Chapter 151 of Reverend Insanity is easily one of the most thought-provoking chapters in the first volume (A Demon’s Nature Doesn’t Change), offering an early glimpse into Fang Yuan’s worldview. Regardless of the “bear” in the room (or cave, in this case), I find the philosophy underlying the chapter far more interesting.

What I consider the reason for why this chapter is so compelling is the idea that resembles something akin to spiritual equality (the notion that all life is fundamentally the same), which it twists into something much darker. A more natural interpretation of that idea would probably be that all living beings deserve a chance to live—that predator and prey are not morally good or evil, but simply acting according to survival. However, here, that same premise is pushed toward the conclusion that all life is equally insignificant, and therefore equally expendable.

He isn’t merely rejecting morality outright; in a way, he is reinterpreting a seemingly “true” idea into something that supports his worldview. He doesn’t do this to justify guilt or ease his conscience. There is no inner conflict. To him, this is simply the truth.

Fang Yuan folded his arms as he observed Gu Yue Yao Le’s expression, thinking of a Buddhist saying on earth: ‘Without a sense of self, without a sense of person; to be detached of all living things, detached of the sense of time. Void is the red skull and white bones, skin and flesh!’

I am namely myself, without individuality. Breaking the sense of self, realizing that one is common and ordinary. ‘Without a sense of self’ means ‘everyone is equal, there is no difference.’

Man is humanity no longer treating humans as a superior race and demeaning other living beings. ‘Without a sense of person’ means that ‘the world is equal, there is no difference.’

‘Living things’ refers to all life, no longer recognising life as superior and thinking that non-living beings like rocks and water have cognition. This is ‘detached of all living things,’ which means ‘all in the world is equal, there is no difference.’

Any object or creature has their respective lifespan, and ‘detached of the sense of time’ namely means ‘regardless of whether it exists or not, they are all equal without difference.’

No matter how beautiful the guy or girl, they eventually turn into a skeleton. Bones, skin and flesh are one, but people favoured skin and flesh while fearing bones—this is being fixated on appearance, not recognising that all is equal.

This Buddhist term is calling for humans to break through all forms, seeing the truth.

Beauty is superficial, and people, me, the world, and time, is all superficial. If one goes past the superficial aspect, they would see Buddha.

Recognising and going beyond, treating all as equal, all is equal.

His morality is not based on good or evil, but on benefit, or utility I suppose. Life and death are just means to an end, and neither is sacred nor tragic in themselves. If the righteous path offered the best path to supremacy (eternal life), then he would surely choose it, however, he sees the demonic path as better suited for that end, thus he follows it instead. Morality, then, is not a principle he abides by, but a tool he uses when it serves him.

Interestingly, I do think the bear itself often gets overlooked in discussions of this chapter. Yeah, of course, the bear eats the girl alive, and nearly every conversation centers on that, yet arguably, the bear suffers just as much, if not more. Driven by instinct, it is forced to consume the remains, injures itself in the process, and is then burned alive as part of Fang Yuan’s plan to refine a Gu. The chapter even seems to anticipate this very tendency in its readers. I’ve spoken with some (not all) who instinctively mourn the girl for her youth, innocence, while the bear fades into the background as little more than a plot device (ironically this is also what gets mentioned in-text). But from Fang Yuan’s perspective, this distinction is itself an illusion. The girl, the bear, a fox, a tree; none hold any inherent moral superiority over another. He doesn’t value the bear more than the girl; he simply refuses to privilege either. And in doing so, he inadvertantly exposes how instinctively we rank lives according to our own emotional biases.

Thus, Buddha sacrificed his body to feed tigers, cutting off his flesh to feed eagles. This was the benevolence in his heart, seeing all in this world as his own, loving everything, and his great love for everything.

No matter if it’s me, others, animals or plants, or even the lifeless rocks and water, even those that do not exist, we have to love them.

If a mortal standing there watches the bear eat a person, some hot-blooded teenager would jump out and scream, “You beast, don’t you dare eat a person!” or “Beauty, do not fear, uncle is here to save you!” etc.

This was the mortal’s love and hatred, loving young girls and hating large bears. Not going beyond and still fixating on the superficial, not able to see her red human skeleton.

If Buddha stood there and watched the bear eat a person, he would sigh, chanting, “If I do not enter hell, who would enter?” He would save the young girl and feed himself to the black bear.

This was Buddha’s love and hatred, loving the young girl and loving the bear, treating all as equal.

But right now, Fang Yuan was the one standing here.

Seeing the young girl’s tragic and violent death, his heart was unmoved.

This was not because of his numbness to death, but he had gone beyond the superficial, having no obsessions. Without a sense of self, without a sense of person; to be detached of all living things, detached of the sense of time…

Seeing all living things as equal, the world is equal.

Thus, the girl’s death is no different from a fox or a tree’s death.

The idea that “everyone has a right to live and a right to die, but no one is innocent” captures Fang Yuan’s outlook quite well I would say. Fang Yuan treats existence itself as neutral, stripping away its emotional weight and replacing it with pure utility.

Whats interesting is that Fang Yuan doesn’t simply reject Buddhist thought outright. He does arrive at a similar understanding of the illusory nature of distinctions, the equality of all beings, and the superficiality of appearances. But, he draws a radically different conclusion to this. Where Buddhism dissolves the self and turns this realization toward compassion, Fang Yuan holds onto his own desire above all else. So, while the insight might be very similar, the implications it holds are entirely different.

In the end, the same realization splits into two paths: toward the light, one becomes Buddha and, as said, extends ones hands toward compassion despite meaninglessness and dissolving the self; but reach in the opposite direction—toward the darkness—and one becomes a demon, exploiting that same meaninglessness while preserving desire and discarding guilt.

But to a mere mortal, the girl’s death would trigger their anger, hatred, and pity. If it was the girl eating the bear, they would not feel anything. If an old lady was eaten, the pity in their hearts would be greatly reduced. If it was a villain, a murderer getting eaten, they would clap their hands in joy, praising.

In actuality, all beings are equal, and heaven and earth is just.

Nature is fair, disregarding love or hate; it is emotionless, and never gives differential treatment.

Rule of the strong, victor takes all!

The disappearance of a lifeform, towards the entire natural realm and the infinite cosmos, to the long river of history—what does it amount to?

Death means death, who can choose not to die? What talk about a girl, bear, ant, fox, tree, old lady, murderer, they are all lowly! Humble! Mongrels!

Only by recognising this and going beyond the superficial, arriving at the truth, does one gain divinity.

This divinity, taking a step towards the light, it becomes Buddha. If it takes a step towards the darkness, it becomes a demon.

Demonic nature!

Ironically, I don’t really think this chapter is really about Fang Yuan at all, at least not for the most part. His philosophy is already almost entirely internally consistent, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. The real target may just be everyone else, ourselves included. We claim to value all human life equally, yet in the same moment; instinctively assign different moral weight to deaths depending on youth, beauty, innocence, familiarity, or even species. Fang Yuan’s worldview is disturbing, perhaps, but it also serves as a mirror through which we are forced to examine our own.

As said earlier, whether we agree with Fang Yuan is sorta beside the point I feel. The chapter is a sort of meta-commentary on the reader themselves. We may question Fang Yuan’s actions, but in doing so, we are also forced to question our own morality. Why do we judge some deaths differently from others? Especially so when the novel takes place in the world of Gu, though the question is just as relevant in our own. Is our compassion truly universal, or does it extend only as far as we allow it to? I don’t think the novel expects us to embrace Fang Yuan’s conclusions so much as question whether our own principles would withstand the same scrutiny.

Thank you for reading.

References

Gu Zhen Ren. (2012). Reverend Insanity (Chapter 151). Unofficial English translation.