Definition and history of "internal"?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Didn’t you Ross, or somebody, write some really good article about the use of “internal” having been relatively recent and some history relating to that?

If so, would you be so good as to point me to it?

While we’re at it, if anybody else wants to have a stab at defining “internal” (again!:rolleyes: ) please go ahead!

I’ll have a go:

An internal art is an art that concentrates predominantly on training core principles which do not have a focus on purely physical attributes like speed, strength and technique, but more on mental attributes, spiritual attributes or indiscernible physical attributes like small connective muscle tissue between tendons.
God****, that’s boring! Someone else want a go?!:smiley:

2

I look at internalizing an art a little differently and maybe a bit simpler.

To me an internal art is one that has become a part of you. You don’t have to think, you just do. The whole concept of “no mind”. You have become so intimately familiar with a style or practice that it just turns on when you want or need it to.

3

I think there is a great deal of terminology thrown around in martial arts that is not siginificantly supported by practical demonstration that is measureable.

concepts as opposed to principles can lead to a washout of the reality of the situation and instead send us trapsing down a garden path.

in my opinion, if you are practicing a martial art, no matter what you call it, it should have martiality at it’s core and principles that drive to results from the training method.

all goals should be objective based, all methods should be results based, period. It doesn’t matter what you call it if it delivers through it’s methodolgy the goals it claims to meet.

From a personal observational standpoint, I don’t give to much weight to seperation of internal and external, as far as I’m concerned they are the same thing when it comes to definig a human being. For all the awareness you have of yourself outwardly, there should be a matching awareness to what’s going on inside you. If you look at so called external arts, the goal is reduction of forces to find the optimum, if you look at so called internal arts, if they were totally internal as implied, the entirety of the art would be simply sitting and examining the inward self and there would be no motion, only focus on the manifestation of energies from within.

so the argument is a lame duck from the onset.

too often we have all said some reference to something that we in all honestly cannot define properly. Methods are methods, but understanding them in teh truest sense of the word will only come from the work you put into them.

4

Wei Jia Nei Jia

I seem to recall that the historically there was no distinction betwen internal and external at all.

That it was more a term created by a well known Tai Chi Master teaching in Beijing to differentiate himself from the more …er lower class thug mentatlity…thereby attracting more scholar type people who had money and would pay more for tuition that on the face of it was promoted as being of a higher social class martial art.

All chinese arts at a higher level must be of equal balance or they are only ming jing mid level skill

5

The idea of internal goes back a long, long way. Back to internal alchemy. When taoists realized they were dying, not becoming immortal, ingesting lead and mercury. This lead to internal alchemy … the discovery of the channels and how to run them to cleans the system. It lead to finding the original way … the difference between the way you carry yourself after sitting at your desk for 8 hours and eating McDonalds and the way you carry yourself and hold yourself upright and walk bare footed on grass… there’s a difference. When you feel it you realise one way is healthier, so you do what you can to maintain healthy body and mind.

Now, if you’re a martial artist, this thinking carries over into your training… do I need to beat my hand against stone to make it strong? How strong does a fist have to be to hurt? What if my stone hand comes in contact with someone’s titanium leg? That’s a futile way to train.

Did someone mention Coutier conditions himself very well? Can he condition himself like the young man doing the same thing as him? Apparantly not.

Internal is something different. Many will dismiss it. Many will be mislead. Many will say what it is having only heard what it is from someone else who probably doesn’t know what it is either.

You have to feel it. You have to train it. And it’s like money, you can build it up but you can exhaust it to. For me at least, it’s a day to day process. Pretty much like my bank accont. Some days I got more than others … and because I’m young and frivolous I can be wasteful.

6

A different perspective

I’ve read that the true definition of internal and external was geography. Internal arts are those that were wholly indigenous to China. External arts were developed based upon concepts and principles introduced to the Shaolin Temple by an outsider-- Da Mo.

I don’t know if that is true, but as DJ said, the end result should be the same.

7

Mat – this issue is contentious mostly because people confuse characteristics with standards. For example, if someone asks what Cantonese cooking is like, you might say that it is spicy. This is a characterization rather than an identity: cooking isn’t Cantonese because it’s spicy, rather, it just happens that Cantonese cooking, among other kinds, tends to be spicy. If someone said “Well, Mexican cooking is spicy too! So Mexican cooking must be Cantonese!” or, alternately, “… So this whole idea of ‘Cantonese cooking’ is silly and elitst!” then they would be working on the basis of a confusion between identity and characterization.

When someone says that internal styles are relaxed, or skillful, or spiritual, or whatever, it’s essential to keep in mind that these are characterizations. So when someone says, “Well boxing is relaxed to, so it must be internal” or “… so this idea of internal is silly and elitist!” they are, as above, confused on this point.

There’s alot of things we could say to characterize the internal styles, but to identify them we can’t be more accurate than just to observe that they are a certain tradition in the Chinese martial arts, particularly evolving in Beijing in the last century or two, and particularly on the basis of training methods from xingyiquan, baguazhang, and taijiquan.

8

Chi gung ( soft breathimg method) designed to create internal organ health and create proper blood flow. Hei Gung ( Hard breathin method) Dynamic tention exercises wich oxyginate the red blood cells and develops Iron body.

9

qi(chi) gong is Mandarin pronunication. Hei gung is the same characters, just Cantonese pronunication.

I know there are different types of qigong, some “soft”, some “hard”.

10

Yes, because a KO loss in the second round where he at no point appeared tired says anything about his conditioning. :rolleyes:

11

I’ve been meaning to ask about this because I didn’t see the fight… so what was it:

Was he simply over attributed? Facing aguy who knows enough about the ground but has a long reach advantage and youth on him?

or

Was he beat by a technical advantage, some sort of technology that put him in an inferior position?

or

Did he simply zig when he should have zagged?

12

Mostly 3. First round, he advanced cautiously, controlling the center of the ring, while Chuck used good footwork and circled, picking his shots. Randy managed to get one takedown, but Chuck immediately got back to his feet using the fence. Randy kept him clinched up against it, but wasn’t able to capitalize. Randy’s face was a bit banged up and he was bleeding from the nose, which may have been broken.

Second round, Randy slips every so slightly while changing levels. Immediately recovers by throwing a left hook; Chuck dips, it glances off his head, and Chuck catches Randy with a short right that drops him to the mat. Chuck immediately gets in position by Randy’s side, controls his legs with one arm and pounds him with the other for the stoppage.

Conditioning wasn’t a factor; neither man looked tired. Randy gave a guy with very heavy hands a slight opening, and Chuck capitalized and followed up.

Of course, if Chuck hadn’t had the conditioning to make it out of the first round without being tired out, he never would have been able to capitalize on that opening - which is why conditioning is always important.

13

Since Coach Ross hasn’t showed up yet, I’ll say it first and let him fill in the details I can’t remember and don’t feel like looking up at the moment.

The term “internal” as in “internal martial arts” is less than 100 years old. I don’t remember who first used it. My guess would be someonelike maybe Sun Lu Tang since he is responsable for so much of the literature that showed up in the 20th century on IMA. The term historically refered to Taiji, Bagua and Xing Yi and nothing else. The writer was describing how similar these 3 arts were and created the term “internal family styles” aka “neijiaquan” to create an umbrella category for those 3.

That’s all it meant. No more. No less. All the rest of what “internal martial arts” means is what has evolved linguistically since then. Language changes and other people may have come to see characterisitics in other artsw that makes them feel they should be grouped together with the “big 3” but historically the term refers specificallly to those 3 styles and nothing else.

Now I am going to see if I can come up with the author of the term and a rough date you *******s. I was perfectly happy sipping instant coffee and lurking and now I have to go and actually DO something. grrrr

edit:

I just turned up an essay claiming it goes back to something a guy in the early Qing era, Huang Zong Xi () wrote in 1669…I’m kind of skeptical of the source though. I’ll re-edit once I’ve figured out how to read his name properly.

14

Ok, according to an article that appeared in “Wu Hun” magazine in 1984 and then reprinted in a collection of essays I have on my shelf here:

Very rough translation. No time for better right now. Sorry.

in the “Wang Zheng Nan Mu Zhi Ming” (some sort of eopigraph or memoirs or something) he [Wang Zongxi] says, "Shaolin is famous throughout the lands. It has “attack” as its foundation. The so called “internal styles” are based on stillness over motion. . . . this difference us why Shaolin is called the “external” school.

The myth of Zhang San Feng learning the shaoling style and refining it and improving it seems to have come from Huang Zongxi’s son Huang Bai Jia in his book, “The Internal Method” ().

I’m really annoyed at having found these couple articles. I was pretty cool with the term being 20th century. Either way it still works as a simple catchall to describe “not Shaolin” and to emphasise emphasis on stillness in motion and motion in stillness.

15

Internal and external are too confusing because it can refer to a lot of different things and internal carries all this supernatural baggage with it that confuses thing even more.

A better term would be sectional and unified. So called “internal” arts are more unified in movement where as the “external” arts move more sectionally.

Or we can talk about arts as simple physics vs. advanced physics. External arts are more about muscle contraction, levers, centripetal force, f=ma etc. Internal arts are more subtle utilizing biotensengrity structures, expansion and contraction, springiness, etc. They’re more complicated to describe in that sense.

But there ARE differences!!!

What you see in arts that start out as primarily as “external” is that they move from simple physics, sectionality, levers, centripetal force, etc. to more advanced physics, unified motion, expansion and contraction and springiness.
(This confuses the issue even more.)

16

That would be an interesting definition. One with no historical or technical basis in reality but interesting nonetheless. As long as you and the other party can agree that it means that for the context of your conversation then that’s cool I guess.

For a definition with a historical basis you could look here:

http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/index.html

Half way down the page on the right hand side in a colum:

1.“Neijiaquan” is said to have been created by Zhang Sanfeng, Taoist hermit from Wudang Mountains, was a style famous in 17th century and recorded by Huang Baijia (1634-?, student of Wang Zhengnan, Neijiaquan expert) in his “Neijia Boxing Method”. The style, although very rare, is still practiced mainly in Sichuan province.

2.Styles that are based on Neigong (Internal Skill) methods which stress importance of Intent (Yi) and breathing in practice as well as relaxation. The result of practice is “not in over-developed muscles, but in strong and comfortable internal organs” (Zhang Naiqi: “Scientific Internal Boxing”, 1936)

3.Taijiquan, Xingyiquan and Baguazhang are often referred to as “sister arts” as they share similar principles and stress importance of “Neigong”; they are also often classified into “Wudang cathegory” because of their legendary roots in Taoist temples in Wudang Mountains and because the teachers of these three styles taught within “Wudang Department” in Central Martial Arts Academy set up in Nanjing in 1928

4.Neijia as styles based on Peng Jin

NOTE:

The above the definitions of “Neijia” are not exclusive.

They are not exclusice because language evolves and new meanings have been attatched but the term is only as confusing as you want it to be. If you use the most common definition, the one’s presented above, then its not very confusing at all.

17

That definition is historical alright, but its also sounds like bull$hit. It makes internal arts sound like some kind of way to improve digestion.

Internal= a more subtle, unified way of moving the body. That’s it, pure and simple.

18

Based on what? The law of FuPow?

When the rest of the world accepts your definition it will have some legitimacy. Currently the only basis for it is “Fu Pow said so.” :smiley:

19

Wow.

You deleted your post already. That was quick.

20

Really? No technical basis? And what are you basing that on because I didn’t use any Chinese IMA jargon?

For a definition with a historical basis you could look here:

http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/index.html

Half way down the page on the right hand side in a colum:

1.“Neijiaquan” is said to have been created by Zhang Sanfeng, Taoist hermit from Wudang Mountains, was a style famous in 17th century and recorded by Huang Baijia (1634-?, student of Wang Zhengnan, Neijiaquan expert) in his “Neijia Boxing Method”. The style, although very rare, is still practiced mainly in Sichuan province.

2.Styles that are based on Neigong (Internal Skill) methods which stress importance of Intent (Yi) and breathing in practice as well as relaxation. The result of practice is “not in over-developed muscles, but in strong and comfortable internal organs” (Zhang Naiqi: “Scientific Internal Boxing”, 1936)

3.Taijiquan, Xingyiquan and Baguazhang are often referred to as “sister arts” as they share similar principles and stress importance of “Neigong”; they are also often classified into “Wudang cathegory” because of their legendary roots in Taoist temples in Wudang Mountains and because the teachers of these three styles taught within “Wudang Department” in Central Martial Arts Academy set up in Nanjing in 1928

4.Neijia as styles based on Peng Jin

NOTE:

The above the definitions of “Neijia” are not exclusive.

They are not exclusice because language evolves and new meanings have been attatched but the term is only as confusing as you want it to be. If you use the most common definition, the one’s presented above, then its not very confusing at all.

Well actually you’ve got 4 definitions and they don’t all describe the same term at all.

  1. a historical defintion that may or may not have any basis in fact.

  2. is partially technically correct…Nei Gong, relaxed, intentional and so forth is correct… but the part about “the organs” is total bull$hit.

  3. actually starts with the same definition as 2). The second part is a historical definition about the Wudang mtns which may or may not have basis in fact. The third part is historical and based on the second part…meaning they set up a “wudang” dpt because they believed that the Neijia arts all came from Wudang.

  4. Is partially correct. However, as far as I know only Taiji uses the term Peng Jin.

That’s not a very clean definition at all. It’s confusing. Which is why I was attempting to define “internal” in Western terms and avoid this historical and technical mess altogether.