Xunzi's 'Jie Bi' (Unveiling Concealment): On the Wholeness of the Dao, Cognitive Limitation, and the Fortune of Being Unobstructed

Chapter III: The Obstruction of Master Mozi: Obstructed by Utility, Unaware of Culture

Section 1: The Rise of the Idea of "Utility" and the Core Concern of Mohism

"Master Mozi was obstructed by Utility, unaware of Culture." (墨子蔽于用而不知文。)

This is Master Xunzi’s fundamental critique of Master Mozi and the Mohist school. To understand this critique, one must first deeply explore the Mohist concept of "Utility" (Yong, 用).

The teachings of Master Mozi arose from the late Spring and Autumn to early Warring States period. Tradition holds that Master Mozi "studied the professions of the Confucians and received the methods of Confucius," but later established his own school. One of the core reasons Master Mozi diverged from Confucianism was his profound emphasis on "Utility."

In Master Mozi’s view, every proposition and every social system must be tested by its "practical utility." That which is useful is good; that which is useless should be discarded. This utilitarian mindset permeates all of Master Mozi’s doctrines.

Master Mozi proposed the famous "Three Standards" (San Biao, 三表) as the criterion for judging whether a statement is correct:

"That which has a root, that which has a source, and that which has utility. What is its root$28 It is rooted in the deeds of the sage-kings of antiquity. What is its source$29 It is traced to the evidence heard and seen by the common people below. What is its utility$30 To abolish it or enact it as criminal law and administration, observing the benefits it brings to the country, the state, and the people. These are the Three Standards for speech." (有本之者，有原之者，有用之者。于何本之？上本之于古者圣王之事。于何原之？下原察百姓耳目之实。于何用之？废以为刑政，观其中国家百姓人民之利。此所谓言有三表也。)

The third standard—"abolish it or enact it as criminal law and administration, observing the benefits it brings..."—is the most critical. Whether a statement is correct is ultimately judged by whether it benefits the state and the people when applied to political practice. This is the standard of "Utility."

Viewed positively, this standard of "Utility" possesses a distinct spirit of realism. It rejects empty metaphysical speculation and demands that thought serve practical life, focusing on concrete social results—this was a commendable pragmatic attitude amidst the debates of the Hundred Schools.

However, when Master Mozi elevated "Utility" to the sole, supreme standard, problems arose. He used "Utility" as the measure for everything, leading to a series of conclusions that Confucians found extremely radical.

The most typical example is "Against Music" (Fei Yue, 非乐). Master Mozi argued that music has no practical utility—it neither fills stomachs, clothes bodies, nor provides secure housing; rather, it wastes human labor and material resources, which could have been used for producing necessities. Therefore, music should be abolished. "Against Music (Upper)," Master Mozi exhaustively argued the harms of music: making musical instruments consumes wood and metal; performing music consumes human effort and time. These resources could have been used for producing necessities. Therefore, "Making music is wrong." (为乐非也。)

Similarly, "Frugality in Funerals" (Jie Zang, 节葬). Master Mozi criticized the Confucian emphasis on elaborate funerals and prolonged mourning periods as wasteful of resources and damaging to human health, yielding no benefit to the deceased. Therefore, funeral rites should be simplified. The core consideration of "Frugality in Funerals" was also based on the standard of "Utility"—What is the use of lavish funerals$31 None for the living, none for the dead, so why bother$32

Furthermore, "Frugality in Expenditure" (Jie Yong, 节用). Master Mozi opposed all unnecessary consumption and ornamentation, advocating for the simplest possible living conditions. Palaces only needed to shelter from wind and rain; clothing only needed to keep warm; food only needed to satisfy hunger—any expenditure beyond practical need was waste.

Section 2: What is "Unaware of Culture" (Bu Zhi Wen)$33—The Multiple Meanings of "Wen" (文)

Master Xunzi criticized Master Mozi for being "unaware of Culture" (bu zhi wen). What does "Wen" mean here$34

The character "Wen" (文) has extremely rich meanings in the pre-Qin context, encompassing at least the following layers:

First, "Wen" as Pattern or Ornamentation. The earliest oracle bone script for "Wen" resembles a person with tattoos on the chest. Early ancestors valued tattoos, and the patterns and colors were "Wen." By extension, anything with texture, pattern, or adornment could be called "Wen." This contrasts with "Substance" (Zhi, 质)—the plain, unadorned essence. The Analects, "Yong Ye" (雍也), quotes Confucius: "If substance prevails over culture, one becomes rustic; if culture prevails over substance, one becomes a scribe. Only when culture and substance are blended harmoniously does one become a gentleman." (Zhi sheng wen ze ye, wen sheng zhi ze shi. Wen zhi bin bin, ran hou junzi.) Here, "Wen" refers to external refinement and cultivation.

Second, "Wen" as Culture or Education/Transformation. The Zhou dynasty highly valued rites and music for moral cultivation (Li Yue Jiao Hua, 礼乐教化), and the concrete manifestations of this system—rituals, music, clothing, vessels, hierarchical order—were all expressions of "Wen." The I Ching, Bi Gua (贲卦, Adornment), Commentary on the Judgment (Tuan Zhuan), distinguishes: "When hard and soft intermingle, that is the pattern of Heaven (Tian Wen); when culture shines forth to restrain, that is the pattern of Man (Ren Wen). By observing the pattern of Heaven, one discerns the changes of the times; by observing the pattern of Man, one transforms the world." (Gang rou jiao chao, tian wen ye; wen ming yi zhi, ren wen ye. Guan yu tian wen, yi cha shi bian; guan yu ren wen, yi hua cheng tianxia.) This clearly distinguishes "Heavenly Patterns" (natural order) from "Human Patterns" (social and cultural order), stating that the function of "Human Patterns" is "to transform the world" (hua cheng tianxia)—to educate the world through culture and achieve social harmony.

Third, "Wen" as Elegance or Grace. The Zuo Zhuan, in the 25th year of Duke Xiang, records Zichan’s words: "If speech lacks elegance, it will not travel far." (言之无文，行而不远。) Here, "Wen" refers to the aesthetic appeal and persuasive force of language.

Fourth, "Wen" as Ritual Protocol or Documents. "Wen" also specifically refers to concrete ritual institutions and written records. The Duke of Zhou established rites and music, creating a complete social order whose specific form was "Wen." Master Confucius exclaimed: "The Zhou inspected the deeds of the two preceding dynasties; how abundantly cultured they were! I follow the Zhou." (Analects, Ba Yi) This "Wen" refers to the beauty of the Zhou system of rites and music.

Synthesizing these meanings, Master Xunzi’s critique that Master Mozi was "unaware of Culture" includes several criticisms:

First, Master Mozi did not understand the value of external adornment. In his view, any adornment not directly serving practical function was waste. However, "Wen" as ornamentation derives its value not from utility but from aesthetics and symbolism—it expresses humanity's pursuit of beauty, identification of status, and construction of order. These values cannot be measured by "useful or useless."

Second, Master Mozi failed to grasp the profound significance of the moral cultivation through rites and music. While the direct function of rites and music may not be as obvious as food, clothing, shelter, and travel, their indirect functions—cohering society, cultivating character, maintaining order, transmitting civilization—are indispensable to any society. Master Mozi only saw the direct cost of rites and music (expenditure of resources) but ignored their indirect benefits (social cohesion).

Third, Master Mozi failed to understand that humans are not merely functional beings but also cultural beings. People live not only to satisfy basic needs but also to pursue beauty (aesthetic needs), goodness (moral needs), truth (cognitive needs), and transcendence (spiritual needs). A society that satisfies material needs but lacks cultural life is desolate and impoverished, regardless of material wealth.

Confucius offered a profound reflection on this point: The Analects, "Yang Huo" (阳货), records: "When the Master went to Wu Cheng, he heard the sound of stringed instruments and singing. The Master smiled and said, 'Why use an ox-slaughtering knife to kill a chicken$35' Ziyou replied, 'Formerly, I heard you, Master, say: When a gentleman studies the Dao, he loves others; when a petty man studies the Dao, he is easy to command.' The Master said, 'You three gentlemen, what Yàn said is correct. What I said before was only in jest.'" (子之武城，闻弦歌之声，夫子莞尔而笑曰：‘割鸡焉用牛刀？’子游对曰：‘昔者偃也闻诸夫子曰：君子学道则爱人，小人学道则易使也。’子曰：‘二三子，偃之言是也。前言戏之耳。’") This dialogue demonstrates that even in governing a small county, musical cultivation is important—a gentleman who studies the Dao loves others, while a petty man who studies the Dao is easily commanded. Music is not useless entertainment but a vital tool for cultivating the mind. Master Ziyou deeply understood Confucius’s teaching and governed Wu Cheng with strings and songs.

Furthermore, in the Analects, "Tai Bo" (泰伯), Confucius stated: "It begins with the Odes, is established by the Rites, and completed by Music." (Xing yu shi, li yu li, cheng yu yue.) These three sentences outline a complete path of character formation: emotional arousal from poetry, behavioral norms established by ritual, and personal completion through music. If music were abolished according to Master Mozi's doctrine of "Against Music," the final stage of character formation would be missing, and human spiritual development would be incomplete.

Section 3: "The Dao Defined by Utility Ends in Profit Alone" (You Yong Wei zhi Dao, Jin Li Yi)—The Limitation of a One-Corner View

"The Dao defined by Utility ends in Profit alone." (由用谓之道，尽利矣。)

This is Master Xunzi’s summary of the Mohist obstruction. "The Dao defined by Utility" (You Yong Wei zhi Dao)—defining the Dao from the perspective of "Utility." "Ends in Profit alone" (Jin Li Yi)—it results only in "profit" (Li, 利).

The character "Li" (利) here has a dual meaning. First, Li refers to utilitarian benefit, concrete advantage, and effectiveness. Second, Li implies "nothing more than this"—if the Dao is understood only as "Utility," it reduces itself to merely a tool for utilitarian calculation, losing higher dimensions such as culture, moral instruction, and aesthetics.

Why is "ending in profit alone" a limitation$36 Why can the Dao not be defined solely by "profit"$37

This must be understood through the Dao's wholeness. The Dao "is constant in its substance yet endlessly changing in its manifestations"; it encompasses every aspect of human life. Utilitarian benefit is only one aspect of human life—an important one, but not the whole. Besides pursuing utility, humans also pursue beauty (aesthetic needs), goodness (moral needs), truth (cognitive needs), and transcendence (spiritual needs). An intellectual system that only knows utility and nothing else is necessarily incapable of responding to the full spectrum of human needs.

On a deeper level, "ending in profit alone" leads to a severe political consequence. If a state's governance is entirely profit-oriented, everything that does not directly produce material benefits—education, culture, ritual, sacrifice—will be deemed wasteful and cut back. In the short term, this might concentrate resources and increase efficiency; but in the long term, it leads to the disintegration of social cohesion, the collapse of moral foundations, the alienation of the populace, and the undermining of the state's roots.

The Book of Rites (Li Ji), "Record of Music" (Yue Ji), reveals the indispensability of "Wen":

"Music is the harmony of Heaven and Earth; Rites are the order of Heaven and Earth. Harmony causes all things to transform; Order causes all things to be differentiated. Music is produced by Heaven; Rites are established by Earth. Excessive order leads to chaos; excessive creation leads to tyranny. Only by understanding Heaven and Earth can one establish Rites and Music." (乐者，天地之和也；礼者，天地之序也。和，故百物皆化；序，故群物皆别。乐由天作，礼以地制。过制则乱，过作则暴。明于天地，然后能兴礼乐也。)

Rites and music are not man-made decorations but the human manifestation of the harmony and order of Heaven and Earth. To abolish rites and music is to sever the connection between human society and the cosmic order, turning human society into a barren land of pure utilitarian calculation without spiritual anchorage.

In the "On Music" (Yue Lun) chapter, Master Xunzi offered a more detailed refutation of Master Mozi’s "Against Music":

"Music is joy; it is something human nature cannot avoid. Therefore, man cannot be without joy, and if one has joy, it must manifest in sound and shape in movement and stillness. The path of man—sound, movement, stillness—all these variations of nature and method are covered. Therefore, man cannot be without joy, and if one has joy, there must be form; if there is form but it is not guided by the Dao, then chaos will ensue. The former kings disliked this chaos, and thus they formulated the music of the Ya and Song to guide it." (乐者，乐也，人情之所必不免也。故人不能无乐，乐则必发于声音，形于动静。而人之道，声音动静，性术之变尽是矣。故人不能不乐，乐则不能无形，形而不为道，则不能无乱。先王恶其乱也，故制《雅》《颂》之声以道之。)

Master Xunzi points out that music is not a dispensable pastime but a necessity of human emotion. Humans have joy, anger, sorrow, and pleasure, and these emotions inevitably express themselves through sound and action. Without proper channels of expression (i.e., rites and music), these emotions will erupt chaotically, causing social upheaval. The formulation of the Ya and Song music by the former kings was precisely to guide human emotions so that they become orderly and not chaotic.

This argument is sharp and precise. It reveals a core function of "Wen": Wen is not an external adornment placed upon human nature, but a necessary form for human nature to express itself. Man needs "Wen" just as water needs a river channel—if water is not guided by channels, it floods; if human emotions are not guided by rites and music, they descend into chaos. Master Mozi only saw that river channels occupy land ("waste resources") but failed to see the indispensable function of guiding water flow—this is being "obstructed by utility and unaware of culture."

Section 4: The Status of "Wen" in Ancient Culture—From Mythology to Ritual System

To further understand why Master Mozi’s "unawareness of Wen" constitutes a serious failing, we must trace the core status of "Wen" in ancient Chinese culture.

In ancient Chinese mythology, "Wen" is always closely related to the origin and development of civilization.

Legend holds that Fuxi drew the Eight Trigrams—the earliest form of "Wen"—using simple Yin-Yang symbols to represent the operating principles of Heaven, Earth, and all things. The "Wen" of the Eight Trigrams was not useless decoration but the fundamental tool for human cognition of the cosmos. Without this symbolic "Wen," humanity could not systematically grasp the laws of nature, and thus civilization could not develop.

Legend says that when Huang Di ordered Cangjie to create characters, "Heaven rained millet, and ghosts cried in the night." Why did the ghosts cry$38 Ancient interpretations suggest that with the invention of writing, human wisdom greatly increased, and the secrets of the spirits could no longer be hidden—writing gave humanity a more powerful cognitive capacity. Yet, the power of writing rests on the foundation of "matching names to reality" (Ming Shi Xiang Fu, 名实相符)—writing has power because it accurately corresponds to the actual state of things. If writing detaches from "Reality" (Shi) and becomes a mere conceptual game, it ceases to enhance human cognition and instead becomes a tool for confusing right and wrong.

In the ancient sacrificial traditions, language (prayers, invocations) held a sacred status. Incantations must be sincere—because the objects of sacrifice were spirits, who could perceive the mind; insincere words could not move the spirits and might even invite punishment. The Analects, "Ba Yi" (八佾), records: "When making sacrifices, act as if they are present; when making offerings to spirits, act as if the spirits are present." (祭如在，祭神如神在。) This requires the speaker's words to come from sincerity, without the slightest pretense or artifice.

This ancient linguistic view—that language must be sincere and correspond to reality—stands in sharp contrast to Master Hui Shi’s linguistic practice. Master Hui Shi turned language into a game divorced from reality, which, from the ancient perspective, was a grave profanation of language's sacred function.

Master Laozi’s Chapter 81 states: "Faithful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not faithful. The good do not dispute; those who dispute are not good. The knowing are not learned; the learned do not know." (Xin yan bu mei, mei yan bu xin. Shan zhe bu bian, bian zhe bu shan. Zhi zhe bu bo, bo zhe bu zhi.) Master Laozi’s words serve as the most profound critique of Master Hui Shi’s "obstruction by rhetoric": "Those who dispute are not good"—those skilled in subtle debate are actually not skilled in recognizing the Dao. Master Hui Shi was the world's foremost debater, yet precisely because he was too immersed in debate, he lost his grasp on "Reality"—this is the epitome of "those who dispute are not good."

Section 5: The Middle Way of Confucianism—The Unity of "Utility" and "Culture"

Confucians were not indifferent to "Utility." Confucius said, "When learning flourishes, one should enter official service." (Analects, Zi Zhang), advocating for applying learning in practice. Master Mencius discussed "regulating the livelihood of the people" (Mengzi, Liang Hui Wang Shang), emphasizing the importance of material foundations. Master Xunzi himself said: "The way to enrich a state is to moderate expenditure and enrich the people, and store the surplus well." (Xunzi, Fu Guo) Thus, Confucianism fully recognizes the value of "Utility."

However, Confucianism opposes taking "Utility" as the sole standard. In the Confucian view, "Utility" and "Culture" must be unified. Only "Utility" without "Culture" results in a life that satisfies material needs but lacks spiritual meaning—this is the Mohist partiality. Only "Culture" without "Utility" results in a life that is ornate and elegant but disconnected from practical foundations—this is another form of partiality.

The phrase "When substance prevails over culture, one becomes rustic; when culture prevails over substance, one becomes a scribe. Only when culture and substance are blended harmoniously does one become a gentleman" (Wen zhi bin bin, ran hou junzi) precisely expresses the optimal unity of "Utility" (represented by rustic substance) and "Culture" (represented by elegance). "Substance" is closer to "Utility"—plain, practical, functional. "Culture" is closer to "Elegance"—aesthetic, ritualistic, symbolic. "Bin Bin" means appropriate proportion and harmonious balance. The gentleman is neither a pure utilitarian ("rustic") nor a pure formalist ("scribe"), but a harmonious unity of the two.

This path of unity precisely embodies Master Xunzi’s idea that the Dao is "constant in substance yet endlessly changing." The "constant" is the principle that "Utility" and "Culture" are both indispensable; the "changing" is that the specific ratio between them can be adjusted in different eras and situations. In times of material scarcity, one might lean toward "Utility"; in times of spiritual poverty, one might lean toward "Culture." But regardless of the adjustment, one cannot entirely abandon either pole.

Thus, Master Mozi’s "obstruction" lies not in his valuing "Utility"—valuing "Utility" itself is not wrong—but in his "unawareness of Culture," meaning his denial of the value of "Wen." This denial meant his intellectual system was inherently incomplete and biased, unable to encompass all dimensions of human life.