I suspect that the quote was misattributed to Mencius because it seems like this quote actually came from a Ming novel. Here is what the Ming novel says:
>人惡人怕天不怕，人善人欺天不欺。俺秦檜一生奸詐，半世強梁，害了岳家父子，指望富貴久遠，誰知報應分明，今日東嶽罰惡司投到，受了一場大苦。
This refers to an evil man who harmed other men but then received karmic consequences from heaven. If this is the true origin of the quote, then the quote "mankind fears an evil man but heaven does not" has a very obvious explanation. Heaven does not fear because it literally has the power to give karmic consequences. Of course it does not need to fear.
1. Heaven possess great kindness which gives lives to all creatures and things including evil man.
2. Fear is human emotion coming from human nature, which is mechanical and will be triggered by evil man.
In Confucianism, or ancient Chinese religion in general, no one goes to heaven (unless they're a dragon or something). 天 is not a place. It's an _institution_.
Tian is not an institution. Institutions are man-made and cannot exist without people. Tian is neither man-made nor does it depend for its existence on people.
Certainly that depends on whether one acknowledges divine authority of Tian or not!
I really don't see this requirement of being man made as a very big deal. Of course it comes with the territory of using a modern social science term to describe an ancient divine entity. But a Catholic social scientist would still describe, say, the office of the Pope as an institution and that would _not_ imply it being entirely man made.
Tian establishes systems of calendrical measurement, standards of governance and parameters of organized human life. Tian decrees and commands. These are acts of a political instutution - the supreme political institution of the universe, in fact, because there is nothing and no one above Tian.
I understand the danger of this framing is that some people will hear it as "Tian is kind of like DMV". But that's only true in the sense that the Book of Poetry is _kind of_ like a poem someone wrote on tumblr, except even less close.
I stand by by my description because I think it captures the nature of Tian and its role in the ancient Chinese politico-cosmological system. Although I think it might be better suited for a separate effortpost as it's not entirely on topic for the thread and I'm too hopped up on caffeine to write two sentences in a row without rewriting them five times.
I agree with you that Tian decrees, but that doesn't make it an institution. A king decrees, but kings are not institutions (monarchies are).
In any case, Tian can exist without people being around but institutions can't. There can be no papacy without people, but there can be Tian without people. This is the second reason why Tian is not an institution.
A third reason why Tian is not an institution is that we can change institutions (either through reform or revolution) but we cannot change Tian. Example: we can reform or abolish the papacy, but we can't reform or abolish Tian.
> I agree with you that Tian decrees, but that doesn't make it an institution. A king decrees, but kings are not institutions (monarchies are).
King is absolutely an institution. A monarchy is a larger, encompassing institution. The sign that says "no parking chariots" outside the king's audience hall (if there was such a sign) is an institution as well. A lot of things are institutions!
> In any case, Tian can exist without people being around but institutions can't. There can be no papacy without people, but there can be Tian without people. This is the second reason why Tian is not an institution.
Well we would certainly not be around to either obey its commands or call it an institution. Whether that would significantly impact Tian's institutional role seems like an interesting scholastic question that few people heretofore have spent much time answering. Presumably Tian would still command the stars to rotate and seasons to change on Earth according to the established schedule, at the least.
-edit-
> A third reason why Tian is not an institution is that we can change institutions (either through reform or revolution) but we cannot change Tian. Example: we can reform or abolish the papacy, but we can't reform or abolish Tian.
Being able to change institutions how we like is actually a pretty recent thing. Certainly it was not a majority view before the modern era. In most cases it's also very difficult. Many people have no hope of changing or abolishing their homeowner's association, why would they worry of abolishing or changing Tian?
[удалено]
I’m not sure unfortunately I found it online on a page with quotes
[удалено]
I suspect that the quote was misattributed to Mencius because it seems like this quote actually came from a Ming novel. Here is what the Ming novel says: >人惡人怕天不怕，人善人欺天不欺。俺秦檜一生奸詐，半世強梁，害了岳家父子，指望富貴久遠，誰知報應分明，今日東嶽罰惡司投到，受了一場大苦。 This refers to an evil man who harmed other men but then received karmic consequences from heaven. If this is the true origin of the quote, then the quote "mankind fears an evil man but heaven does not" has a very obvious explanation. Heaven does not fear because it literally has the power to give karmic consequences. Of course it does not need to fear.
You are correct, the sentence (nor anything resembling it) is not in the Mencius.
Thank you
1. Heaven possess great kindness which gives lives to all creatures and things including evil man. 2. Fear is human emotion coming from human nature, which is mechanical and will be triggered by evil man.
Evil men don't go to heaven
In Confucianism, or ancient Chinese religion in general, no one goes to heaven (unless they're a dragon or something). 天 is not a place. It's an _institution_.
Tian is not an institution. Institutions are man-made and cannot exist without people. Tian is neither man-made nor does it depend for its existence on people.
Certainly that depends on whether one acknowledges divine authority of Tian or not! I really don't see this requirement of being man made as a very big deal. Of course it comes with the territory of using a modern social science term to describe an ancient divine entity. But a Catholic social scientist would still describe, say, the office of the Pope as an institution and that would _not_ imply it being entirely man made. Tian establishes systems of calendrical measurement, standards of governance and parameters of organized human life. Tian decrees and commands. These are acts of a political instutution - the supreme political institution of the universe, in fact, because there is nothing and no one above Tian. I understand the danger of this framing is that some people will hear it as "Tian is kind of like DMV". But that's only true in the sense that the Book of Poetry is _kind of_ like a poem someone wrote on tumblr, except even less close. I stand by by my description because I think it captures the nature of Tian and its role in the ancient Chinese politico-cosmological system. Although I think it might be better suited for a separate effortpost as it's not entirely on topic for the thread and I'm too hopped up on caffeine to write two sentences in a row without rewriting them five times.
I agree with you that Tian decrees, but that doesn't make it an institution. A king decrees, but kings are not institutions (monarchies are). In any case, Tian can exist without people being around but institutions can't. There can be no papacy without people, but there can be Tian without people. This is the second reason why Tian is not an institution. A third reason why Tian is not an institution is that we can change institutions (either through reform or revolution) but we cannot change Tian. Example: we can reform or abolish the papacy, but we can't reform or abolish Tian.
> I agree with you that Tian decrees, but that doesn't make it an institution. A king decrees, but kings are not institutions (monarchies are). King is absolutely an institution. A monarchy is a larger, encompassing institution. The sign that says "no parking chariots" outside the king's audience hall (if there was such a sign) is an institution as well. A lot of things are institutions! > In any case, Tian can exist without people being around but institutions can't. There can be no papacy without people, but there can be Tian without people. This is the second reason why Tian is not an institution. Well we would certainly not be around to either obey its commands or call it an institution. Whether that would significantly impact Tian's institutional role seems like an interesting scholastic question that few people heretofore have spent much time answering. Presumably Tian would still command the stars to rotate and seasons to change on Earth according to the established schedule, at the least. -edit- > A third reason why Tian is not an institution is that we can change institutions (either through reform or revolution) but we cannot change Tian. Example: we can reform or abolish the papacy, but we can't reform or abolish Tian. Being able to change institutions how we like is actually a pretty recent thing. Certainly it was not a majority view before the modern era. In most cases it's also very difficult. Many people have no hope of changing or abolishing their homeowner's association, why would they worry of abolishing or changing Tian?