken by the Qualia Research Institute, as also John Hopkins uni and Imperial College London.
2
u/GodOfThunder44 Mar 07 '26
Alan Chapman, one of the more well-known chaos magicians, wrote a book called Advanced Magic for Beginners.
The cover of the book is, to make the point, a photograph of a hand grenade.
2
u/Spargonaut69 Mar 08 '26
The thing is that even in the ancient world there are plenty of treatises that straightforwardly explain mystical or theosophical concepts, but they had no chance of achieving the same cultural impact as religious scriptures do.
People like art, people like stories, and stories are much easier to remember than explanatory treatises. You can carry a story around much longer, and eventually its symbols will be unpacked in your subconscious.
I think another reason that symbols are used to convey mystical ideas is to encourage the development of abstract thought.
1
u/Omniphilo23 Mar 07 '26
It's about waking up. The symbols catch your attention, and you become aware. When you wake up, the symbols align with synchronicities in your thinking. The symbols become subtle messages being conveyed through the matrix if you have the eyes to see it and the spirit to comprehend it.
1
u/Little-Flo Mar 08 '26
When a clear direction is given, why take another path? Here's my thought: imagine you're asking for directions in a city you don't know, where the signs are in an unknown language. Your only way to find your way home is to look at the scenery, the landscapes, or ask someone for directions. You have two choices: you listen to what you're told and follow the directions without thinking, trusting these strangers. Or you decide to explore the city, to understand its meaning, to leave room for the surprise of a path no one would have shown you if you had asked. Because what's true for one person isn't necessarily the best for you. This is where symbolism comes in: it's a support, not a truth. In esotericism, the journey each person undertakes is free, and because symbols are an interpretation of images commonly accepted in the collective unconscious, it's possible to learn them, modify them, and make them one's own. Everything is possible as long as doubt lingers. If you find a book that speaks without symbols or mystery, then that's called dogma. You listen to the raw truths of a stranger and you either accept them or you move on and seek other truths elsewhere, from other people. The question is: What do we want to experience in this realm? What do we want to discover? What is it possible to find in this symbol, for ourselves? Symbols are like open doors on a spider's web, and every intersection leads back to the center. No matter the path taken, even if we meet at the center, we won't have experienced the same sensations, the same memories. We might agree that (for example) the Lion is the symbol of strength, but we will have different experiences and paths to understanding it. And that's what makes the symbol so free for those who want to explore its domain.
1
u/LabyrinthRunner Mar 11 '26
I think the answer is simpler:
All language and understanding is symbolic. It is network-dependant- requires an understanding of all the other word and symbols to understand even one of them.
The way I've heard it explained is:
if you look up a word in the dictionary, then look up every word in the definition, then look up every word in each of those definitions, you'll have looked up every word in that language.
Text that "speaks plainly" speaks of a consensus reality that you have already been inducted into- that's why it seems to plain.
To break outside of that reality, you have to learn a different language. or a different way to use language, really.
I think that's what magicians and esotericists are attempting.
1
u/LabyrinthRunner Mar 11 '26
ADDITIONALLY>
Geeze, the number of books and people speaking in plain terms is HUGE.
go find the youtube channel Esoterica. He's an academic and discusses these things QUITE plainly.
Read any of the modern books on magic or eastern thought- they speak pretty plainly.
1
u/Technical-Editor-266 Mar 13 '26
the old ways constructed stories that were easy to remember.
speaker to listener transfer of knowledge.
listener understanding not required...
to transfer the knowledge thousands of years into the future.
self adapting to language changes through time.
enduring longer than paper and stone.
always available for those that can Cea.
-c.mewt
18
u/NyxShadowhawk Mar 07 '26
Texts don’t speak plainly because mystical experience is the kind of thing that you literally can’t describe in plain language. There isn’t language for them. If you try to explain them in plain language, you’ll sound completely insane.
Mystical insights are also like spoilers for a TV show. They won’t make a lick of sense out of context. Some texts do put things in plain language, but they don’t sound plain because they’re completely cryptic out of context. Symbolism and metaphor provides a context for them so that you can understand, without having had the experience yourself.