王陽明的「心外無物」說是針對朱子的「格物致知」說而起，惟歷來對此說之解釋頗為不一，至今可謂未有善解。以往有不少國內外學者以柏克萊（Berkeley）式的「主觀唯心論」視之，亦有以斯賓諾莎（Spinoza）式的「泛神論」釋之。牟宗三先生則另闢蹊徑，以其修改過的康德（Kent）式的「新體用說」以理解之。最近有不少具有比較視野的學者借用胡塞爾（Husserl）的「意向性理論」來解說心與物之關係，可謂賦有心意。以上四說，我認為「意向性理論」和「泛神論」兩種解釋都較為可取，但卻未盡合適。相對於前者，我認為用普特南（Putnam）的「內在實在論」代之而提出的解釋會更為合適；相對於後者，我認為自己花了一年時間構想的「靈竅說」所提供的解釋更為恰當，它不只比「內在實在論」的解釋更為周延，也可克服「泛神論」解釋的缺點。總的來說，「靈竅說」的新詮除了在理論內部的優異性之外，也有思想外緣的合理性。 本文的目的，主要是對王陽明的「心外無物」說之各種解釋作出疏理，從而論證「靈竅說」這種新詮的優異性和合理性。

　　　　　In contrast to Chu Hsi’s theory of ke-wu (the investigation of things), Wang Yang-ming claims that there is no wu (thing/act) outside hsin (mind/heart). Although the contrast is obvious, a reasonable and acceptable interpretation. Of Wang Yang-ming’s thesis in this regard has yet to appear. Some previous interpretations based on Berkeley’s subjective idealism, Spinoza’s pantheism, Husserl’s theory of intentionality. Mou Tsung-san’s theory of ti and yung (substance and functioning), Putnam’s internal realism, respectively, are discussed in this article. After a serious consideration of the strength and the weakness of these interpretations, I elaborate a new interpretation called “the theory of ling-qiao” (Intelligent hollow) which is more compressive and cogent. Under this interpretation, we can also explain the fact that the main idea of Wang Yang-ming’s thesis is borrowed form religious Taoism.