I suppose it can be called esotericism
or as you say be in a sense that but it
is also a certain belief about law, that it
is not the same for one as for another
(in a sense a little like the dispensationalist
idea of various covenants historically only
applied in the same period of time isnt it?)
law for men and for women differs ,for
Israel and the Nations...
I think the source of the awkwardness as it
seems to me is in the unresolved tension
between saying that all have an equal access
to God only in different ways so one does not
invite really people to Judaism and perhaps even
thinks if anyone shows up that it is because in a
previous life they were on Mount Sinai, and a sense
of being the crown of things(chassidus the crown
of orthodoxy the crown of judaism the crown of
human religion in one perspective)
I think likely it may be, may it not?, because
at the moment Judaism was transitioning into
being a world religion--or rather facing the question
of how and whether to do that by making a new
vision of law to encompass the "god fearers", that
new way appeared from within Judaism but was
accepted by only that part of the faith's family,
and the remaining part kind of left at the station
as the train pulled out...and finding itself commited
to a complex historical task complementary to
but not inclusive of the task of the departed train.

or in another mode to ask why there is not
Jewish monasticism after all the historical spade
work for it in the essenes and thereputae*spelling
wrong surely but heck with it, is to point again to
a breakdown of things and a reordering not
at all seamless...and not to the discredit of the
Jewish faith but also not as yet fully resolved
within or without.
This line of thought would be accepted in close
to these terms I think by some Jewish faithful
but in any case it is as it seems to me...
too wordy but in sum that it is less esotericism than
an unresolved historical disruption.
+Seraphim

well that is to