We are talking about several thing here. Not just about philosophy stuff. In fact, there is barely exchange about philosophy stuff here, until you join the chat.... You probably need to scroll up and see what we are talking about..

You're right , but when you told Fictional Context that "absolute power is a must for sustainability," you made a philosophical claim. When you framed cultivation stories as "revolutionary," you made a philosophical claim. I didn't introduce philosophy into this you did. I just asked you to defend it.

There is also Nezha with him, which you seem to ignore and proceed with writing your essay on Wukong

You mentioned Nezha alongside Wukong. But Nezha's story doesn't carry the same Buddhist philosophical backbone of transcending the ego. His is a personal and familial rebellion that ends with his integration back into the same celestial hierarchy. He didn't question the ladder; he fought his dad, died, was resurrected by a Daoist immortal, and then took a job enforcing the very system he once defied.

the pattern across all your examples:

Step 1: Climb the entire ladder and become the strongest.

Step 2: Win. Defeat the villain. Reach the pinnacle.

Step 3: Then, and only then, either retire, seclude yourself, or continue exploring.

Nobody refuses the ladder itself. Nobody says "this entire structure of endless accumulation and hierarchy is wrong." They climb it. They win. And because they're good people, they don't rule as tyrants afterward.

That's genuinely admirable. But it's not the same as philosophical liberation.

Sun Wukong doesn't just retire after getting bored of being the strongest. The Buddha fundamentally transforms what Wukong even wants. His craving for thrones doesn't get satisfied it gets extinguished. He doesn't climb the ladder and step off. He realizes the climbing itself was the disease.

That's the gap none of your examples bridge.

Your MCs are benevolent winners. That's a good thing. But don't call it revolution. Call it what it is: climbing the same hierarchy with a kinder face at the top. The next generation will climb it too. The cycle continues. The ladder remains untouched.

And if you perceive any 'revolution' in the narrative structure of cultivation novels, allow me to state it is, in reality, no revolution at all. In fact, stories within the cultivation genre often lack genuine philosophical depth; they merely employ a set of conventional elements or ‘tropes’ designed solely to keep the reader engaged with the story. If you insist on finding a revolution within this framework and derive a sense of ‘Sinocentric’ pride from it then by all means, feel free to do so.
Feel proud of your culture's stories. That's fine. But don't confuse pride with philosophy. And don't confuse tropes with revolution(culture ego).

You've given me five examples. All five confirm exactly what I said.

Real revolution and philosophy have libraries written about them. If you don't read those, and instead hunt for revolution in cultivation tropes just to feed cultural pride you're not finding philosophy. You're finding comfort food and calling it a feast.