Sure.
I feel the same way. This is the nature of paradox. Just as your comment ( "hard to follow" ) is not insulting, my comment ( "contradiction" ) is not an insult though many take offense at it.
With all due respect, this is blaming "intellect". Demonizing and avoiding.
First, a very simple question: Is it, ( whatever "it" is ) truly, absolutely, limitless? Or is it limitless is some ways but not others? If it's the first, "it" is simultaneously inclusive and exclusive which is a paradox, but not contradictory. If it's the second, "it" is disjunctive which is neither a paradox nor contradictory. In both cases: "limitless" is not ineffable. It can be decribed accurately without contradiction. The benefit to using language rigorously in this way is that it permits collaboration. Team-work. Two individuals from different cultural backgrounds can share their collected wisdom.
There is a great deal to be gained from this. Two or more distinct, simultaneous, vantage points are an opportunity to observe with clarity what is not possible to be observed with a solo observer. It's no different than depth perception which requires two physical eye-balls. However, naturally, there is going to be extreme reluctance for the self-declared "enlightened" to accept that they need anyone or anything for clear perception which does not already exist in their own mind, which already exists in their own physical skull. Often, the self-declared "enlightened" denies that anything exists outside of the grey-matter in between their physical ears. I object to this for several good reasons in spite of the fact that this will not be considered friendly or welcoming of the individual who is coming to an internet forum in anonymity to try on the title of "enlightened" and try to gain social acceptance for their acheivement. How much more so for those who have already established themselves in a community which has validated their acheivement and labeled it "enlightement".
The reason that what I've written is difficult to follow is because what I wrote is describing a simultaneous immaterial phenomenon. There is no "following" it. It cannot be "followed" without splitting one's attention, splitting one's awareness, breaking the phenomenon into pieces then re-assembling it and considering it in total, simultaneously. These split pieces of the phenomenon, which are at first considered in isolation, are not occuring in sequence on a time-line. The finite human mind is not accustomed to operating this way. However, the human heart ( metaphorically ) does this 24/7. This segues nicely into the next point.
What you're describing as an inherent limitation of intellect is an inherent limitation on "knowing" not on "understanding". Most people are, forgive me, clueless of the mechanations of their own heart-and-mind. In Judaism we are, perhaps, the best in the business in this regard. Buddhists are the best, the gold standard, in regard to suffering. Hindu are the best, the gold standard, in regard to bliss. Jews? We're great with details. It's what we do, and we do it well. It's what we practice everyday. These details which we study and admire and appreciate in the natural world and in ourselves is not limited to intellectual matters. We also embrace the differences and distinctions, the beauty, the rich texture of diversity which exists in the realm of emotion, the metaphorical human "heart".
If I were to draw a diagram of the human psyche, it would be divided into two major sections: mind and heart. At the border between the functions of the mind and the functions of the heart exists a very peculiar and misunderstood aspect of the human psyche which is best known in english as "understanding". ( Yes, understanding is misunderstood. ) Its placement on the diagram on the border is significant because in addition to understanding with the mind, there is also an emotive / spiritual understanding which is not at all intellectual. This is: understanding with the "heart". It's absolutely true and consistent, the heart understands long before the mind, but, few realize what is happening when it is happening. Further, the heart is easily, and in relative comfort, accustomed to understanding many things simultaneously. This is one of the properties of "understanding". It connects to all the others simultaneously. It includes all the others, and itself, simultaneously.
Right. And when that is happening, there is an opportunity for connecting with these concepts in an all-inclusive manner? Not limited? All-inclusive? Connecting to all?
Connecting to all AND including all? That's non-duality?
Exploring that which is beyond the limited intellect but also includes the limited intellect? If so, then I think it's very fair to confidently state: you and I are desccribing the same phenomenon but approching it from two very different directions. If so, hopefully the other readers will appreciate that the non-dual is no longer ineffable. We can truly discuss it. It's no longer off-limits. If the language is specific, and words are carefully chosen.
For the Hindu and the Buddhist who have slaved and sacrificed to jetison any and all differences, dictinctions, and preferences from their concsious mind, this regimented behavior will probably feel like a spiritual regression, and, it is. But the benefits are profound. This feeling of regression, which is simultaneously progress, is something I tried to address in the previous post which was difficult to follow. Hopefully I will do a better job explaining what I mean this second time.
There is a very important dichotomy which is studied by almost everyone approaching the age of Bar-Mitzvah in my community. This dichotomy is: emanation as contrasted with manifestation. Essence is emanated not manifested. Forms are manifested not emanated. Particular forms are manifesting below and are rising to the heavens, so to speak. Their generalized, softer, subtle, essence is emanating from the heavens and descending into the forms, so to speak. Both are happening simultaneously. This is important for this discussion because the Hindu and the Buddhist which demomizes differences, distinctions, preferences, and is denying diversity is truly "going" to heaven. They're not wrong about the "acension" and the spiritual acheivement. They're absolutely right. ( "Going" and "acension" are in quotes because they're not actually going anywhere. ) The problem is, the method which is employed ( forgettting, demonizing, denying, crippling the intellect ) is erasing the path which they took to acheive their liberation.
It's fine for an individual to choose to compromise, or even to obliterate, their intellect for the purpose of acheiving their own enlightenment. There's nothing wrong with that, except, lacking those intellectual faculties, they will never-never be able to teach others effectively or communicate what happened to them along the way. It seems that this is accepted among the dharmic practioners as unavoidable, but, it's not. Not at all. The misunderstanding is coming from neglecting the divinty of the "downward" emanation of spiritual essence which is equally significant to the particular form ( the human concsiousness ) which is ascending, reassimilating, back into its essential source. Once this is understood, that emanating is the opposite of manifesting, yet they are sympathetic, non-dual, partners operating in harmony, which is necessary, then, the intellect is no longer demonized. The cognitive functions which permit accurate teaching and sharred expression is no longer abandoned. Many more can be liberated. The world is a better, happier, and more peaceful place for everyone. It's a non-dual "win-win" so to speak.
And that's why, I made the point of distinguishing between an emanation and a manifestation. It's very very important. An essence doesn't manifest. Manifestation requires differences, distinctions, preferences, etc. These things are demonized and neglected in error to almost everyone's detriment in a social setting. The solo practioner who lives as a hermit and never desires to teach or share is excluded.
Hopefully that explains much much better what I meant in my previous reply.
