《論語》〈先進〉篇的「屢空」一詞，朱熹（1130-1200）《論語集注》解作「數至空匱」之意，此後八百多年來，幾成定論。實則南宋以前，「屢空」別作「時或虛中」一解。又朱熹排斥「虛中」說，視為「老氏清淨之學」。清陳澧（1810-1882）《東塾讀書記》承之，更以「虛中」說為「何《注》始有玄虛之語」的著名例證。本文從《論語》原文的脈絡縷析「屢空」章的本義，兼顧訓詁、義理、辭章三方面，並且參照版本考證以及思想史的脈絡，從而探索「屢空」章之本義、剖辨朱說的依據和內在困難，同時更切實縷述其中的問題。具體言之，朱熹對何晏（190-249）、王弼（226-249）的所謂玄學解讀有欠公允甚至失實的批評，而朱說對〈屢空〉章所建立的理學的道德解讀掩蓋了孔門儒學原來所涵容的非道德的精神修養面貌。

Confucius is recorded in Analects 12.19 as having characterized his beloved disciple Yan Hui 顏回 using the well-known expression lükong 屢 空. In his Collected Commentaries on the Analects 論語集注, Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200) took this expression to mean “was often reduced to destitution,” and this has been the standard reading ever since. To Zhu, Yan Hui was a virtual sage, as he was completely at ease with the Way in spite of his penury. Yet prior to the twelfth century, a competing interpretation of lükong as meaning “was empty within occasionally” was prevalent. According to this view, though Yan Hui was intellectually brilliant, he was nonetheless able to maintain an empty mind on occasion. Whether or not he was a virtual sage was not an issue in the passage. Zhu Xi, however, dismissed this alternative reading as he considered it characteristic of the Daoist doctrine of purity and tranquility. Endorsing Zhu’s dismissal, Chen Li 陳澧 (1810-1882) further attributed the competing interpretation to He Yan 何 晏 (190-249), the Xuanxue 玄學 thinker whom he famously accused of introducing Daoist interpretations of the Confucian classic. On the basis of textual criticism, this paper examines Analects 12.19 in connection with Analects 12.18 and attempts to unpack its original meaning on philological, philosophical, and literary grounds, while at the same time tracing evolving interpretations before the twelfth century. Further, it explains the philosophical and literary underpinnings of Zhu Xi’s influential interpretation and its inherent problems. Specifically, Zhu Xi failed to do justice to the perceived Xuanxue readings of Analects 12.19 suggested by He Yan and Wang Bi 王弼 (226-249), and allowed his own moral interpretation to overshadow the non-moral dimension of early Confucian self-cultivation.