The portrayal of Wu Ch’eng-en’s Monkey is strongly in favour of Buddhism as opposed to the other two religious practices, Confucianism and Taoism. Yet, the novel reflects the religious landscape of Ming Dynasty China, for it reveals the synchronization among these three belief systems during that time period. Furthermore, in portraying the positive and negative aspects of these three practices, Monkey is depicted as an allegory in which it endorses the idea of self-cultivation, an aspiration that many people in Ming China sought to achieve. As Arthur Waley’s preface to the novel asserts, despite the fantastic plot and allegorical characters, the novel is primarily meant to be a “moral lesson” (Monkey, 2).

In order to convey this “moral lesson” Wu Ch’eng-en tends to uphold Buddhism over the other two religious beliefs as the most appropriate path to salvation, for it is the religion that has least flaws of the three practices. These virtues are most embodied in Tripitika, for he is opposed to killing. As he contends, one “should be ready to die rather than commit acts of violence” (Monkey, 133). Instead, Tripitika is more interested in helping others achieve salvation. During his stay at a hunter’s house, Tripitika conducts prayers and recitations to help the man’s deceased father eradicate his bad karma, thus “saving the soul of their late master” (Monkey, 124). And as a Buddhist, he is also not greedy. After he and his disciples help Mr. Kao, Tripitika refuses to accept any money for his deed, asserting, “Travelling priests must beg their way as they go” (Monkey, 157). Interestingly, these values of generosity and temperance run parallel with those of Confucianism’s. Monkey himself eventually comes to this conclusion. Although he yearns to attain the Daoist objective of achieving immortality, and as well as the Confucian ideal of becoming a sovereign in Heaven, Monkey ultimately repents his past mistakes of provoking Heaven, and follows the Buddhist course of following his master to India in retrieving his Buddhist scriptures.

Confucianism is also shown in the novel. In particular, its principles are expressed in the hierarchical structure in heaven, where the Jade Emperor’s court is a reflection of the Ming dynasty court. Even the highest authorities of Taoism (Laozi) and Buddhism (Buddha) are under the jurisdiction of the emperor, and hence, all deities report back to the Emperor. For this reason, the he is portrayed as a critique of the tyranny and flaws of the Chinese imperial system. Not only does he arbitrarily and hastily execute his subjects at his own whim, his punishments are often over trivial matters. For example, he orders Prince Moshka, the son of the Dragon King to be executed just because the Prince “broke a crystal cup” (Monkey, 160).

Such displays of authoritarianism are a reflection of the Ming emperors, particularly the founder, Zhu Yuanzhang. Zhu was particularly harsh in his penalties, as he often took the law into his own hands. In one case, several granary officials were punished by having their “faces and bodies branded and their kneecaps removed” after they were caught stealing grain (Hansen, 376). The author conveys his feeling towards such abuse of power when Monkey chooses Buddhism over the rigidity of the Confucian order of ruler and subordinate, for he affirms, “I could have had the throne in any of the ten thousand lands and nine continents under heaven . . . but I have got used to being a priest and leading a lazy, comfortable existence” (Monkey, 211). Yet although the novel criticizes the abuse of power, it does not condemn the imperial institution, for Monkey argues, “A court must not, even for a day, be without a sovereign” (Monkey, 210).

Hence, the novel’s depiction of Confucianism is not entirely malevolent. The Confucian ideal of filial piety is particularly stressed. The example of the woodcutter is especially memorable, for he forgoes his opportunity in achieving immortality so that he can care for his aged mother. Even Monkey is moved by such integrity remarking, “I can see that you are a good and devoted son, and your piety will certainly be rewarded” (Monkey, 17). Monkey eventually assents to the same ideal, for he also becomes an obedient follower to his masters, the Patriarch and Tripitika. Yet, it is Tripitika who displays the most vivid example of filial piety when he goes to Chiang-chou in search of his parents’ identity. He contends, “he who fails to avenge the wrongs done to a parent is unworthy of the name of man” (Monkey, 90). Tripitika’s devotion to his mother reveals that even as a Buddhist, the Confucian principle of the family is still very important.

Monkey reveals the harmonization among Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism. As Monkey argues, all three religions have the ability to achieve immortality, when one becomes either “Buddhas, Immortals (Daoism), [or] Sages (Confucianism)” (Monkey, 14). This is most apparent when Monkey’s master, Subhodi uses terminology from all three beliefs as he reveals his “Secret of Long Life.” Subodhi teaches Monkey that the Confucian concept of “The Five Elements” must be used in order for one to become a Buddha or an Immortal (Monkey, 24). It is even more revealing that the deities from the different religions coexist in Heaven. In particular, Monkey’s arrest requires the collaboration of both the Daoist deity Lao-tzu and the Buddhist Bodhisattva Kuanyin. Even the vocabulary is intermixed, for Tripitika often refers to achieving salvation through the proper “study of the Way,” (Monkey, 90) a term that is also referred to in Daoism and Confucianism, although with different connotations. And when the four pilgrims reach India to obtain their scriptures from the Buddha of the West, Taoist guards are sent to receive them (Monkey, 278). Most revealing is that even the Buddha asserts that the “scriptures are not only the mirror of our faith, but also the source and origin of all three religions” (Monkey, 288). He also argues that the scriptures are used to save the people in China from their grave sins because of their disregard for Confucius, who “stood by their side teaching them all the virtues [yet] no ray of wisdom penetrated their blindness” (Monkey, 284). Hence, in amalgamating all these ideas, beliefs, vocabulary, and deities into one narrative, Monkey explicitly considers that all three practices are related to each other; it does not attempt to refute any one particular belief.

Hence, the author’s attitude to a large extent does reflect the nature and practice of religion in Ming Dynasty China. Much of the harmonization in the novel also occurred in Ming China. Such a phenomenon can be attributed to two factors. In early Ming China, the founder Zhu Yuanzhang’s legacy played a great role in this synchronization. Zhu did not particularly adhere to any one belief; instead, he believed that religion was useful only if it produced positive social effects. Hence, he placed Confucianism alongside Buddhism and Daoism as but one of “three teachings” (Ming Taizu: Discussion of the Three Teachings, 791). Accordingly, Zhu’s decree, which became official Ming policy, stipulated that the three be synchronized and equally adhered to, for as along as “they deliver real benefits, they are in principle all one” (Ming Taizu: Discussion of the Three Teachings, 793). However, Zhu’s strict policies gradually became lax after his death.

Particularly in the second half of the Ming dynasty (after 1500), Wang Yangming’s philosophical treatise also played a large role in the harmonization of the three practices. Wang opposed the existing educational system, which encouraged memorization of the Confucian classics in order to pass the civil service examinations. Rather, he advocated that the attainment of sagehood was possible for everyone, as long as if one strives to achieve self-cultivation, and not divorce the “unity of thought and action” (Hansen, 392). At the same time, because of the increasing competition in the civil service examinations, many intellectuals turned away from book learning, and accepted Wang’s idea of self-cultivation through moral conduct.

For this reason, in portraying the positive and negative aspects of these three practices, Monkey is depicted as an allegory which it reflects and endorses the idea of self-cultivation. But more importantly, Monkey reveals that this cannot be attained simply through studying sacred Daoist, Buddhist, or Confucian texts alone; rather, it is accomplished through deeds, an idea that reflects Wang Yangming’s teachings (Hansen, 397). Because Wang’s ideas were widely accepted among the intellectuals and literati, Wu Ch’eng-en is likely one who adhered to (or at least familiar with) this idea, for he himself was an intellectual (Monkey, 2). The novel’s main message, like Wang Yangming’s teachings, is that “each person is capable of becoming a sage” regardless of status or past faults (Hansen, 392).

For this reason, the novel uses Taoism as its example of disunity between thought and action. In the “Cart-Slow Kingdom,” the Taoists are portrayed as deceitful religious zealots who oppress the Buddhists. Even Monkey finds the Taoists’ tyranny contradictory, for he asks, “Those are Buddhists, but they are priests just as we are. What right have we to set them to work?” (Monkey, 214). Yet because of their devotion to their faith, the Six Guardians and Defenders of Religion protect the Buddhists throughout their suffering, and eventually, the corrupt Taoists and Immortals are defeated by Monkey’s powers. Although it might appear that the novel promotes Buddhism and attacks Taoism, this is not the case, for the novel uses the Taoists as an example of those who stray away from “unity of thought and action.” The novel argues that such charlatans will be punished, while those who remain dedicated will be rewarded.

Yet, although Buddhism is portrayed as the religion with the least flaws, Wu Ch’eng-en leaves the most glaring hypocrisy near the end of the journey, when Buddha’s two disciples – Ananda and Kasyapa – request a stipend for the scriptures, a blatant contradiction to Buddhism’s prohibition of acquiring material wealth. Even the Buddha declares that the scriptures should not be “received gratis” (Monkey, 287). In the end, Tripitika is forced to give the Buddha’s disciples his begging bowl. Similar to Wang Yangming’s argument, the point of the novel is that despite any religion’s good intentions, reading sacred texts is not enough to achieve self-cultivation. The Buddha of the West makes the same argument, when he contends that it is “blank scrolls as these that are the true scriptures . . . but I quite see that the people of China are too foolish and ignorant to believe this, so there is nothing for it but to give them copies with some writing on” (Monkey, 287). Hence, the pilgrims are handed some scriptures randomly and imprudently selected by the Buddha.

According to Wang Yangming, the way to learning anything – and thus achieving self-cultivation – is to try carrying it out not just through words, but as well as through action (Hansen, 392). For Tripitika’s disciples, who each made mistakes in their lives, salvation was possible only through learning from their mistakes and reforming themselves, which they succeeded in when they repented for their wrongdoings, and protected their master throughout their journey to India.

Hence, it was partly because of this ideological ferment in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that paved the way for Christianity’s entrance into China. To many scholars of that time period, religious doctrines were not as important as in the past; instead, they were more interested in achieving self-cultivation through the experimentation of ideas. Hence, Matteo Ricci and the Jesuits’ arrival in China in 1601 were initially well received because of their devotion to learning Chinese and introduction of a Christian canon that stressed self-discipline (and thus had some compatible attributes to the existing three religions.) For example, Tripitika’s practice “saying grace” before dinner at the hunter’s house is one custom that overlaps with Christianity (Monkey, 123). Even one of Wang Yangming’s followers, Li Zhi, praised Ricci as a “person of inner refinement [and] outwardly most straightforward” (Hansen, 392).

Paul Su, Ricci’s disciple, was one such intellectual who made a similar argument to Li Zhi in “Paul Su’s Apology in Behalf of the Jesuits.” Su’s memorial to the Emperor Wanlih is a defence of Christianity not based on religious theory, but on practicality. Hence, argues that even though Buddhism has been practiced in China for over a thousand years, “the ways of the world and the hearts of men have not been reformed” (“Paul Su’s Apology in behalf of the Jesuits, 120). Instead, in echoing Li Zhi and Wang Yangming’s teachings, Su argues that the Emperor should not blindly denounce the foreign religion based on the hearsay of his courtiers, but instead “make a most thorough investigation” himself into the validity of each practice (“Paul Su’s Apology in behalf of the Jesuits, 123). Moreover, Su contends that the ultimate goal of Christianity is just the same as the three beliefs, for it too stresses the “cultivation of personal virtue” (“Paul Su’s Apology in behalf of the Jesuits, 119).

Hence, the creation of the Monkey itself is a reflection of the commercialization during Ming China. Because of commercialization, many merchants could afford to prepare their sons for an education; hence, literacy boomed during this era. At the same time, there were many failed scholars who pursued other activities in commerce and travel, and paid less consideration towards the Confucian classics. The culmination of these factors led to a growing readership in vernacular novels. Although many read these novels just for their “sheer entertainment value” (Hansen, 398), we can suspect that much of the values expressed in these novels, such as Monkey reflected the intellectual and religious beliefs of the Ming populace; otherwise, these novels would not have been reprinted so many times during the Ming. Such novels as Monkey must have garnered great popularity among the literate and also story tellers who travelled from city to city to re-tell the stories to the illiterate masses.

Although Monkey is biased towards Buddhism, the author Wu Ch’eng-en’s attitudes toward religion nonetheless reflects the religious as well as intellectual landscape of Ming Dynasty China, for the novel reveals his conviction in the synchronization of these three belief systems. Monkey is depicted as an allegory in which it does not particularly endorse religion as the main route to self-cultivation; rather, religion serves merely as a guide to the ultimate goal of self-cultivation, an aspiration that many people in Ming China sought to achieve.