An excellent demonstration of the concept of the value of moderation in all things. Life isn't a single variable which should be maximized. As folks like to say: life's complicated. There are numerous variables that have importance at various times in various situations and circumstances. We all get to prioritize them differently. We look back from a wiser future and feel good about some of our decisions and regret others that we would do differently with our (new) wisdom. But having some regrets is okay too.

Overly simplistic philosophies that (over) emphasize single viewpoints ultimately leave me cold as too impractical.

Do you think that the answer to this question is (or should be) the same for everyone?

An excellent demonstration of the concept of the value of moderation in all things

I agree with everything else you said, except this point. l doubt this maxim is valid. As you see, human nature is too complicated for such generalizations.

Would l tell Newton to spend less time on physics and alchemy, and more on other departments of life ?

Nope. Who am l tell a genius like Newton that he should waste his time on what he probably regarded as frivolous pursuits and not dedicate his genius to physics, pushing our frontiers of knowledge to new boundaries.

Would l tell Cioran to go visit a psychiatrist and stop being a NEET pessimist ? Never

As a side note, even if "moderation" is good, it ultimately depends and varies with the individual.

Do you think that the answer to this question is (or should be) the same for everyone?

Nope. But it's still worth exploring. I'm sure l will find people who agree with me, and in good numbers hopefully.

But this isn't the complete story. It comes at the cost of no longer identifying with all that is healthy, good, beautiful and pleasurable in life. How many of us would give up good food, beautiful women, a big library and a great music collection for a life in the monastery ? — Sirius

Probably not many, because life is still far too easy and far too good for most people to become radical.

Those who experience the diminishing returns in the pursuit of the proverbial "eating, drinking, and making merry", might begin to question whether said pursuit is worth it.

What is even more terrible is this spiritual tradition sets one up for a lifetime battle against oneself. It's a cult of self-overcoming, rooted in self-hatred, unrealistic goals and struck by a fear of relapse into all that enables one to identify with other human beings, i.e our innate weaknesses.

This is a projection of yours.
But I suppose that unless you have personally experienced the above-mentioned diminishing returns, you probably won't be able to relate to those who do.

Sorry for not being a guru. I'm like you all.

You don't say.

My point is, are you asking because the tradition appeals to you, but you find it too challenging? Or because you are seeking an alternative? Or is this merely a criticism? You say "what is more terrible". This suggests to me that you have a negative disposition towards the types of practices associated with the pursuit of moksha. In which case, this particular goal isn't for you. It isn't terrible, it simply isn't for you. Why do you feel compelled to defend your choice not to pursue this particular type of goal? For some people it isn't terrible at all. Brain scans of meditating buddhist monks have demonstrated there are remarkable things going on in their minds.

My point is, are you asking because the tradition appeals to you, but you find it too challenging? Or because you are seeking an alternative? Or is this merely a criticism? You say "what is more terrible". This suggests to me that you have a negative disposition towards the types of practices associated with the pursuit of moksha. In which case, this particular goal isn't for you. It isn't terrible, it simply isn't for you. Why do you feel compelled to defend your choice not to pursue this particular type of goal? For some people it isn't terrible at all. Brain scans of meditating buddhist monks have demonstrated there are remarkable things going on in their minds.

The tradition does appeal to me, it is challenging, l am always seeking an alternative, this post is criticism. I don't know about my disposition, since l am all over the place, but it's not hard to find an ascetic inclination in myself. Maybe Buddhism is for me, maybe it isn't.

The above post is not sarcastic. It's a true representation.

Why do l feel the need to publicize my views ? There isn't a single motive. I just decided to vent. God knows what pushed my mind/brain to do this

I know meditation has been proven to be useful, but nirvana/moksha isn’t that. You can meditate all your life and still never reach nirvana. A lot of people seem to conflate beneficial religious practices with the goals of religions / way of life

Probably not many, because life is still far too easy and far too good for most people to become radical.

Those who experience the diminishing returns in the pursuit of the proverbial "eating, drinking, and making merry", might begin to question whether said pursuit is worth it.

If you want me to be completely honest. I have felt and do feel the diminishing returns thanks to my depression. Sometimes l wish for death to overtake me. I don't want to live, nor do l want to die.

I know what is it like for nothing to satisfy you, not even an hour long meditation session, medication, a dedicated study of the religious scriptures of all major world religions does the job for me

Why am l bitter ? Cause the medicine l was given didn't cure me of my illness. I have now come to the conclusion that to look for life-saving, life-guiding guidelines is fruitless. Life is too complicated.

There is no Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha who can guide me. No traditional religion, no secular religion, no philosophy, no arts, no literature.

Anything goes

It comes at the cost of no longer identifying with all that is healthy, good, beautiful and pleasurable in life. How many of us would give up good food, beautiful women, a big library and a great music collection for a life in the monastery ? — Sirius

That’s why I advocate not starting life. But also Schopenhauer, the great pessimist. What you speak of is the hedonic treadmill that the ascetic refrains from. The you have, the more you need to maintain and keep it going for the next hedonic kick.

But let's look at the hedonism of Epicurus. His idea was a communal society of friends enjoying a bit of wine, gardening communally for food, laying next to the river and trees, and being okay with philosophical conversation for higher entertainment. That was it. Materially, however, his culture relied just as much on a large Mediterranean trade network. Not as global as today, but still widespread. He too, had the appearance of an optimist who thought that a commune amidst a larger network was possible. But that's just it, communes only exist because the larger network of economic output outside it allows them to live that lifestyle. So oddly enough, it is using the drudgery labor force so one can maintain an internal idealized labor force.. Rarely does a commune use everything from its own output and only its own output. I am sure the pottery, they used, for example came from far off. Perhaps they only live on oil and wine from their own vinyards, perhaps.. But not likely.

Anyways, moving on.. Pessimism is Buddhism/Hinduism/Gnosticism shorn of its mythological trappings. That is simply seeing the world as a burden, and thus rebelling against the burden.

By the way, you may get something from this here:

But what now impels us to inquiry is just that we are not satisfied with knowing that we have ideas, that they are such and such, and that they are connected according to certain laws, the general expression of which is the principle of sufficient reason. We wish to know the significance of these ideas; we ask whether this world is merely idea; in which case it would pass by us like an empty dream or a baseless vision, not worth our notice; or whether it is also something else, something more than idea, and if so, what. Thus much is certain, that this something we seek for must be completely and in its whole nature different from the idea; that the forms and laws of the idea must therefore be completely foreign to it; further, that we cannot arrive at it from the idea under the guidance of the laws which merely combine objects, ideas, among themselves, and which are the forms of the principle of sufficient reason.

Thus we see already that we can never arrive at the real nature of things from without. However much we investigate, we can never reach anything but images and names. We are like a man who goes round a castle seeking in vain for an entrance, and sometimes sketching the façades. And yet this is the method that has been followed by all philosophers before me. — The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer, translated by R B Haldane and J. Kemp Second Book

And being a huge fan of Schopenhauer's estimation of things, regarding his metaphysics, I would say this previous post has most of my critiques and question of his metaphysics in one go:

But again, as poetic as this looks, as I indicated in that quote, it loses any explanation outside of theistic speculation. Theism would denote that God (All-Will) wanted to reveal himself to himself and thus individuated himself via emanations into lower worlds via some Platonic unfolding from universalized Forms to gross individualized forms in the world of time and space. This is all Platonic/Neoplatonic.

Schop is advocating for non-theistic All-Oneness that individuates into multiplicity. That is harder to explain intelligibly as to how All-Will can become multiplicity. This in the end, for all his awesome ideas, becomes a mere assertion. All he can do is point to other non-helpful assertions such as the Vedas/Upanishads whereby the idea of Maya and "illusion" enters the equation. All is one, but we don't realize it. But then the illusion becomes the thing to be explained. Why is the "illusion" so complicated in its phenomenal form if everything is at base oneness? If anything, the more complexity of scientific discoveries reveals this. You can superficially say that physics reveals a sort of "oneneess" in something like a Unified Field Theory, but that is very superficial as that itself is gotten to because of complex mathematical formulations that reveal that, not because it is so apparent because of its basicness to being.

Rather, being seems to be interminably complex and individuated, contra Schopenhauer. He (and others) take the idea of things like "ego" (individual-selfish-drive) and "compassion" (the drive to feel empathy and help people despite one's selfish pull), as some sort of reified unity, when in fact they are just dispositional psychological attitudes, nothing more. They are complex pheonemona and it's often hard to tell what is purely ego and purely compassionate. One can twist those two concepts to variations all day (loving myself is loving others is loving everything is loving myself again, etc. etc.). But this is all just word-play and concept-games at this point, not true metaphysics.

It is yet to be determined why illusion would enter the system at all for Schopenhauer. My way to try to recover this is to emphasize Schop's idea of Will's immediacy and not it's transcendence. That is to say, there can never be a prioricity in his system. This World of Appearance is literally Will-objectified/personified. There is no Will and then appearance. But again, that doesn't say much either except what we already know, that the world appears to us a certain familiar way and that there is another aspect of it that is mere unity. That doesn't explain why unity needs appearance.

Perhaps the only answer is a quasi-theological one. Will needs appearance to be its double-aspect because Will wants it in some way so as to have a way to enact its striving nature. Striving without objects, is basically nothing. But then, here we go again with a theological explanation of some sort of logos, desire, reason, etc. — schopenhauer1

But what now impels us to inquiry is just that we are not satisfied with knowing that we have ideas, that they are such and such, and that they are connected according to certain laws, the general expression of which is the principle of sufficient reason. We wish to know the significance of these ideas; we ask whether this world is merely idea; in which case it would pass by us like an empty dream or a baseless vision, not worth our notice; or whether it is also something else, something more than idea, and if so, what. Thus much is certain, that this something we seek for must be completely and in its whole nature different from the idea; that the forms and laws of the idea must therefore be completely foreign to it; further, that we cannot arrive at it from the idea under the guidance of the laws which merely combine objects, ideas, among themselves, and which are the forms of the principle of sufficient reason.

Thus we see already that we can never arrive at the real nature of things from without. However much we investigate, we can never reach anything but images and names. We are like a man who goes round a castle seeking in vain for an entrance, and sometimes sketching the façades. And yet this is the method that has been followed by all philosophers before me. — The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer, translated by R B Haldane and J. Kemp Second Book

Certainly @Wayfarer has much to say on these matters. You may want to revisit that thread actually and pull some things from there as Schop's ideas have been discussed and are pertinent to your question about asceticism:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/831351

I know meditation has been proven to be useful, but nirvana/moksha isn’t that. You can meditate all your life and still never reach nirvana. A lot of people seem to conflate beneficial religious practices with the goals of religions / way of life — Sirius

And this is why it is all about your expectations and your goals. Whether those are conformant or consistent with the goals of the community of practice can only be decided by you. In general, advanced spiritual training usually involves the active setting aside of personal preferences as one inherent aspect of the practice. It doesn't sound like that meshes with your goals.

And being a huge fan of Schopenhauer's estimation of things — schopenhauer1

A huge fan of his trust-fund lifestyle. It's easy to be pessimistic when one doesn't have to work to pay one's bills!

Anything goes — Sirius

And yet circles aren't squares.

If you have time on your hands, then maybe look at the work of Matthew Ratcliffe
https://york.academia.edu/MatthewRatcliffe

A huge fan of his trust-fund lifestyle. It's easy to be pessimistic when one doesn't have to work to pay one's bills! — baker

Hey troll, read my whole post, and you'll see the irony of your trolling. (Hint: read the part about Epicurus in the post above the one you quoted).

I also found it ironic that you couldn't understand the bit of trolling that political satire functions as when lampooning people's beliefs regarding political matters, yet, all you do is lampoon people's posts, trying to find some sort of ad hominem weakness.

What a romantic!

In fact, you are more likely to find the worst aspects of us in them (monks and yogis). — Sirius

A hasty generalization. Though there is plenty evidence of hypocrisy/exploitation of gurus/teachers over their devotees. The worst part is when devotees are taught to put their teachers on a pedestal, to have absolute faith in them as if they were gods/kings on earth. This sometimes seems like a legacy construct of controlling/exploiting folks.

The perennial problem of the guru is understood by the adage: "Do as I say, not as I do."

It comes at the cost of no longer identifying with all that is healthy, good, beautiful and pleasurable in life. — Sirius

I don't think this is true either.

What is even more terrible is this spiritual tradition sets one up for a lifetime battle against oneself. It's a cult of self-overcoming, rooted in self-hatred, unrealistic goals and struck by a fear of relapse into all that enables one to identify with other human beings, i.e our innate weaknesses. — Sirius

You might as well be describing here the internal struggle of those suffering through Capitalistic striving for success or status. There is always a cult to deal with, either the one you enjoy, the one you're trapped in, or the one you're fleeing from.

I also found it ironic that you couldn't understand the bit of trolling that political satire functions as when lampooning people's beliefs regarding political matters, yet, all you do is lampoon people's posts, trying to find some sort of ad hominem weakness. — schopenhauer1

I have tried to point this out myself. I suspect that if searing is foundational to a worldview, there's not much point engaging with them about this since they will just take it as evidence of your bad faith.

I have tried to point this out myself. — Tom Storm

As you rightly should.

I suspect that if searing is foundational to a worldview, there's not much point engaging with them about this since they will just take it as evidence of your bad faith. — Tom Storm

Can you define searing here? Like having a searing critique? I’m not sure that’s a worldview, that’s the problem. Rather, it’s a sort of bad faith arguing style to provoke ire. It’s trying to be a kind of joker that is deflating the philosophy through ad hom satire. It’s too transparent and aggressive to come off more than a type of trolling though.

Can you define searing here? Like having a searing critique? — schopenhauer1

I meant sneering. Sorry. Typo.

But again, as poetic as this looks, as I indicated in that quote, it loses any explanation outside of theistic speculation. Theism would denote that God (All-Will) wanted to reveal himself to himself and thus individuated himself via emanations into lower worlds via some Platonic unfolding from universalized Forms to gross individualized forms in the world of time and space. This is all Platonic/Neoplatonic.

Schop is advocating for non-theistic All-Oneness that individuates into multiplicity. That is harder to explain intelligibly as to how All-Will can become multiplicity. This in the end, for all his awesome ideas, becomes a mere assertion. All he can do is point to other non-helpful assertions such as the Vedas/Upanishads whereby the idea of Maya and "illusion" enters the equation. All is one, but we don't realize it. But then the illusion becomes the thing to be explained. Why is the "illusion" so complicated in its phenomenal form if everything is at base oneness? If anything, the more complexity of scientific discoveries reveals this. You can superficially say that physics reveals a sort of "oneneess" in something like a Unified Field Theory, but that is very superficial as that itself is gotten to because of complex mathematical formulations that reveal that, not because it is so apparent because of its basicness to being.

Rather, being seems to be interminably complex and individuated, contra Schopenhauer. He (and others) take the idea of things like "ego" (individual-selfish-drive) and "compassion" (the drive to feel empathy and help people despite one's selfish pull), as some sort of reified unity, when in fact they are just dispositional psychological attitudes, nothing more. They are complex pheonemona and it's often hard to tell what is purely ego and purely compassionate. One can twist those two concepts to variations all day (loving myself is loving others is loving everything is loving myself again, etc. etc.). But this is all just word-play and concept-games at this point, not true metaphysics.

It is yet to be determined why illusion would enter the system at all for Schopenhauer. My way to try to recover this is to emphasize Schop's idea of Will's immediacy and not it's transcendence. That is to say, there can never be a prioricity in his system. This World of Appearance is literally Will-objectified/personified. There is no Will and then appearance. But again, that doesn't say much either except what we already know, that the world appears to us a certain familiar way and that there is another aspect of it that is mere unity. That doesn't explain why unity needs appearance.

Perhaps the only answer is a quasi-theological one. Will needs appearance to be its double-aspect because Will wants it in some way so as to have a way to enact its striving nature. Striving without objects, is basically nothing. But then, here we go again with a theological explanation of some sort of logos, desire, reason, etc.
— schopenhauer1

I'm always happy to see someone who admires Schopenhauer. He has played a pivotal in shaping my worldview.

I take Schopenhauer's viewpoint to be identical to what is found in the Upanishads, as long as you don't talk about the personal Saguna Brahman. The will in itself has two aspects to it, it appears to be the driving source behind all that exists phenomenally, whilst being pure consciousness upon which the phenomena rests.

An apt example is that of a dream in which you exist as one character amongst many other characters. You have a body in your dream and operate with 5 senses. But once you wake up, you realize it was all an illusion, and that all the different objects in the dream were just you.

The illusion only exists phenomenally from the perspective of those who are trapped inside it. But for those who escape it, the illusion isn't real. It's like coming across a mirage. You keep going in its direction, believing it to be real, but once you reach the place, you realize it was all an illusion. The mirage doesn't exist.

Schopenhauer's ethics is based on a feeling of compassion for others due to the fact that they are not different from you. Moreover, once you start treating others as yourself, the veils of multiplicity will be lifted. Your life will become a reflection of non-dualism, where the subject is the object.

If you want me to be completely honest. I have felt and do feel the diminishing returns thanks to my depression. Sometimes l wish for death to overtake me. I don't want to live, nor do l want to die. — Sirius

And you have no interest in being free from that? Or is it you don’t believe it’s possible? Do you think that condition is a factor in your judgement as to what constitutes Nirvāṇa?

Is nirvana or moksha even a worthwhile goal ? — Sirius

Every belief system seems to advocate for a first prize of some kind, whether that be liberation, a classless society, or the Kingdom of Heaven. We tend to go after the prize that appeals to our personal tastes and inclinations. Or the dictates of socialization.

How many of us would give up good food, beautiful women, a big library and a great music collection for a life in the monastery ? — Sirius

Depends on the monastery.

Maybe hedonism represents best of all the worst ways you can live your life. But no one wants to hear this. — Sirius

How would we demonstrate that any particular way of living is 'best'. Best for my temperament, or needs? Best for society? Best for 'truth? Pick your criterion of value.

And hedonism comes in hard and soft forms. It's not all cocaine and being blown by supermodels.

Personally, I have not come to any deliberate decision about how best to live. I like to improvise and wing it. I have not been socialized or raised in an Eastern religious traditions, so why should they feature in my life? I have read some Buddhism and some Hinduism and studied comparative religions briefly at University. There are some very interesting fames and model of reality provided by these faiths, but so what? Is there any reason why I would twist my life around a belief system I don't really understand and isn't part of my culture?

Many of us seem to be persecuted by the idea that we should be more serious, more transcendent, more ethical. I'm somewhat simplistic - I think we should just get on with living and try not to be a cunt.

And you have no interest in being free from that? Or is it you don’t believe it’s possible? Do you think that condition is a factor in your judgement as to what constitutes Nirvāṇa?

My mental health does influence my judgments. But the ideas in my OP have occurred to me repeatedly.

Actually, the problem isn't with nirvana itself. As a goal , it is not only conceivable, but a select few do manage to attain it.

The problem has more to do with how it's projected or sold as a goal to everyone, which included myself. I firmly believe it's incredibly unhelpful and even harmful to become a Buddhist for the purpose of attaining nirvana. It's akin to studying maths to win the fields medal or solve one of the 7 millennium problems. I can almost guarantee disappointment to anyone who does this.

People just don't seem to take the spirtual traditions seriously anymore, not even monks ( I notice this despite being a nobody, a novice )

On the bright side of things, I noticed people in Buddhist countries usually aim to be reborn in a better state next life. In fact, meditation isn't even a common practice and the religion mostly serves ritual and ethical roles. It's no different from Abrahamic religions. The average Muslim isn't aiming to attain fana either and it is makes sense.

TLDR : For those who are not meant to attain nirvana, going for it is akin to an inexperienced climber aiming to reach the peak of K2. It will be nothing short of a disaster

I'm always happy to see someone who admires Schopenhauer. He has played a pivotal in shaping my worldview. — Sirius

He has an ingenious way of looking at things and focuses on the big picture of philosophy whilst touching on most of the other aspects and how it fits into the system. He is a system-builder par excellance. A great foil to today's parsing of problems separately. I don't think any of the other system builders were as comprehensive whilst still being consistent and clear to a reader with some philosophical background.

An apt example is that of a dream in which you exist as one character amongst many other characters. You have a body in your dream and operate with 5 senses. But once you wake up, you realize it was all an illusion, and that all the different objects in the dream were just you.

The illusion only exists phenomenally from the perspective of those who are trapped inside it. But for those who escape it, the illusion isn't real. It's like coming across a mirage. You keep going in its direction, believing it to be real, but once you reach the place, you realize it was all an illusion. The mirage doesn't exist.

Schopenhauer's ethics is based on a feeling of compassion for others due to the fact that they are not different from you. Moreover, once you start treating others as yourself, the veils of multiplicity will be lifted. Your life will become a reflection of non-dualism, where the subject is the object. — Sirius

Good summarization of Schop in a few paragraphs. I admire the ability to be succinct but comprehensive, one of the hardest things to do when dealing with lofty concepts.

So without rehashing that thread that already had many of the arguments, I will just reiterate that one can always doubt the unitary Will. Also, I find it hard for Schopenhauer to have Will-individuated in the "mirage" without some intention or myth behind it (why is it not a nothing-unitary-oneness?).

It is a novel way to answer how it is that we have a subjective experience. It is Will mediated through a mind's space, time, and causality, objectified via pure Form into the "mirage" of a dross material world mediated by the principle of sufficient reason. It starts with Mind and works its way to Physical, not the other way around, is thoroughly Idealist. However, that ever remains an interesting and ingenious system written about and synthesized, not THE system that exists per se.

Rather, what I do take as truth from Schopenhauer is his normative understanding of Suffering. Suffering is at the heart of the animal experience. In the Eastern sense, Suffering is a sense of separation, because lack. We are not at home because we are always needing more. But I see it more as just evolution's drive. A subjective feeling of the drives of a metabolically-hungry creature. And the more complex the subjectivity, the more Suffering.

The problem has more to do with how it's projected or sold as a goal to everyone, which included myself. I firmly believe it's incredibly unhelpful and even harmful to become a Buddhist for the purpose of attaining nirvana. It's akin to studying maths to win the fields medal or solve one of the 7 millennium problems. I can almost guarantee disappointment to anyone who does this. — Sirius

It's 'projected and sold' to those who want to it to be, of which there are many. Of course it's true that because it is conceived of as the answer to all human problems then it morphs into the most precious of all commodities and something that everyone would want. But there's an obvious vicious circularity in that which anyone who seriously engages with such traditions will hopefully see through. That is the subject of one of the early popular books in Western Buddhism, Cutting through Spiritual Materialism, Chogyam Trungpa

I think the whole mindset of 'getting' and 'how to attain' and 'when are we going to arrive there' are part of the problem. You're right in saying that if that is the motivation, then it's a fool's quest. But often, spiritual conversions and epiphanies happen through loss and suffering, more than through the desire to get somewhere. To refer to Trungpa again, he describes that as 'balanced disillusionment' - like, not falling into the pit of despair, but understanding the futility of many of the things we had formerly deemed worthwhile goals.

I have pursued Buddhism as a personal philosophy to some extent and for sure, in my youth, I felt that enlightenment was something you could reach out and touch, that it would be like one of the anecdotes Alan Watts always tells, you'd hear something or see something and aha! I saw through that fairly early, and my interest and commitment has waxed and waned, but it doesn't revolve around 'attaining Nirvāṇa' or the failure at so doing. One vedantic term for mokṣa is sat-chit-ananda, सच्चिदानन्द, generally translated as 'being' (sat, satya, 'what truly is') 'consciousness' (citta, heart or mind, consciousness) 'bliss' (a common suffix on Hindu names). And 'bliss' ought not to be overlooked, it is not reserved for the precious few that have reached the end of the journey, it is part of the 'true nature' which is 'obscured by adventitious defilements', and more than just an intellectual description of what Hindus must be talking about.

From my understanding, nirvana is the state of just "being". Because "being" is not confined to definitions. Who, what, why, when, where, and how things "be/are" defines them. By one or more parameters. There are definitions for what it is to be a human, to be depressed, to be in love, to be a molecule, to be viscosity or acceleration, to be fictional, to be a kilogram, to be a planet, a galaxy and so on and so forth.

But there is no such definition for "being" itself. Which overlaps with the Tao - an indescribable, non reducible, flow of transitions and change, lacking any true definition but nonetheless witnessed/observed.

Being is like an eternal continuum of possibilities. And I suspect someone in a state of full recognition or acknowledgement of the simplest sensation of being are relatively at peace. Things seem trivial in that regard. Not to be worried about. Death seems like an illusion because "being" in it's simplest form doesn't die. Dying is for the living. And again they are all definitions of one or more aspects of what it is to "be".

The issue is its not simple to achieve that state. And because the mind forgets, gets distracted, learns bad habits, its also not easy to maintain that state. Every single assumption, bias, prejudice, valuation, craving/desire, discrimination between things that you have in your mind are limits or boundaries between what it is to be "you" (in the sense of ego) and what it is to just "be" (no ego).

As usual it depends on perspective. "Mad geniuses" accomplish great things that benefit the human race, however commonly their obsession impacts them negatively (often quite negatively) from their personal perspective. Thus using your example, if I'm advising my dear friend Isaac Newton who is considered to have died a virgin, exhibited bizarre behavior in his elder years due to mercury poisoning from his alchemical "research", lost his fortune having put a huge percentage of his wealth in the South Sea company before it crashed and had to live out his years in his niece's home, I would have advised him to develop relationship skills, moderate his alchemical pursuits and financial investments.

It's really no different than the concept of heaven. What would heaven be like? If it's continuous happiness and joy then it is static and dead.

There seems to be no logical imperative that continuous happiness and joy be static and dead.

Can we settle on boring?