>>724714545
Westerners had the same concept, the Romans called it "fortuna" and in English they'd call it "providence", it's pretty much the concept of fate and often personified as the divine having a will to steer events in an unpredictable way. But sometimes it could be influenced by one's own morality.

The other side of it is the concept of a "moral universe", basically the idea that the orderly and harmonious actions of people are directly tied to the harmonious and orderly functioning of the universe, and so humans have a moral duty to act a certain way. The ancient Egyptians had a concept called ma'at which represented this and westerners absorbed it in different ways. Indian religion has a similar concept called "dharma", karma is a closely related concept that was inherited by the Buddhists.

Both of these ideas, the "random universe" and the "moral universe" arise from different facets of the human experience. Society functions better when everyone acts like we're in the moral universe, but observation tells you we must be in the random universe.

So how do you reconcile these concepts? It's simple - just decide the will of the "random universe" must always be the correct thing the "moral universe" demanded. Whatever heaven wills must be what's morally right, because it's heaven's will, because heaven's will is morally right... pulling yourself up by the celestial bootstraps. So if you arrange some sticks and turtle shells and they tell you to disembowel your enemies, you were simply acting in accordance with the universe.

It's not just a Chinese thing, swap in the word "God" and it sounds a lot like western philosophy before the 18th-19th century. Or hell, even today. Do bad stuff and get bad events = "God punished them". Do good stuff and get bad events = "God has a plan for everyone". How many times have you heard that one?

>>2194482
VGGGGGGGHHHHH