Two Truths Doctrine

[MagnetSoulSP]

I just don't know what to do, some days I wonder if this will be my life...torment.

Yep, it sounds like you are doomed forever. That’s because you are clinging your own insistence thst what is the not true is true.

The mere fact that you just keep bringing this up over and over again with no purpose (you reject any alternative view to the one you have, even though the view you have is failing you) really suggests to me that you are just looking for attention.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on the doomed state of existence that you find yourself in.

I don’t mean to be so blunt, but it seems you already have your mind made up. You have everything decided already. So in that case, you have no choice but to live with that decision that you have made for yourself.
What I mean is, it seems as though you are just looking for validation. I find that people generally hear what they want to hear. That can even include things they think that they don’t want to hear.
It sounds like there’s a part of you that actually wants to cling to this gloom-and-doom outlook. Self-grasping often works that way.
By presenting the same problem over and over again, and having it refuted, and clinging to “but I still think she’s right” you are practicing a process of self/validation, even though it has a negative structure.
You aren’t actually doomed to that. You can change things. But you’d really need to work on it.

I don't want her to be right, because I have other things I want to get on with but my enthusiasm gets blunted by what she says. It's like always there even if I try to forget. But when I try to move on and forget it feels like I've giving up because I can't argue against her, or I can't contact here and by calling her wrong it would be just for my comfort and that I'm just misinterpreting her. Despite all my effort there always seems to be a reason to stay and trying to leave or move on or forget it running away, to live a lie because you can't handle the truth.

so far you haven’t presented any evidence whatsoever.

When it comes to this:

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
loss-->sadness
gain-->joy

The part about loss being false, is cold -- that is why the wise thing to do is to help people grieve rather than tell them about it
there are more appropriate times and places to discuss the ultimate nature of reality,
and telling someone "death doesn't matter" while they are vulnerable and grieving over death
will often hurt them in an emotional sense more than it will help guide them to an ultimate understanding

Like if you feel happy over family, that's what society says you ought to do. Or if you find something cool or amazing that's because it was made to make you feel like that, etc etc. Everything you thought was how you felt or that you liked what you liked never came from you but was purely manufactured. So I don't really like certain characters, movies, games, etc etc, and my values etc. All that stuff is just brainwashing essentially. You feel the way you feel because society says you ought to feel that way about stuff. Everywhere I look it just seems to confirm it.

Your counterpoint about cats and dogs doesn't hold because we genetically selected those animals over years so they were made to be friendly and to love us.

It's not that I want her to be right but I can't find out how she is wrong. And the counterclaims I hear are more about misunderstanding the essence of her point or not taking it far enough.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Despite all my effort there always seems to be a reason to stay

Yeah, that what I said. If doesn’t have to be a positive thing. It’s like trying to not look at a train wreck. It’s negatively self-gratifying.
Who creates that reason?

Like if you feel happy over family, that's what society says you ought to do. Or if you find something cool or amazing that's because it was made to make you feel like that, etc etc.

why should you care about what other people think? The Buddha says we should take responsibility for our own emotions.

Either you need to decide that there is something you can do about this situation, and do it, or decide that there is nothing you can do about this situation, and resign yourself to forever suffer with it. Ultimately those are your only two options. Simply regurgitating it again and again won’t resolve it.
Which is it going to be?

It's not that I want her to be right but I can't find out how she is wrong. And the counterclaims I hear are more about misunderstanding the essence of her point or not taking it far enough.

so, if you are misunderstanding what she says, doesn’t that tell you something?
Then maybe you should go back and read through the replies in this thread, again.

Where was this person who told you this stuff? Is there a written transcript we can read? Was she in a video, or a live talk, or what? What are her qualifications? Who is she?

[master of puppets]

I just don't know what to do, some days I wonder if this will be my life...torment.

Yep, it sounds like you are doomed forever. That’s because you are clinging your own insistence thst what is the not true is true.

The mere fact that you just keep bringing this up over and over again with no purpose (you reject any alternative view to the one you have, even though the view you have is failing you) really suggests to me that you are just looking for attention.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on the doomed state of existence that you find yourself in.

I don’t mean to be so blunt, but it seems you already have your mind made up. You have everything decided already. So in that case, you have no choice but to live with that decision that you have made for yourself.
What I mean is, it seems as though you are just looking for validation. I find that people generally hear what they want to hear. That can even include things they think that they don’t want to hear.
It sounds like there’s a part of you that actually wants to cling to this gloom-and-doom outlook. Self-grasping often works that way.
By presenting the same problem over and over again, and having it refuted, and clinging to “but I still think she’s right” you are practicing a process of self/validation, even though it has a negative structure.
You aren’t actually doomed to that. You can change things. But you’d really need to work on it.

hello Padma,
May be you are right on the subject of "no-self". I don't know HOW can ı do it..like what if that no-self will be my new self? will ı embrace it?

[PadmaVonSamba]

what if that no-self will be my new self? will ı embrace it?

that’s just theoretical clutter.
Just meditate, and see what happens.

[MagnetSoulSP]

Despite all my effort there always seems to be a reason to stay

Yeah, that what I said. If doesn’t have to be a positive thing. It’s like trying to not look at a train wreck. It’s negatively self-gratifying.
Who creates that reason?

Like if you feel happy over family, that's what society says you ought to do. Or if you find something cool or amazing that's because it was made to make you feel like that, etc etc.

why should you care about what other people think? The Buddha says we should take responsibility for our own emotions.

Either you need to decide that there is something you can do about this situation, and do it, or decide that there is nothing you can do about this situation, and resign yourself to forever suffer with it. Ultimately those are your only two options. Simply regurgitating it again and again won’t resolve it.
Which is it going to be?

It's not that I want her to be right but I can't find out how she is wrong. And the counterclaims I hear are more about misunderstanding the essence of her point or not taking it far enough.

so, if you are misunderstanding what she says, doesn’t that tell you something?
Then maybe you should go back and read through the replies in this thread, again.

Where was this person who told you this stuff? Is there a written transcript we can read? Was she in a video, or a live talk, or what? What are her qualifications? Who is she?

I'm not creating that reason, if anything I'm trying to move on but I can't help but find evidence she's right. You said she's wrong but I pointed out the holes in your response with dogs and cats.

why should you care about what other people think? The Buddha says we should take responsibility for our own emotions.

Either you need to decide that there is something you can do about this situation, and do it, or decide that there is nothing you can do about this situation, and resign yourself to forever suffer with it. Ultimately those are your only two options. Simply regurgitating it again and again won’t resolve it.
Which is it going to be?

This is missing the point about what I was saying and what I meant when I was talking about what she said on society.

Where was this person who told you this stuff? Is there a written transcript we can read? Was she in a video, or a live talk, or what? What are her qualifications? Who is she?

It was on an internet forum and everything I have quoted on here from here is pretty much everything that had to do with it. She said she studied this in college and talked to monks and scholars.

I read through the replies but they don't really have anything to do with what she said, that's what I mentioned before.

[PadmaVonSamba]

You said she's wrong but I pointed out the holes in your response with dogs and cats.

No, you didn’t.
What you originally said, to which I answered with the example of dogs and cats, was this:

it is all just cause and effect response
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause

Which sounds like the the feelings one experienced may be dictated by the feelings society expects a person to have (which is basically avoiding taking responsibility for one’s own thoughts).
So, then I have the example of cats and dogs:

If that were really true, then dogs and cats and other animals, who are not bound by our societal expectations, would not feel either happy or sad. They wouldn’t feel pain. But since they do, then obviously what she said was false

I pointed out that societal expectations aren’t the source of happiness and sadness, because if they were, then that would be observable in animals. Obviously, scolding a dog produces an expression of guilt. But this isn’t a matter of expectation. Yet, Animals feel sadness and joy, fear, etc.

To which you replied:

The part about society and feeling I did think about how dogs and cats and animals in nature feel happy and sad over stuff and it's not based on our society. But the counter point is that it could also be based on their own social structures.

which could mean anything, if it even means anything at all. Maybe canines accepting who is the top dog in the pack? A lot of animals don’t function with social structures.

But that has nothing to do with you and your feelings. That’s just making up excuses. My point is that you own your feelings.
Society only dictates them to you if you think it does; if you give others that control.

But then you added:

But then I thought about where that social structure would get it from. Society just doesn't innately have this stuff, which means that it comes from us. So to be happy over gain and sad over loss is to be human. But then my brain just tells me I'm avoiding the painful truth and grasping what makes me feel better.

which is one of the few things you’ve said that’s made any sense, and which suggests you might be taking responsibility for your own thoughts.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I can't help but find evidence she's right.

But there is no evidence that she’s right,
because she’s not.
You’re just making that up in your own mind.
And, because you think she’s right when she’s not, you keep coming back to same confusion and frustration.

Feeling happiness without depending on that emotion for one’s own peace of mind, and feeling sadness without losing one’s peace of mind doesn’t amount to being a zombie. It amounts to having true peace of mind, taking responsibility for one’s own thoughts, and having some emotional maturity.

True peace of mind is like a healthy, firmly rooted tree. It doesn’t die in the winter when its leaves are gone and it’s covered with snow. It doesn’t mind the rain and it doesn’t mind if there’s no rain. When the wind blows, it bends with it but doesn’t fall over. When the Sun is scorching the earth, it responds by offering shade. It experiences everything but stays firmly rooted.

What the lady in that broadcast basically said was that if the tree doesn’t get uprooted by the weather, it’s a zombie tree. A dead tree.
That simply is not true. It’s not a dead tree,
it’s a healthy tree.

As long as you keep believing what is not true,
you will keep returning to this confusion and frustration.

[master of puppets]

what if that no-self will be my new self? will ı embrace it?

that’s just theoretical clutter.
Just meditate, and see what happens.

It is even hard to hear the locusts chirring through the forest at night,
in this noisy world!!

[MagnetSoulSP]

I can't help but find evidence she's right.

But there is no evidence that she’s right,
because she’s not.
You’re just making that up in your own mind.
And, because you think she’s right when she’s not, you keep coming back to same confusion and frustration.

Feeling happiness without depending on that emotion for one’s own peace of mind, and feeling sadness without losing one’s peace of mind doesn’t amount to being a zombie. It amounts to having true peace of mind, taking responsibility for one’s own thoughts, and having some emotional maturity.

True peace of mind is like a healthy, firmly rooted tree. It doesn’t die in the winter when its leaves are gone and it’s covered with snow. It doesn’t mind the rain and it doesn’t mind if there’s no rain. When the wind blows, it bends with it but doesn’t fall over. When the Sun is scorching the earth, it responds by offering shade. It experiences everything but stays firmly rooted.

What the lady in that broadcast basically said was that if the tree doesn’t get uprooted by the weather, it’s a zombie tree. A dead tree.
That simply is not true. It’s not a dead tree,
it’s a healthy tree.

As long as you keep believing what is not true,
you will keep returning to this confusion and frustration.

But I do find evidence of it though.

To refresh:

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
loss-->sadness
gain-->joy

The part about loss being false, is cold -- that is why the wise thing to do is to help people grieve rather than tell them about it
there are more appropriate times and places to discuss the ultimate nature of reality,
and telling someone "death doesn't matter" while they are vulnerable and grieving over death
will often hurt them in an emotional sense more than it will help guide them to an ultimate understanding

it has to be balanced out with a proper understanding of compassion
but all the monks I've met over the course of my life have been comfortable in their way of life
while my own had for years been disordered and confusing

It's shown when I feel sad over something a lot of other people in society find sad, or happy over something a lot of other people find happy too. Even if I like and enjoy something that is popular. The evidence abounds and it's hard for me to ignore. Any time you feel something that is in agreement with other people in a situation is evidence. SO I worry that I'm just a zombie of society, that none of my feeling are true.

I can deal before this. I used to suppress my emotions because people said it was a bit much so I eventually grew flat to the world. But over time I was happy when I felt joy, or sad over something. When I lost our last dog, I was crushed but also happy to be crying, because prior to that I thought I never cared about anything in the world. Things could come and go and I'd just blithely state "that's just how it is, death is inevitable", but that was a lie, I just didn't care about it. So I sort of just sleepwalked through life not really giving a damn about anything, mostly because I thought I was living non attachment from Buddhism (which I know I was wrong about, non attachment isn't literally not giving a damn about anything).

But I was happy to feel sad, even hurt a little, because it meant I still had a heart. So even when I felt bad (not depressed that's different from sadness) it made me happy because it meant I cared, and I was able to move on. I was hurting for a week when my dog died and then moved past it, accepting it.

So to think that my feelings are just brainwashing, inputs and programming from society and not my own true feelings...it just wounds differently.

[Johnny Dangerous]

What is true or untrue about feelings? Ironically, the “untruth” that you perceive from socially conditioned responses is the same mechanism as -you- labeling feelings as true or untrue. Literally the same process but you accept one (your labeling) and claim societies labeling is false, you completely miss the point and are making a new cage for yourself.

It doesn’t work like that, emotions are exactly what they are, whether they are true or untrue is relative.

The Buddha says almost verbatim in a number of places that the real nature of phenomena is simply beyond conventional notions of truth and untruth. Again, your friend just really doesn’t understand Buddhism well, and it would help to let their claims go.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Deja Vu!
(I’m not going to rehash through all this again)

[MagnetSoulSP]

What is true or untrue about feelings? Ironically, the “untruth” that you perceive from socially conditioned responses is the same mechanism as -you- labeling feelings as true or untrue. Literally the same process but you accept one (your labeling) and claim societies labeling is false, you completely miss the point and are making a new cage for yourself.

It doesn’t work like that, emotions are exactly what they are, whether they are true or untrue is relative.

The Buddha says almost verbatim in a number of places that the real nature of phenomena is simply beyond conventional notions of truth and untruth. Again, your friend just really doesn’t understand Buddhism well, and it would help to let their claims go.

I'm beginning to wonder if she does but from everything we talked about it sounds like she does and that she just isn't good at explaining it. Though when I asked a scholar about it he didn't seem to agree with her either. I guess I'm not sure what to think about what she said, it sounds like it's right. And when I look around there seems to be evidence all over the place.

Again, this is your view being limited by absolutism
you are making a statement about the reality of my feelings
my position is one of uncertainty

there is no way for me to know if this world will continue after my death
but there is also no way for me to know it will be gone, either
but what "can" be "known" is however historical my presence may become, despite my not wanting fame or popularity as personal pursuits
eventually, even if it is not until the end of the human race, but eventually, any trace of my existence will eventually fade away into nothing

Suffering is change; change is chaos; at the ultimate level suffering is the only real thing, but it is only suffering through the lens of those who suffer
the bunny cries, the bird cheers, nature goes on

so, again, all my experiences are real to me while they happen
but a solipsist will look at my life and say none of it is real
but, ultimately, real or not they are experientially important and also will fade away -- or, rather, change until they are unrecognizable as their current iteration

Like in this one about suffering being the only real thing at the ultimate level, which makes it sound like everything else I feel is false. It also reminded me of what another Buddhist teacher mentioned about suffering and pain being false as well. So the whole thing has me in knots whenever I suffer or feel pain and thinking I'm doing it to myself and you need to stop it, and then I can't stop it, and then I torment myself for suffering over something that isn't real.

[Johnny Dangerous]

What is true or untrue about feelings? Ironically, the “untruth” that you perceive from socially conditioned responses is the same mechanism as -you- labeling feelings as true or untrue. Literally the same process but you accept one (your labeling) and claim societies labeling is false, you completely miss the point and are making a new cage for yourself.

It doesn’t work like that, emotions are exactly what they are, whether they are true or untrue is relative.

The Buddha says almost verbatim in a number of places that the real nature of phenomena is simply beyond conventional notions of truth and untruth. Again, your friend just really doesn’t understand Buddhism well, and it would help to let their claims go.

I'm beginning to wonder if she does but from everything we talked about it sounds like she does and that she just isn't good at explaining it. Though when I asked a scholar about it he didn't seem to agree with her either. I guess I'm not sure what to think about what she said, it sounds like it's right. And when I look around there seems to be evidence all over the place.

Again, this is your view being limited by absolutism
you are making a statement about the reality of my feelings
my position is one of uncertainty

there is no way for me to know if this world will continue after my death
but there is also no way for me to know it will be gone, either
but what "can" be "known" is however historical my presence may become, despite my not wanting fame or popularity as personal pursuits
eventually, even if it is not until the end of the human race, but eventually, any trace of my existence will eventually fade away into nothing

Suffering is change; change is chaos; at the ultimate level suffering is the only real thing, but it is only suffering through the lens of those who suffer
the bunny cries, the bird cheers, nature goes on

so, again, all my experiences are real to me while they happen
but a solipsist will look at my life and say none of it is real
but, ultimately, real or not they are experientially important and also will fade away -- or, rather, change until they are unrecognizable as their current iteration

Like in this one about suffering being the only real thing at the ultimate level, which makes it sound like everything else I feel is false. It also reminded me of what another Buddhist teacher mentioned about suffering and pain being false as well. So the whole thing has me in knots whenever I suffer or feel pain and thinking I'm doing it to myself and you need to stop it, and then I can't stop it, and then I torment myself for suffering over something that isn't real.

Again, what makes an emotion "real" vs. "unreal", and why does it matter? Not more of your story, literally explain what qualities an emotion does or does not possess to make it real or unreal...let's drill down.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

The Buddha would have considered such deliberations about the reality and unreality of emotions to really be missing the point, like a constant psychodrama that has no real answer, because the views involved are just based on extremes that loop back on themselves, a person can only find more suffering in these extremes, there's no end to the back and forth. In a very basic sense, when you create this constant narrative about whether your emotions "mean" something you are creating the story of your own dissatisfaction, the reality of emotions (and whatever else) does not conform to these ideas, but you smush everything down into this narrow binary view of meaning.

[PadmaVonSamba]

“I can’t get milk from this cow.”
—that’s because it’s not a cow. It’s a bull.
“But she told me it’s a milking cow. How do I know it’s not a milking cow?”
—because you can’t get milk from it.
“Well, I can’t let go of the feeling that it’s a milking cow, and this is creating a conflict in my mind, because she told me it was a milking cow”.
—well since you can’t get milk from it, then obviously that person was wrong, and it’s not a milking cow. The proof is right there. Look for yourself.
—a cow has an udder. A bull has a dick. That’s a bull. What she gave you was a lot of bull.
“But how can I be absolutely sure either way? What if it’s a cow that doesn’t give milk?”
—then it’s still not a milking cow.
“But it might be. She said it was.”
—did you check to see for yourself, whether it’s a cow or a bull?
“No, she said it is a cow.”
—so, can you get any milk from it?
‘No, I can’t get any milk from it, and this is creating a conflict in my mind, because she said it is a milking cow.”

(Repeat 108 times)

[MagnetSoulSP]

What is true or untrue about feelings? Ironically, the “untruth” that you perceive from socially conditioned responses is the same mechanism as -you- labeling feelings as true or untrue. Literally the same process but you accept one (your labeling) and claim societies labeling is false, you completely miss the point and are making a new cage for yourself.

It doesn’t work like that, emotions are exactly what they are, whether they are true or untrue is relative.

The Buddha says almost verbatim in a number of places that the real nature of phenomena is simply beyond conventional notions of truth and untruth. Again, your friend just really doesn’t understand Buddhism well, and it would help to let their claims go.

I'm beginning to wonder if she does but from everything we talked about it sounds like she does and that she just isn't good at explaining it. Though when I asked a scholar about it he didn't seem to agree with her either. I guess I'm not sure what to think about what she said, it sounds like it's right. And when I look around there seems to be evidence all over the place.

Again, this is your view being limited by absolutism
you are making a statement about the reality of my feelings
my position is one of uncertainty

there is no way for me to know if this world will continue after my death
but there is also no way for me to know it will be gone, either
but what "can" be "known" is however historical my presence may become, despite my not wanting fame or popularity as personal pursuits
eventually, even if it is not until the end of the human race, but eventually, any trace of my existence will eventually fade away into nothing

Suffering is change; change is chaos; at the ultimate level suffering is the only real thing, but it is only suffering through the lens of those who suffer
the bunny cries, the bird cheers, nature goes on

so, again, all my experiences are real to me while they happen
but a solipsist will look at my life and say none of it is real
but, ultimately, real or not they are experientially important and also will fade away -- or, rather, change until they are unrecognizable as their current iteration

Like in this one about suffering being the only real thing at the ultimate level, which makes it sound like everything else I feel is false. It also reminded me of what another Buddhist teacher mentioned about suffering and pain being false as well. So the whole thing has me in knots whenever I suffer or feel pain and thinking I'm doing it to myself and you need to stop it, and then I can't stop it, and then I torment myself for suffering over something that isn't real.

Again, what makes an emotion "real" vs. "unreal", and why does it matter? Not more of your story, literally explain what qualities an emotion does or does not possess to make it real or unreal...let's drill down.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

The Buddha would have considered such deliberations about the reality and unreality of emotions to really be missing the point, like a constant psychodrama that has no real answer, because the views involved are just based on extremes that loop back on themselves, a person can only find more suffering in these extremes, there's no end to the back and forth. In a very basic sense, when you create this constant narrative about whether your emotions "mean" something you are creating the story of your own dissatisfaction, the reality of emotions (and whatever else) does not conform to these ideas, but you smush everything down into this narrow binary view of meaning.

This is what she replied to me the final time we spoke:

I'm not a practicing Buddhist tho, and I am not trying to convert you to Buddhism or anything, I simply provided insight into the philosophy as a means of contrast with the solipsism that you were touting

If I'm aligned with any mainstream religions, I am primarily defined by being a Tantric Hindu, largely following the Shakta tradition but formerly having been aligned with Shavism, who incorporates certain Buddhist and Daoist teachings through syncretism

I just know that she references Nagarjuna a lot, but Maybe you guys are right. I haven't had a source outside her corroborate what she says and I have no access to the scholars she says she does but the one I did ask didn't seem to agree.

In our last convo she said Nagarjuna said that emotions are cause and effect so when you are in meditation and there is no outside cause happening then whatever is happening then is just a memory from a long time ago, or something like that.

[MagnetSoulSP]

As to whether emotions being true or not mattering this is what I mean.

If I love and care for someone I want to be able to tell them that I actually feel that way about them, because that makes them happy (assuming they harbor similar feelings). If I told them I don't actually feel that way and it's false then that would hurt them, because I'm just pretending to love them.

Same with being happy about a gift. Whether my emotions are real or not matter, as well as their genuineness. Nothing hurts quite like realizing someone has been faking it the entire time.

so when she alludes to you never genuinely feel anything, all cause and effect and the specificity of that emotion is based on what society told you to do, or that those with "true understanding" know there is no reason to feel anything about anything because it's all just random stuff happening, it hurts.

I mean I don't know how else to explain why such things hurt to hear.

[Bristollad]

You are misunderstanding what is meant by real. Real does not mean true or genuine in this instance.

Real would mean something that inherently exists, from its own side, without any causes, and unaffected by any conditions.

So, feeling genuinely happy about receiving a gift would not be possible if that happiness had to be real. Real happiness would be just be, not because of any event such as meeting someone or giving someone a gift, and it would never end since it would be unaffected by any conditions.

Your emotions are not false because they are caused or affected by conditions. On the contrary, they only occur because they are not real.

The point is that we grasp at our thoughts and emotions as if they were real; “I will love you just like this forever!” But of course, we don’t and that is a good thing. But we get upset when it changes. Relationships change and grow, they ebb and flow becoming deeper or shallower. The love between a couple who have been together for fifty years is very different than that felt between a couple of teenagers, but that would not be possible if that love was real.

[PadmaVonSamba]

so when she alludes to you never genuinely feel anything, all cause and effect and the specificity of that emotion is based on what society told you to do, or that those with "true understanding" know there is no reason to feel anything about anything because it's all just random stuff happening, it hurts.

As long as you don’t have “true understanding”
you don’t have anything to worry about.
It won’t affect you at all.
I don’t see any problem here.

[Johnny Dangerous]

As to whether emotions being true or not mattering this is what I mean.

If I love and care for someone I want to be able to tell them that I actually feel that way about them, because that makes them happy (assuming they harbor similar feelings). If I told them I don't actually feel that way and it's false then that would hurt them, because I'm just pretending to love them.

Same with being happy about a gift. Whether my emotions are real or not matter, as well as their genuineness. Nothing hurts quite like realizing someone has been faking it the entire time.

so when she alludes to you never genuinely feel anything, all cause and effect and the specificity of that emotion is based on what society told you to do, or that those with "true understanding" know there is no reason to feel anything about anything because it's all just random stuff happening, it hurts.

I mean I don't know how else to explain why such things hurt to hear.

If there is not such thing as real, there is no such thing as fake.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I mean I don't know how else to explain why such things hurt to hear.

Answer this:
If you genuinely feel hurt by the statement
(that feelings aren’t real)
But you are really experiencing feelings,
then why are you still concerned about what you heard?
Since you obviously are experiencing feelings,
this proves that you heard must be false.
So if what you heard was false,
why are you still concerned with it?