He once shackled the Monkey King, who claimed to be the Sage Equal to (5)

Laozi, a hermit sage who moved outside the theocratic order, was not an official subordinated to the Jade Emperor (13)

 Monkey ruled with proverbial Taoist wuwei 4i,, -laissez-faire, non-action, or non-ado. His island's celebration of natural anarchy was bound to clash with Confucian order and upset the hierarchy of Name and Rank in the court of the Jade Emperor. And this trickster did turn the world of the Jade Emperor upside down,much to the delight of any Taoist reader of this text (43)

What concerns us is this: when read more closely, it will be noted that when Hongren characterized Huineng as a "barbarian" from the South, the Chinese word rendered in English as "barbarian" is actually the word for a species of monkey. That is because the civilized northern Chinese viewed the southerners as dogs, or, in this case, as monkeys(a near synonym). So in this exchange between Hongren and Huineng,the question was, to wit: Can a southern barbarian, or "monkey," have Buddha-nature? (The answer yes) (45)

Whatever our ignorance of the language and the culture of the people where it originated, a myth is still felt as a myth by any reader through-out the world. Its substance does not lie in its style, its original music, or its syntax, but in the story which it tells. It is language, functioning on an especially high level. (430)

where meaning succeeds practically at "taking off" from the linguistic ground on which it keeps on rolling. 2.6. To sum up the discussion at this point, we have so far made the following claims: i. If there is a meaning to be found in mythology, this cannot reside in the isolated elements which enter into the composition of a myth, but only in the way those elements are combined. 2. Although myth belongs to the same category as language, being, as a matter of fact, only part of it, language in myth unveils specific properties. 3. Those properties are only to be found above the ordinary linguistic level; that is, they exhibit more complex features beside those which are to be found in any kind of linguistic expression (431)

The trickster of American mythology has remained so far a problematic figure. Why is it that throughout North America his part is assigned practically everywhere to either coyote or raven? (440)

 7.2.0. Thus, the mediating function of the trickster explains that since its position is halfway between two polar terms he must retain something of that duality, namely an ambiguous and equivocal character. But the trickster figure is not the only conceivable form of mediation; some myths seem to devote themselves to the task of (442)

7.2.I. Not only can we account for the ambiguous character of the trickster, but we may also understand another property of mythical figures the world over, namely, that the same god may be endowed with contradictory attributes; for instance, he may be good and bad at the same time (442)

Many students of myth have a similarly dismissive attitude towards history and its method (2) 

I take “history" in its two familiar senses: "an account of what happened in the past,"and "what happened in the past." "Myth" is more difficult to define. Its basic meaning, that used by mythologists and anthropologists, is "sacred narratives of traditional societies generally involving superhuman beings, etc." The term is often extended (by Vischer, for example) to include other traditional stories,  such as legends, sagas, and so on (3)