A Pawn's Passage

All eyes were fixed on Qin Lingge, watching the handsome man speak. “Drop sagacity, abandon wisdom, and the people will benefit a hundredfold. Drop humanity, abandon justice, and the people will return to their natural affections. Drop shrewdness, abandon profit, and thieves will cease to be.”

Zhang Yuelu raised an eyebrow slightly.

Qin Lingge’s chosen reference was easy to recognize. However, the more well-known a classic, the broader and deeper the topic it encompassed. Even the most erudite Great Sage might struggle to fully analyze it.

Over centuries, generations of scholars have expanded and refined its interpretations, solidifying its accepted meaning and leaving little room for other rhetorics. By choosing this topic, Qin Lingge was clearly aiming to defeat Zhang Yuelu with a direct and honorable approach rather than through cunning maneuvers.

This reference originated from the new edition of the Primordial Daoist Ancestor’s Five Thousand Words Classic.

The Five Thousand Words Classic had two editions—one old, one new. The older version, also known as the original version, contained the exact words spoken by the Primordial Daoist Ancestor himself. The newer version was later modified by Daoist disciples to adapt to the evolving times and circumstances.

The original version stated, “Drop wisdom, forsake argumentation, and the people will benefit a hundredfold.”

The change to “drop sagacity, abandon wisdom” in the newer version was a result of the historical conflicts between the Confucian School and the Daoist Order.

This brought to mind the famous anecdote involving the Confucian Sage and a bandit. Bandit Zhi once berated the Confucian Sage, accusing him of manipulating public opinion and using flowery words and hypocritical actions to deceive emperors and rulers in pursuit of wealth and status. He declared that the Confucian Sage was the greatest thief of all. As long as sages did not perish, great thieves would never cease.

Before ascending to the throne, the founding emperor of the Great Xuan Dynasty once engaged in a philosophical debate on sages and thieves with the last Empress Dowager of the fallen Wei Dynasty.

The last Empress Dowager of the Wei Dynasty believed in the principle of winners becoming kings and losers becoming bandits. She argued, “Now that I have fallen prisoner, my life and fate are at your mercy. But I’m afraid you lack the qualifications to judge me. We are merely two great thieves who stole nations; no different from each other. A thief may kill another thief, but a thief has no authority to judge another thief.”

The founding emperor of the Great Xuan Dynasty was also the leader of the Northern Daoist sect. He countered this argument using the philosophy of the Second Sage. In the end, he sentenced the Empress Dowager to an official execution rather than allowing her to die in obscurity. This act was meant to legitimize the Great Xuan Dynasty’s succession over the fallen Wei Dynasty.

Regardless, this argument had originally been used by the Daoist Order to criticize the Confucian School. Now that Qin Lingge, a Confucian disciple, had brought it up himself, it would be a major embarrassment for the Daoist Order if they lost this debate.

Ning Lingge frowned slightly but still followed the formalities, addressing Zhang Yuelu. “Qing Xiao, it’s your turn to respond to the topic.”

According to the rules, the classical reference set the theme of the debate.

This response would define the scope of discussion based on the classical reference cited by the opponent. First, one must clarify the meaning of the opponent’s words, concisely articulate the core idea, and ensure that the audience understands the intentions of both sides before establishing an argument.

Zhang Yuelu nodded slightly and responded with another classical reference. “When the river dries up, the valley will be empty; when the hills are leveled, the deep pools will be filled. If sages perish, great thieves will not arise. The world will then be peaceful and free of fuss. But if sages do not perish, great thieves will never cease. Hoping to restore order to the world by exalting sages is akin to glorifying the likes of Bandit Zhi.”

These words were spoken by Daoist Master Nanhua, who likened a nation to a treasure chest and its laws of benevolence and righteousness to ropes and locks. The thieves who took the entire chest and its contents were likened to those who seized a nation while also stripping away its moral and legal frameworks—the ultimate great thieves.

Daoist Master Nanhua frequently referenced the infamous Bandit Zhi who had rebuked the Confucian Sage. When asked whether there was a methodology to theft, Bandit Zhi replied, “To know where valuable items are kept in a mansion is sagacity; to be the first to enter the mansion is bravery; to ensure a safe retreat for the group is righteousness; to foresee the success of a heist is wisdom; and to distribute the spoils fairly is benevolence.”

Sagacity, benevolence, righteousness, wisdom, and bravery—principles upheld by the Confucian School—could also be applied to thieves. As such, there was indeed a methodology for theft.

The Confucian School preached benevolence, righteousness, and propriety, yet it failed to reform great thieves. Instead, these thieves repurposed Confucian values to justify and organize their crimes.

The Primordial Daoist Ancestor and Daoist Master Nanhua did not oppose benevolence and morality themselves, but rather the act of exalting sages and glorifying benevolence. Once these ideals became tools of self-promotion, people saw an opportunity for personal gain. They would parade themselves as sages, saints, and holy beings while, in reality, they engaged in thievery.

This was Daoist Master Nanhua’s response to the issue of sages and great thieves, making Zhang Yuelu’s direct citation of his words an appropriate way to establish the debate’s premise.

The crowd turned their eyes to Qin Lingge, waiting for him to pose the first question. Without any preamble, Qin Lingge asked directly, “What is Confucianism?”

Bandit Zhi had directly rebuked the Confucian Sage and condemned Confucianism. This was why the Daoist Order often used the anecdote to critique the Confucian School.

At this moment, Qin Lingge turned the argument around, using it as an opportunity to pose the question, “What is Confucianism?”

This was undeniably a vast and challenging topic—akin to asking “What is Daoism?” or “What is Buddhism?”

Countless philosophical debates had emerged from such questions, with even the leaders of the Three Religions personally engaging in them.

Moreover, such questions were inherently risky. There was but a thin line between explaining and deconstructing, and an even finer line between deconstruction and outright negation.

Why didn’t Qin Lingge ask, “What is Daoism?”

It was likely because Zhang Yuelu’s reputation preceded her. As two of the most outstanding young talents in the world, Qin Lingge was not confident in an absolute victory. Thus, he went for the safe approach and chose a domain in which he had greater expertise.

Qin Lingge’s voice was neither loud nor forceful, yet it resonated clearly in the ears of everyone present.

The expressions of all those present turned solemn.

Even the three Omniscient Sages, who had remained expressionless thus far, showed signs of interest.

A hint of astonishment appeared on Zhang Yuelu’s face. To onlookers, it seemed as though she was stumped by such a question. However, only Zhang Yuelu herself knew that she was shocked at her extraordinary luck—she had predicted the question perfectly!

Due to the short preparation time, Zhang Yuelu could not afford to study everything and had to minimize her focus. After careful consideration, she realized that ever since the Buddhist Sect’s decline, the Buddhists shifted their core to the Western Region and no longer focused on the debate segment. Instead, they preferred taking up the martial arts challenge.

Conversely, after the Confucian School lost its dominance over the world and could no longer dictate the empire’s rites and education, they revived abstract philosophical discussions. As such, Confucians were the primary participants in verbal debates.

That was why Zhang Yuelu ultimately chose to prepare for a Confucian-focused topic.

Zhang Yuelu slowly responded, “The unity of family and state defines Confucianism.”

Sage Donghua and Sage Qingwei simultaneously revealed expressions of approval.

Sage Cihang remained reserved, much like many parents, showing little reaction to their child’s excellence in public.

Qin Lingge’s expression grew more serious as he said, “Please elaborate.”

If Immortals engaged in a debate, they could transmit their thoughts directly through divine consciousness, allowing complete comprehension without the need for verbal explanation. Moreover, their level of understanding was so advanced that they could grasp the meaning within a short phrase. This made Immortal debates seem profoundly mysterious, often consisting of just a few cryptic words that left others bewildered.

Since Zhang Yuelu and Qin Lingge had not yet reached that realm, nor held such esteemed status, they could not simply utter a few words and leave the interpretation to the audience. Thus, elaboration was necessary.

Zhang Yuelu solemnly explained, “To Confucians, the state is an enlarged version of the family, and the family is a microcosm of the state. The patriarch of the household governs affairs as a sovereign, requiring children to treat their fathers and grandfathers with the same reverence they would a king—kneeling frequently and never daring to disobey, with morality enforced through law.

“Likewise, the sovereign governs national affairs as a father, requiring subjects to treat their monarch as they would their patriarch, believing that the ruler’s grace is akin to the kindness of one’s parents. Gratitude must therefore be repaid, even at the cost of one’s life, and law is upheld through morality.

“Therefore, Confucianism advocates ruling the world through loyalty and filial piety.”

Hearing these words, the Grand Libationer of the Confucian School frowned.

Regardless of whether it was correct, this was no longer an explanation—it was a deconstruction.

Zhang Yuelu, however, showed no intention of stopping and continued, “The so-called ‘parent-official’ is a manifestation of this integrated concept of loyalty and filial piety. The sovereign stands as the father to his ministers, and ministers act as the parental figures to the common folk under their governance.

“Thus, the sovereign is equivalent to the common folk’s grandfather. In this way, the entire nation is structured as a single family. The sovereign is the patriarchal grandfather, the officials are fathers, and the commoners are grandchildren. Since it is a family unit, fathers must love their sons, and grandfathers must love both their sons and grandsons—this is the Confucian ideal of benevolence.

“The Confucian Sage speaks of benevolence, and the Second Sage speaks of righteousness. This brings us to the Confucian School’s historic adversary—the Mohists.

“Mohism advocates universal love and non-aggression, while Confucianism also promotes benevolence. Why then are they as incompatible as fire and water? That is because Confucian benevolence is strictly hierarchical—it flows only from the top down.

“Grandfathers love their grandsons, and fathers love their sons; never do sons love their fathers or grandsons love their grandfathers. Only the wealthy can afford not to be benevolent. If the poor wish to practice benevolence, who can they possibly be benevolent toward?

“Mohism, on the other hand, promotes mutual love, which contradicts the Confucian hierarchy, or in other words, the Confucian ethical system dictated by propriety.

“Thunder and rain alike are the grace of heaven and part of the natural order, so is the Confucian father-son hierarchy. Even if the father errs, the son cannot rebel. If the son resists, he is deemed unfilial. Unfilial behavior is a moral failing, and the lack of morality leads to the loss of righteousness, which in turn alienates one from societal norms.

“However, the father punishing the son is always inherently justified, deemed for the son’s own good. If the father is unjust, then the patriarchal grandfather must discipline the father and uphold justice for the grandson. This is why the common folk always yearn for a wise ruler. However, if a grandson dares to directly rebel against an unjust father—even if the father is in the wrong—the blame still falls on the grandson.

“Hence, as long as a nation is regarded as a family, fairness ceases to exist. Morally, a son is never equal to his father because the former is born indebted to the father. As such, a son rebelling against his father will be condemned for eternity. Hence, one hears only of loyalty and filial piety but never of fairness.

“Loyalty, filial piety, and benevolence exist solely to reinforce the ethical framework of Confucian propriety. That is the foundation of Confucianism.

“Heaven and earth are eternal, while human life is finite. To cling to transient constructs amidst the vast expanse of the infinite is futile. Those who cannot express their will nor nurture their longevity have not comprehended the Dao. Confucian ritual teachings are nothing but a frantic pursuit of illusion, filled with deception and hypocrisy and incapable of attaining the Truth. It’s utterly absurd!”