I think one of the issues I had with it was the premise that truth doesn't matter, it's what it makes you feel that matters. Good or evil doesn't matter, only motive.
I think this is a good point. I didn't think of the unreality of the narrator's situation-- the fact that all his lifetimes were simulated and populated by simulated characters/situations (if I am remembering/interpreting the story correctly). It reminds me of the philosophical thought experiment Nozick's Experience Machine
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-meaning-in-imperfect-world/201903/pleasure-or-reality-the-experience-machine-debate. In the thought experiment, psychologists invent a machine in which you could live in a personalized simulation, like the Matrix. The psychologists can guarantee that you will be happy in this machine as everything is designed around you and your desires. While you are in the machine, you don't even know it is a simulation. However, every person and situation you encounter within the machine is simply a programmed simulation and not real. Nozick then asks whether or not you would choose to live in this machine or if you would choose to life a genuine, authentic life.
For me, while I like the idea of this shortcut to enlightenment, the idea of pursuing it via this method is a bit less appealing if those encountered in the simulations weren't real. But would it be bad to achieve some manner of genuine enlightenment through an artificial means? That is, if you think the narrator is achieving genuine enlightenment at all... I admit, I kind of just rolled with the whole enlightenment thing, so it is interesting to hear the thoughts of Languorous Lass and digtig-- adds a whole new element of considerations for me.