The thing about the path of the Gra is that it places a lot of emphasis on not showing off one's religiosity

 I ought to mention that while I was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY, I never learned Rav Chaim of Brisk's book nor Rav Shach. I only mention these two great books as being the prime examples of the deep kind of learning that I experienced in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. The actual classes and their lessons that I did learn and listen to were mostly never published.

I mean to say that the great Torah Scholar that I learned from in Shar Yashuv was Naftali Yeager and the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir that I learned from was Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, but I doubt if anything they ever said was actual written down and kept safe for later generations. So in order to give people an idea of this deep kind of learning I simply latch onto the Chidushie HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.  

[I did learn achronim in both places like the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua and many other achronim on the Gemara. But that is different than Rav Shach and Rav Chaim.]

The thing about the path of the Gra is that it places a lot of emphasis on not showing off one's religiosity.

There is in this path [as I  experience this in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY] an implicit awareness that what people say they believe is most often the exact opposite of what they actually believe. You can see this a bit in the verse כבוד אלקים הסתר דבר "the honor of G-d is to hide it," and "What does the Lord your G-d ask of you but... and to walk modestly with the Lord your G-d."

You see this kind of irony in Socrates also when he asked the slave about a question in Geometry that teh slave boy did not know the answer to but by careful questioning Socrates brought out that knowledge. And that was without any statement at all, just questions. That shows that there are things we know but we do not know that we know them. And also continually he showed that almost everything people think they know, they really do not know. Thus it is with faith. Those that show it off by rituals and clothes might think they have faith but are in fact empty.

Not every idea that anyone gets about some verse in Torah counts as Torah.

Not every idea that anyone gets about some verse in Torah counts as Torah. Not only that, but sometimes the effect is even negative. Rav Nahman of Breslov himself brings this idea that it is forbidden to listen of even to hear the Torah lessons of a wicked person.

To get some clarity about this, I learned the Mishna in Sanhedrin about "outside books" that are forbidden to learn. I discovered that the Rif and Rosh explain what are "outside books"? Books that explain verses of the Torah, but not based on a midrash Chazal. That is, they explain the verses in some way not like the sages of the Mishna and Gemara explained them. This would include the vast majority of books today that claim to be ''Torah books.'' But in fact, we see from the Rif and Rosh that they are "outside books."

[So natural science books are not "outside books". ]

"Just like you can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so you can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." No one imagines that someone today could write a new book of prophecy to add onto Isaiah. Similarly with the Oral law--the two Talmud and midrashim. Anything else is not included.

I can see that the system of schooling in  the USA is meant to help people find their forte and to go into that. But I hated taking tests. Still, with all that I still tried my best. But I can see the point of even going into what is not your forte. That is the whole point of all the rishonim that count learning Torah as one of the 613 commandments. That does not depend on whether one is smart or not.

But I have to say that learning Torah in  view of the rishonim is more limited than most people think. The view of the Rishonim is that Torah includes the Oral and Written Torah alone. That is the actual Old Testament and the two Talmuds and midrashim. So do commentaries on the Talmud count as "learning Torah"? That is not at all clear. I would probably include Tosphot and Maharsha and Rav Shach, but still there is  a limit. 

That is clear from the Rambam himself who wrote:  "Just like you can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so you can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." No one imagines that someone today could write a new book of prophecy to add onto Isaiah. Similarly with the Oral law--the two Talmud and midrashim. Anything else is not included.

However that is in terms of law. But these same rishonim do add two new categories to learning Torah: Physics and Metaphysics. But let's say that one is not so smart? Then is one no longer obligated? Certainly not. But then how to go about learning these difficult subjects? That is by the path of "Girsa" saying the words and going on.    [This method of learning is mentioned in Shabat I think around page 63, and also in Avoda Zara but I forget the page number.]

music files x57 and x59

x57  [x57 in midi] x57 nwc

x59 mp3  x59 midi

[x59 nwc format]

But there is also the evil inclination that is spiritual--the desire to do what is wrong because it is wrong, The "imp of the perverse" as Edgar Allan Poe calls it.

 Rav Nahman in the LeM vol. I chapter 72 holds that there is a continuum of the evil inclination from the very bottom of physical desires up until the angel of God [the Samech Mem/ aka the Satan]

This subject you can see also in the Letter of Musar of Rav Israel Salanter where he brings down that some Rishonim held the evil inclination to be physical desires. [But no completely physical. After all there are plenty of desires that are connected with our biology that are not physical completely but not spiritual either. E.g., the desire for power or honor. These desires we share with many species of animals like baboons as Sapolsky noticed. I even recall the picture of one beta baboon that dis-respected the alpha baboon. His pieces were found the next morning strewn all over the place.

But there is also the evil inclination that is spiritual--the desire to do what is wrong because it is wrong, The "imp of the perverse" as Edgar Allan Poe calls it.   

But I have also seen that people that do only the fast type tend to not really get the learning at all.

To me it seems you need a combination of learning fast along with deep in depth learning. I did notice that each type has its advantages. But I have also seen that people that do only the fast type tend to not really get the learning at all. On the other hand the slow and in depth type that you see in places like the Mir or Ponovitch tend to lack the broad perspective.

It looks to me that the only way that each type of learning really works well is when there is some kind of balance.

"Secular learning" חכמות חיצוניות is something that Rav Nahman Breslov was against. However his disciple R Nathan takes it to a degree that I think was not in the intension of Rav Nahman.

 You might have noticed there is an over abundance of insane people in the religious world and I think I can see why. Sapolsky at Stanford noticed the relationship between a mild case of schizophrenia and obsession with religious issues. It used to be on his second lecture of Schizoid personalities but Stanford apparently deleted it. The point is that while in the secular world religious obsessions are not well respected, but in the religious world they are thought to be signs of great holiness. And besides that people with mild religious obsession tend to be schizoid. So if you put  a lot of that all together, you get group behavior that is schizoid. Not just individual behavior. However the Litvak yeshiva world seem to be more or less OK. They do not seem much afflicted with these mental diseases as other parts of the religious world are.