# All have internal and external elements



## Xue Sheng (Oct 5, 2008)

I put this here because even though it was said by one of those famous Taijiquan masters of old it does apply to all CMA styles. I tend to agree with it but I was wondering what others thought. I will post who said it later since I do feel that at times if people know who says things like this it changes what they might otherwise have said. If you do know who said it I would appreciate it if you would not post it here. If you need to let me know the please PM me. 



> Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
> progressing to internal


 
The more I train and the more I read the more I am really beginning to believe that the whole internal/external thing is a prefabrication that appeared more as political statement than an actual division in CMA and it sure did catch on for one reason or another. But then that is just me and my opinion so take it for what it is worth.


----------



## bostonbomber (Oct 5, 2008)

I completely agree.  Arts regarded as internal or external are simply different means to the same end.  At the highest level all styles of martial arts must contain both internal and external elements.


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 5, 2008)

The term 'internal' can be a slippery one. I think as long as the art has some vehicle for teaching the mind-body connection, I'd probably lump the art in as internal.

SL4 Kenpo is not strictly a CMA, but at least for us beginners from the start learn to use certain movements (anatomical indexes) to begin to foster that connection. On a purely physical level, an advanced student can 'move less' but achieve the same result as if executing the bigger movement. This method I would say could be characterized as external riding the theshold of internal.

That was my long way of agreeing with the notion that everything should have both, and that beginners begin with an 'external' focus.


----------



## oxy (Oct 5, 2008)

> The more I train and the more I read the more I am really beginning to believe that the whole internal/external thing is a prefabrication that appeared more as political statement than an actual division in CMA and it sure did catch on for one reason or another.



Every time I see the internal external division being used, it's always been used to separate "MY" art from "OTHERS".

What's different about "mine"? Well it's more "internal" than everyone else's. It goes to 11...

On the training aspect:

I think it's a given that everyone starts off external, but I think it would be a mistake to keep them there for "years" before progressing them to internal stuff. For one thing, I think teaching students to visualize what they're doing as an "internal" training aspect that should be developed straight off the bat.


----------



## marlon (Oct 5, 2008)

i guess it depends on how one defines internal and external.  The way an internal art approaches things is very different from the external arts, by some definition.  Beginning with the external is indeed for building strength and focusing on body aligment in many instances and using more gross movement so it is natural that most arts begin this way.  Most arts move to somethign more refined, but not all.  Then again many internal arts are not only focused on self defense, either
Then again, i am a novice in these areas
Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## oxy (Oct 6, 2008)

marlon said:


> i guess it depends on how one defines internal and external.  The way an internal art approaches things is very different from the external arts, by some definition.



That's true, but I think that's part of why it seems more like a political statement. Everyone basically uses a definition of internal and external that benefits their style.

I think an important thing to remember is that when people create martial arts (ie, before the modern McDojo era) they didn't think "I'm going to make an *ternal style". I would think most of them would create a style out of methods what they found out works better than others. I would say this is why "external" and "internal" aspects are in all arts, at different proportions of course, because methods that work are those that work regardless of whether its in or ex ternal.


----------



## marlon (Oct 6, 2008)

oxy said:


> That's true, but I think that's part of why it seems more like a political statement. Everyone basically uses a definition of internal and external that benefits their style.
> 
> I think an important thing to remember is that when people create martial arts (ie, before the modern McDojo era) they didn't think "I'm going to make an *ternal style". I would think most of them would create a style out of methods what they found out works better than others. I would say this is why "external" and "internal" aspects are in all arts, at different proportions of course, because methods that work are those that work regardless of whether its in or ex ternal.


 

good points.  when i first started learning kempo i was told that it moved from the external to internal..then my teacher left and it changed to it moved from the karate to the kung fu....then i started getting blank stares when i asked about internal training.  So i went outside of kempo to find what i was initially promised.  It is a long and often confusing journey but i am getting there....and , low and behold, someone i consider a ken/mpo genius and a true martial artist tells me that kenpo has internal stuff and true kenpo is an internal art...and then begins to explain to me what all of it means...I am loving it.  So any kempo i teach will always have then goal of using the principles of an "internal" art which i describe sometimes as being to lazy and not wanting to fight to make things work  !  And it works best this way!  imho

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## oxy (Oct 6, 2008)

marlon said:


> "internal" art which i describe sometimes as being to lazy and not wanting to fight to make things work  !  And it works best this way!  imho



I actually quite like this description of "internal". It's like saying I can defeat you without spending effort so your best bet is probably just to negotiate a truce.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 6, 2008)

I've never seen a pure internal or pure external art. You can't have one without the other. You just can't. 

When I was in China, I met several practitioners in different parts of the country all doing different things. They all referred to what they did as wushu. No wai jia or nei jia. Wushu. Pure and simple. Wushu... martial arts. Granted they also didn't do the PRC competition stuff. 

When I got back & got to know the head of the Hangzhou University wuhsu team (who was here in ATL for a year), he called everything he did wushu when speaking in generalities but when he talked specifics, it was only styles or names, not wai/nei jia.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 6, 2008)

This whole division of internal and external as well as the whole Zhang Sanfeng legend seems to appear and in the case of the Zhang Sanfeng legend picks up steam around 1669 with the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan, Which is really more a political statement against the Qing than a factual historic account of ones training and background. 

However today the politics are of it are more along the lines with many using "internal style" as a badge of superiority by saying they train an internal style and thereby making themselves being superior (in their minds) to any one who trains a lowly external style. Not all but many and in some cases, IMO, it is to make up for a lack somewhere else in their chosen style and that generally equates to a lack of actual training, particularly tui shou, applications, 2 person sets and sparring. 

All CMA styles train Nei Jia and Wei Jia and as clfsean already said just about everywhere in China it is Wushu not Kung Fu not Nei jia or Wei jia just Wushu, unless of course you get into specific styles then it is Taiji, Changquan, Yiquan, Wing Chun, etc. But this division did come from China and to some extent from people like Sun Lutang. But with that said I have no doubt that Sun Lutang was the real deal, he was also born after the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan was written.

Sun Lutang is not the one I quoted in my original post by the way.


----------



## oxy (Oct 6, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> However today the politics are of it are more along the lines with many using "internal style" as a badge of superiority by saying they train an internal style and thereby making themselves being superior (in their minds) to any one who trains a lowly external style.



You'd probably have noticed other such political divisions of varying similarity:

1) Uses the opponent's force against them
2) Scientific
3) Uses mechanics
4) Uses physics
5) Older
6) More secret
7) Uses what works
8) More tested
9) Circular moves
10) Linear moves
11) The list actually went to 11. I'm sure others can list more.

But, yeah, they're basically all related categorizations to make it seem other styles are lacking when in fact most of these categorizations are quite widespread.


----------



## pete (Oct 6, 2008)

There IS a difference in internal vs external methods, and to the extent that those methods are practices... a difference in internal vs external martial arts.  

Rather than generalizing, I'll toss out one (of several) differences:

1. Pre-programmed reflexive action vs Full Conscious Thought.

If you are practicing rote drills to build speed and 'muscle memory' so that you can REACT to a stimulus with a series of prescribed actions... you are likely to be practicing an EXTERNAL method.  

Internal arts will develop consciousness / awareness through sensitivity drills and body method exercises, where the RESPONSE will be somewhat more extemporaneous, yet within the principles of the style.

Generally, the EXTERNAL fighter using a SEE-DO is intially faster and more effective that the INTERNAL counterpart using a SEE-THINK-DO... but in time the internal fighter will reduce the gaps between SEE & THINK and between THINK & DO, and use this to his advantage.  Being able to change quickly to multiple stimulii while the external fighter is stuck in a gap of consciousness carrying out an extended series of reflexive actions.

This is why Meditation, Qigong, and Sensitivity drills (Push Hands, Rou Shou, etc) are integral parts of the INTERAL arts, while Repitition, Conditioning, and Hand Speed are characteristic of EXTERNAL methods.

This is ONE... there are MORE... let's see where this discussion takes us.

Pete


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 6, 2008)

pete said:


> There IS a difference in internal vs external methods, and to the extent that those methods are practices... a difference in internal vs external martial arts.
> 
> Rather than generalizing, I'll toss out one (of several) differences:
> 
> ...


 
I may regret this but I have eliminated my ignore list today so lets us actually see where this discussion does takes us.

No one is saying, or at least I am not saying, that there is not a difference in training between say Taijiquan and Chanqquan or a difference between training Taijiquan and Xingyiquan or a difference between training Chen style Taijiquan and Yang Taijiquan, or Wing Chun and Tong Bei or White crane and Hung ga, there is a difference. However just about all CMA styles have some sort of Qigong and Sensitivity Drills (Tuishou &#8211; push hands) even Modern Police/Military Sanda has Tuishou (but not Qigong). I am not sure however how you are defining meditation as it applies to this, to me when talking CMA meditation falls under Qigong. 

The quote&#8230;. 



> Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
> progressing to internal



&#8230;is saying, at least to me, that all CMA styles have internal and external and that all CMA styles start with external training and that the division is not all that important.

However the terminology internal external is newer than some of the styles we now called internal and external styles. The terminology did not exist when Yue Fei was around, the legendary creator of Xingyiquan and a lot of other arts and those claims are very much in question so that really doesn&#8217;t matter. But the terminology did not exist when the first documented use of Xingyiquan appeared as done by Ji Jike and it was not around when Chen Wangting came up with Chen style either. It was not around when many styles we now call &#8220;external&#8221; came into existence either but some of those appeared prior to Xingyiquan and Taijiquan so one could argue there was no need for the labels I suppose. Internal and external first appear in 1669 with the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan (Note: Zhang Sanfeng appears before that but the references do not agree as to the dates and it is not in relation to taiji but in the Epitaph he is associated with an internal style and again not taijiquan)

I am however saying that I feel the separation into external styles and internal styles is not as important as many make it and it originated in a political statement against the rulers of China at the time, who were, the Qing. I am saying that Chen Wangting and Ji Jike likely did not say they were teaching or training an internal style. Likely they were teaching/training what they called Wushu or Chen Taijiquan and Xingyiquan. I am also saying that many, not all, hide behind the term &#8220;Internal&#8221; in order to make up for lack of training, give themselves a false sense of security and to give them a sense of superiority over other styles that have been labeled as external, but then this is not only found in &#8220;internal&#8221; styles either. 

I guess I could also so say that, IMO, just because someone &#8220;properly&#8221; trains an &#8220;internal&#8221; style does not automatically make them any better a fighter or martial artist than someone that &#8220;properly&#8221; trains an &#8220;external&#8221; style. And that the label internal/external is just that a label for categorization nothing more. Yes Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, Taijiquan and likely Yiquan/Dachengquan are all labeled internal. However I am not sure if Wang Xiangzhai would have labeled it so and I doubt that Ji Jike or Chen Wangting would have labeled their styles as such either. I do not think that calling something &#8220;internal&#8221; makes it any better or worse than a style labeled &#8220;external&#8221; and when they first appeared on the scene they were likely not labeled internal at all. 

To your &#8220;SEE-DO&#8221; &#8220;SEE-THINK-DO&#8221; I am not sure I fully agree with the terminology in application since I feel the idea of training all CMA styles is to make it automatic (pre-programmed) but it could, IMO, I suppose be applied to training but then I would think that it would then also be necessary to &#8220;see-think-do&#8221; in the early stages of any CMA training be it internal or external and the later stages in application I guess could be &#8220;see-do&#8221; but again, to me, that would apply to both internal and external. I might say that an external style is more likely to react to what it sees where an internal style is more likely to react to what it feels. But this is just my opinion of what you are saying and I am not trying to argue the point at all. However I did say something that might be considered similar or at least speaks to the differences in training in another post about Xingyi and Taiji which was along the lines of Xingyi is more attack/defend where taiji is more defend/attack. Also I have been told as well as read that &#8220;internal&#8221; styles go from internal to external and &#8220;external&#8221; styles go form external to internal too. However my experience has been the internals that I train have gone external to internal but then that is me and not everyone will be the same. I recently read an article about Yiquan that was interesting that separated this into external styles training depending on muscle fibers that are &#8216;fast twitch fiber&#8217; while internal trains to use &#8216;slow twitch fibers&#8217;. The article also talked about &#8216;internal&#8217; styles depending more on core muscle groups. I felt it was interesting enough to look into further so I am.  

However I do agree that training Taijiquan is different than training something like Changquan that is for sure but they are all, in Chinese, Wushu and they all have Nei Jia and Wei Jia but I am willing to say that some may train more Nie Jia than others and some may train more Wei Jia than others but they are all effective and being &#8220;internal&#8221; does not make it better. And even though the labels internal and external are not as ancient as many believe they are used in the west and likely will go on being used. And looking back over what I just wrote the label sure does make it easier to discuss. 

But I just find it interesting when I find quotes from past Taiji masters that say things like this



> Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
> progressing to internal


----------



## pete (Oct 6, 2008)

I think the whole conversation could be more productive if we, at least initially, recognize by definition those things that differentiate internal from external, rather than making qualitative statements regarding which is &#8216;better&#8217;. I listed one difference in my last post and will provide additional points later, based on the direction of the discussion. I will refrain from which is better, as many other factors need to be considered to make that claim. We can get their later, but first let&#8217;s establish the differences in internal and external training methods.


I also set forth the Reflexive Reaction vs Conscious Response difference as a training method. It is quite possible to train an internal art using external methods and vice-verse&#8230; but, rhetorically speaking, if you are training an internal art with more external methods than internal, what is it that are you actually doing?

My experience has been to learn internal methods from the start and refine them. My teacher says the internal supports the external while the external protects the internal. This shows that there is a balance, however the training methods are different.

Again, back to the reflex vs thought differentiation, it is characteristic of external styles to define a prescribed sequence of actions against a specific attack. Those extended sequences are drilled in repetition after repetition until they can be performed quickly and repeatably. The idea is to supporess conscious thought, as that would slow down the action. The method says no thought, no mercy, no regret.  Other training methods are used in conjunction with this to be fast and effective.

The internal method will avoid a catalogue of prescribed actions for every possible attack scenario. Rather, it will define an approach to deal with whatever comes your way, using principles, characteristic methods of application, and mental awareness/clarity. This is initially more difficult, and in early stages of training less than effective&#8230; however, as the tai chi principle goes, To Win You Must First Lose&#8230; The internal fighter will &#8216;lose&#8217; a lot while training in order to develop their art.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Xingyi is more attack/defend where taiji is more defend/attack


This may be tangential, but&#8230; Xingyi will defend through its attack, and Tai Chi will attack through its defense, while Bagua changes back and forth&#8230; may be the same as you are saying, but this takes out the time element of sequential actions.



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I may regret this but I have eliminated my ignore list today so...


 Don't hate yourself in the morning big fella...


pete


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 6, 2008)

First I feel this whole conversatoin from this pointis actually another thread realted to but not exactly the point of the original post which was the quote and how people felt about it agree or disagree



pete said:


> I think the whole conversation could be more productive if we, at least initially, recognize by definition those things that differentiate internal from external, rather than making qualitative statements regarding which is &#8216;better&#8217;. I listed one difference in my last post and will provide additional points later, based on the direction of the discussion. I will refrain from which is better, as many other factors need to be considered to make that claim. We can get their later, but first let&#8217;s establish the differences in internal and external training methods.


 
I never said anything was better I said they were the same so unless you are attempting to put forth one is better than the other, and I do not think you are so we already agree



pete said:


> I also set forth the Reflexive Reaction vs Conscious Response difference as a training method. It is quite possible to train an internal art using external methods and vice-verse&#8230; but, rhetorically speaking, if you are training an internal art with more external methods than internal, what is it that are you actually doing?


 
No one starts training a form internally they always start externallyt since it is highly unlikey a beginner does not understand the internal and if one thinks they can start internally right of the bat then I put forth they do not understand internall training and are only fooling themselves.



pete said:


> My experience has been to learn internal methods from the start and refine them. My teacher says the internal supports the external while the external protects the internal. This shows that there is a balance, however the training methods are different.


 
Again I do beleive one can start training internal method form the start but they are not practicing form or applications internally form the start that takes time.



pete said:


> Again, back to the reflex vs thought differentiation, it is characteristic of external styles to define a prescribed sequence of actions against a specific attack. Those extended sequences are drilled in repetition after repetition until they can be performed quickly and repeatably. The idea is to supporess conscious thought, as that would slow down the action. The method says no thought, no mercy, no regret. Other training methods are used in conjunction with this to be fast and effective.
> 
> The internal method will avoid a catalogue of prescribed actions for every possible attack scenario. Rather, it will define an approach to deal with whatever comes your way, using principles, characteristic methods of application, and mental awareness/clarity. This is initially more difficult, and in early stages of training less than effective&#8230; however, as the tai chi principle goes, To Win You Must First Lose&#8230; The internal fighter will &#8216;lose&#8217; a lot while training in order to develop their art.


 
But yet how is it possible to do any of what you are saying internal does without repitition. But as I have said in the past many times it takes a long time and a lot of training to apply something like taiji as it was meant to be applied and part of that training envolves repitition of form.

And "external CMA styles do not try and define every possible attack scenario it is possible other styles like kempo might but I have not trained kempo so I would not know. And external CMA styles do train Tuishou and have qigong as I previously said so they are indeed trainig for no thought, as are internals, but they are not training for every possible attack scenario.



pete said:


> This may be tangential, but&#8230; Xingyi will defend through its attack, and Tai Chi will attack through its defense, while Bagua changes back and forth&#8230; may be the same as you are saying, but this takes out the time element of sequential actions.


 
The time elemant to me is the time it takes to train this to make it work properly. 



pete said:


> Don't hate yourself in the morning big fella...


 
I just might, only time will tell


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 7, 2008)

Just to wrap this up, the person that said this 



> Everything should have its internal and external elements. Beginners should start with the external. After many years of practice, one can then delve deeper into the art and gradually obtain the inner essence. To learn Taijiquan is the same as learning other martial arts. Both have internal and external and also always start with external before
> progressing to internal


 
was Chen Fa Ke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Fake


----------



## pete (Oct 7, 2008)

for purposes of discussion and to add to defining the differences between Internal and External methods, 
1. pre-programmed reflexive action vs continuous conscious thought (already discussed)
2. acting to control vs following the lead of your opponent to receive control.

this is easily understood by comparing internal methods of chin na vs external jujitsu locks.  the physical manipulations are the same, however the internal artist will not act to apply the lock on his opponent. Rather he will follow and redirect so that anything the opponent does puts him more and more into trouble, thus the internal fighter receives control. 

pete.


----------



## mograph (Oct 7, 2008)

Excellent discussion. 

If I may interrupt, it relates to something I just read which laments our need to belong to a "tribe" and adopt its simplistic beliefs, whether political, religious, or ... martial. The writer wrote that religion is like a big buffet on an exotic vacation. Try everything and keep what you like, adapting your beliefs to suit.

Left/right, Christian/Jewish/Muslim, internal/external ... things are more complex than those distinctions imply.


----------



## oxy (Oct 7, 2008)

pete said:


> for purposes of discussion and to add to defining the differences between Internal and External methods,
> 1. pre-programmed reflexive action vs continuous conscious thought (already discussed)
> 2. acting to control vs following the lead of your opponent to receive control.
> 
> ...



I personally don't see how any method can or has been without those two aspects you described when done properly.

For example, your Internal vs Jiu Jitsu comparison isn't as clear cut as you make it. There are many methods in both categories that will make your comparison equally valid if you switched the two around in your example.


----------



## marlon (Oct 7, 2008)

haha. i just recalled a quote from CMC where he says that internal means the art came from inside the chinese mind and external means that it came from outside the chinese mind...or China i guess would be more accurate.  simple enough.

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## clfsean (Oct 8, 2008)

marlon said:


> haha. i just recalled a quote from CMC where he says that internal means the art came from inside the chinese mind and external means that it came from outside the chinese mind...or China i guess would be more accurate.  simple enough.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon



Actually it was somewhere during that time that CMC & Robert Smith coined & popularized the "internal' & "external" catch phrases.


----------



## pete (Oct 8, 2008)

gotta look further back than the 1960's for the usage of internal/external, or _neijia/weijia_. not sure if its where it was 'coined', but definitely popularized in Shen county martial arts association, where Xingyi, Bagua, & Tai Chi were taught by Li Cun Yi, Cheng Ting Hua, and Liu De Kuan, circa early 1900's...

pete

ps... any other differences in internal vs external methods?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 8, 2008)

pete said:


> for purposes of discussion and to add to defining the differences between Internal and External methods,
> 1. pre-programmed reflexive action vs continuous conscious thought (already discussed)
> 2. acting to control vs following the lead of your opponent to receive control.
> 
> ...


 
Talking CMA and only CMA from my POV and since others nationalities tend not to talk along the lines of a division between internal and external. Both internal and external styles do both 1 and 2 just to varying degrees and it cannot be divided along a line consistently to say internals always do more of one thing than an external does. Of course there are different approaches to training method. I am not saying that Taiji trains like Wing Chun or Changquan but then taiji does not train like Bagua or Xingyi and for that matter styles of taiji train differently as do styles of Bagua and Xingyiquan. 

Which leads me back to the division, IMO, is great for easy of discussion and categorization but not much else. And since Taiji, Bagua and Xingyi do not have the same approach to everything along the lines given then the label internal may or may not apply to all of them using both 1 and 2 as a point of definition.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 8, 2008)

pete said:


> gotta look further back than the 1960's for the usage of internal/external, or _neijia/weijia_. not sure if its where it was 'coined', but definitely popularized in Shen county martial arts association, where Xingyi, Bagua, & Tai Chi were taught by Li Cun Yi, Cheng Ting Hua, and Liu De Kuan, circa early 1900's...
> 
> pete
> 
> ps... any other differences in internal vs external methods?


 
As I said earlier in this post it first appears in 1669 in the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan more and many suspect it as more of a political shot at the Qing than anything else


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 8, 2008)

marlon said:


> haha. i just recalled a quote from CMC where he says that internal means the art came from inside the chinese mind and external means that it came from outside the chinese mind...or China i guess would be more accurate. simple enough.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon


 


clfsean said:


> Actually it was somewhere during that time that CMC & Robert Smith coined & popularized the "internal' & "external" catch phrases.


 
Actually the Epitaph is interpreted as saying that internal styles come from internal to China, the Ming and Taoism where external styles are from external sources such as Buddhism and the Qing (Manchu). This is where the whole political thing comes in. Of course this is speculation by a bunch of historians who have not found the division written down prior to 1669 and since the guy that wrote it Huang Zongxi (1610-1695 A.D.) was not available for comment they could not ask him 

And Sun Lutang and Tung Ying Chieh as well as possibly Yang Chengfu were big on Internal and External Styles


----------



## clfsean (Oct 8, 2008)

ok... my bad so let me clarify... brought the terms to the west... stressed in the west... popularized in the west... 

That kind of thing.


----------



## pete (Oct 8, 2008)

Consider this: Internal vs External METHODS... as opposed to styles. 

The more you utilize one method vs the other within your training would determine how YOU practice (or were taught to practice) your style.  

Are there styles that are classically known as external that utilize some internal methods... sure!   Are there people training an 'internal' style with an abundance of external methods... yep! Is it apparent in their form practice, application, and midset... I see it all the time!

A lot of the distraction to say either 'there is no difference', or the differentiation is based on politics and/or marketing (as opposed to training methods), are basic misunderstandings and a desire to break down walls and get along... much of it because differences lead to evaluation, and especially in the Martial Arts, the inevitable arguement of who's better / who's best.

That's why I suggest the discussion keep to identifying differences, rather than voting for which is better.

Look at the arts that are classically 'internal' and those 'external'. Even the most casual observer will notice differences in training methods... those differences are real. I contributed 2 examples to the conversation, 2 pretty obscure ones... there are others that are more obvious.

Anyone see differences in training an internal art vs external?

pete


----------



## kaizasosei (Oct 8, 2008)

isn't all body conditioning internal to some degree.  i would think that all healthy forms of breathing training or correct posture training to have internal benor health befits as well as external benefits of strength muscle memory.

at the end of the day, all things in life have internal as well as external aspects. not only martial arts.
basically, the way to achieve internal power is through experience of living external technique, the way to use external power is to use your head or heart and choose/find the right exercises to practice.

as far as fighting goes,  i have a question..when a policeman uses his voice and mere presence to direct an individual or suspect, how external is that from a ma point of view?  im talking about the directions, not the physical act of cuffing or immobilizing in some way... 
in some way, all people are all directing each other in various ways-be it passively or actively- noone can perfectly see the end result of any given action.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 8, 2008)

pete said:


> Consider this: Internal vs External METHODS... as opposed to styles.
> 
> The more you utilize one method vs the other within your training would determine how YOU practice (or were taught to practice) your style.
> 
> ...


 
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not saying either is better or worse I am not sure why you return to this, I am saying they are the same.

As to differences in training I have already said that as well. All styles of CMA have differences in training. Different styles of what we now call internal also have different approaches to training. Different styles of the same internal say Yang taiji and Chen Taiji have different approaches to training. 

As to the arts that are classically 'internal' and those 'external' what I am saying here and all I am saying it that prior to 1669 the terminology as it is now applied to CMA did not exist. It came from a political poke at the Qing and it was not associated with Xingyiquan, Baguazhang or Taijiquan when it appeared it was specifically associated with the martial arts of Wang Zhengnan which his son later wrote about and it was still not Xingyi, Taiji or Bagua. That application came later and is currently MUCH more important in the west than it is in China, however the application to these styles did start in China after 1669.

The only difference I do see between what we now call internal and what we now call external is the focus on and the amount of training of Qi. But I have not trained too many externals (changquan and Wing Chun) but I suspect that it is possible that White Crane may have a similar emphasis on Qi


----------



## clfsean (Oct 8, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> The only difference I do see between what we now call internal and what we now call external is the focus on and the amount of training of Qi. But I have not trained too many externals (changquan and Wing Chun) but I suspect that it is possible that White Crane may have a similar emphasis on Qi



The majority of my training has been the "external" type. You'd be suprised how much time is spent on qi development. Building it with exercises (oooh... qi gong) and learning how to issue the energy with strikes (oooh... fa jing) but not in the Chen style. Just learning how to put the "umph" with the strikes & absorb with bridges & deflections to turn it back on them.


----------



## pete (Oct 8, 2008)

To Xue Sheng: I've read your words and understand your position.  You do not need to re-state for my purposes, but please consider this thread is open to all posters and what i am doing is trying to spur good conversation... basically, while i my posts are directed at the greater 'you' meaning you as a member of this forum... they are not directed at YOU as an individual.  I'd use email or PM if yours and only your opinion was of interest to me.

To all (including Xue Sheng): #3: while both internal and external methods may include Qigong, or the development of qi, the methods are very different. One method may work towards sinking the qi to one's center, while another may work towards expressing it outward to the surface (iron shirt)... One may work towards an unencumbered natural flow to all parts, while another may divert, redirect, and pack qi in specific parts. One may train qigong to calm the mind, dissolve tensions, thereby increasing awareness and sensitivity... while another may train qigong to concentrate and build 'dynamic tension', thereby increasing laser focus and physical strength.  

Are some of these internal while others external?  does anyone see differences and contradictions in the methods, while both being 'Qi Gong'?

pete.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 8, 2008)

Qi gong is qi gong... necessity, reason & intention drive the use...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 8, 2008)

pete said:


> To Xue Sheng: I've read your words and understand your position. You do not need to re-state for my purposes, but please consider this thread is open to all posters and what i am doing is trying to spur good conversation... basically, while i my posts are directed at the greater 'you' meaning you as a member of this forum... they are not directed at YOU as an individual. I'd use email or PM if yours and only your opinion was of interest to me.


 
Thanks, my "opinion" is based on historical fact and experince, but understood and I am aware of this, I was adding your quotes to let others know who and what I was responding to. 



pete said:


> To all (including Xue Sheng): #3: while both internal and external methods may include Qigong, or the development of qi, the methods are very different. One method may work towards sinking the qi to one's center, while another may work towards expressing it outward to the surface (iron shirt)... One may work towards an unencumbered natural flow to all parts, while another may divert, redirect, and pack qi in specific parts. One may train qigong to calm the mind, dissolve tensions, thereby increasing awareness and sensitivity... while another may train qigong to concentrate and build 'dynamic tension', thereby increasing laser focus and physical strength.
> 
> Are some of these internal while others external? does anyone see differences and contradictions in the methods, while both being 'Qi Gong'?
> 
> pete.


 
But I make reference to your standards of what makes an internal and the you come back with #1, #2 and I reply to #1 and #2 and you come back with #3. Without any reference to the prior association between internal and external training and then without any response to #1 and #2. If you want discussion I would think you might and thereby get other involved.

But so be it. As to #3 

I agree they do train differently and I agree that they are now called internal but the term internal was not applied to them when they came into existence nor is it all that important in their country of origin today. It is accepted terminology that is of much greater importance in the west. And I have observed on many occasions (and this is by no means any reference to you or anyone else in this thread) that it is used by many as a term to state their superiority when in fact they are no better or no worse than any external style.


----------



## pete (Oct 9, 2008)

While there has been some unwillingness to accept the first 3 differences Ive provided (so far) between internal and external methods, there has been no substantial argument or specific examples. All Ive read has been simple contradiction.

To drill deeper into what Ive provided, lets give some thought provide some simple answers:

#1. If you can accept that Meditation is a method that develops consciousness, clarity of thought, and awareness of the here-and-now one would expect that a martial art that integrates Meditation into its training methods would value consciousness during an altercation. Conversely, a martial art that does feature Meditation, or keeps whatever meditation is done separated from its martial practices, may rely more towards reflexive/unconscious reaction in a fight. 

So by popular vote, what specific art have you practiced that has taught you how to integrate meditation practices within the fighting style? 

#2. Building on your thoughts regarding #1, would you think an art that trains to develop higher levels of consciousness would also be more aware of changes in the enemy, the environment, and the escalation of events as they present themselves? Therefore, would that same art that relies on acting through conscious thought be more or less concerned with trying to control what could happen or be confident in dealing with what may happen should it happen? Would an art that trains to react to a stimulus with a series of prescribed action be more apt to try to control and prevent an opponent, regardless of what that opponent is doing? 

So by popular vote, what specific art have you practiced that through countless repetition, will provide you with an extended series of actions to address the enemys initial attack, regardless of what the enemy tries to do?

pete


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 9, 2008)

As I asked several posts back, define what you mean by mediation because to me in CMA if falls under the heading of Qigong.


----------



## SL4Drew (Oct 9, 2008)

pete said:


> I think the whole conversation could be more productive if we, at least initially, recognize by definition those things that differentiate internal from external, rather than making qualitative statements regarding which is better. ***


 
Might I suggest actually defining how you understand the terms "internal" and "external." You've offered some description but no definition, at least not that I understood. 

I'm with Xue Sheng, I think this is largely an artificial distinction. Whatever differences there may be, in the hands of a good instructor, there really isn't one. To me, there is no bright line separating the two. But you seem to be approaching this from a different perspective.


----------



## marlon (Oct 10, 2008)

i was reading some of the excellent material that XS has made available and it came to me that internal styles focus inwards to feelings and sensations that are inside the practitioner and external styles do not.

marlon


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 10, 2008)

marlon said:


> i was reading some of the excellent material that XS has made available and it came to me that internal styles focus inwards to feelings and sensations that are inside the practitioner and external styles do not.
> 
> marlon


 
Intersting point, I will have to think about that, thanks

But since I have limit training in external CMA I would like to hear an external POV on that too.


----------



## marlon (Oct 11, 2008)

XS i have trained in shotokan, kyokushin, hung gar and of course skk which are all taught as external styles.  We were never taught to pay attention or develop any internal feelings / sensations


Respectfully,
marlon


----------



## pete (Oct 13, 2008)

EXACTLY~!

Paying attention to internal feeling / sensations will interrupt the unconscious reflexive actions of an external art.

That is why internal arts practice (a) meditation for clarity of thought & calm awareness, (b) specific forms of qigong/neigong to understand and sense energy patterns within, (c) 2-person exercises, such as pushing hands and rou shou, to sense energy patterns of another, while maintaining your consciousness of your own.  These 3 components are practiced and integrated to develop martial awareness.

External fighting methods include basic athletic conditioning, muscular contraction exercises to develop strength, aerobic training for stamina, and repetitive hand-eye coordination drills to develop speed (through unconscious reflexive action).

Internal fighter uses mind intent, weight momentum, pumping of bodily fluids and energy discharge for strength, relaxation and diaphramatic breathing for stamina. Rather than speed, per se, the internal fighter will take advantage of his opponents gaps in consciousness to create timing and and a skillfull use angles for positional advantage. 

pete.


----------



## marlon (Oct 13, 2008)

pete said:


> EXACTLY~!
> the internal fighter will take advantage of his opponents gaps in consciousness to create timing and and a skillfull use angles for positional advantage.
> 
> pete.


 

i like that...gaps in consciousness..but i would have to say that external fighters do this also...not by paying attentin to thier own internal , but rather, by seeing it and sensing it in their opponent.  this skill is usually the result of fight experience in external fighters.  However, this does not mean that your point is not well taken

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## pstarr (Oct 14, 2008)

It should be noted that the majority of neijia schools do not promote the regular practice of "meditation", per se...

Taking advantage of the "gaps in consciousness" and skillfull use of angles and such are by no means the exclusive property of the neijia.  Such concepts are to be found throughout various martial disciplines, including karate, kenjutsu, and others.

     Push-hands were originally utilized simply as a method of developing a certain sensitivity to an opponent's intent/movement but such exercises were not practiced extensively until fairly recently (much to the chagrin of many Taijiquan practitioners)...

     The training exercises you mention for "external" stylists are also to be found in virtually all of the genuine "internal" disciplines...

     It was Sun-Lutang who, in the 1930's, coined the terms "neijia" and "waijia" in referring to martial disciplines.  Until then, no such distinction was made-

     That said, there are some differences between internal and external methods of issuing power but those are really beyond the scope of this forum-


----------



## pete (Oct 14, 2008)

> It should be noted that the majority of neijia schools do not promote the regular practice of "meditation", per se...


 that may be a result of YOUR experience and exposure



> Taking advantage of the "gaps in consciousness" and skillfull use of angles and such are by no means the exclusive property of the neijia. Such concepts are to be found throughout various martial disciplines, including karate, kenjutsu, and others.


 perhaps, but the internal arts have specific practices and a training methods to develop this skill



> It was Sun-Lutang who, in the 1930's, coined the terms "neijia" and "waijia" in referring to martial disciplines. Until then, no such distinction was made-


 the term neijia was used by Sun Lutang's seniors, Cheng Ting Hua, Liu De Kuan, and Li Cun Yi in their Shen county association, where Xingyi, Tai Chi, and Bagua were first taught as a program... 40 years earlier!



> That said, there are some differences between internal and external methods of issuing power but those are really beyond the scope of this forum-


 i did mention that in my previous post, therefore not beyond scope... thank you.

pete


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 14, 2008)

pete said:


> the term neijia was used by Sun Lutang's seniors, Cheng Ting Hua, Liu De Kuan, and Li Cun Yi in their Shen county association, where Xingyi, Tai Chi, and Bagua were first taught as a program... 40 years earlier!


 
Just a note all were born and trained after 1669 which is when the Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan appears and where the first reference to separate schools of Neijia and Weijia appear in Chinese history

But the historic founder of Xingyiquan Ji Ji Ke likely didn't use it to seperate his art from any other it is also quite likely that Li Neng Ran Didn&#8217;t but it is possible the Liu Qi Lan might of and if Li Cun Yi did use it again he was born in 1847.

And go back further to the legendary founder (but actual historic figure) of multiple Martial Arts Yueh Fei (1103-1142), it is highly unlikely he ever trained anything he called an internal art or external martial art.


----------

