See the post above I gave it a little more thought. BTW, what’s your issue?
No. I am basing that on the fact that your personal musings do not count as authoritative. There are in fact historical and literary roots to the term. The term has a well researched history. You could site historical works as I did or you could site papers written on the subject or any number of things but you didn’t all you have sited is your own personal understanding of one of the various accepted definitions for the term. It’s one I have watched you try to formulate over the past year or so online. It’s only source is your own experiences. Thats a good source for some things but not for linguistics.
Well actually you’ve got 4 definitions and they don’t all describe the same term at all.
If you look up a word at random in an English dictionary you find the same thing. Many words, even common everyday English words, have multiple uses depending on context.
I’m using italics for these quotes to save space:
1) a historical defintion that may or may not have any basis in fact.
No. Number one is well documented. Zhang Sangfeng may be a myth but the articles written in the 17th century defining the term are historical 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.
Same mistake as above. You have confused an actual hostorical fact with the doubtfull ramifications of said fact. It doesn’t matter what effect “internal” practice has on the organs. The FACT remains that IMA was defined in such a way by Zhang Nanqi in 1936. In fact, the part about the internal organs is not even part of the definition quoted. The definition presented is simply:
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 rest is the authors commentary on the results of said practice but not a definition of the pratice its self.
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.
Nevertheless every single statement presented on the page in that part is 100 percent historically true to the best of anyone’s knowledge. If you can present a source contradicting any part of it at all please do so.
4) Is partially correct. However, as far as I know only Taiji uses the term Peng Jin.
This is not exactly true but is also kind of irrelevant. I don’t care for that definition either.
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.
What’s confusing? There are several specific broadly accepted historical definitions. It’s exactly because they are historical that they are NOT confusing. They are not subjective and they are easy to describe. You must have a hell of a time with English if you find multiple definitions for the same term confusing. Just open a dictionary some time and take a “look”:
[URL=“http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=look”]look.
My “issue” is that while trying to describe what something as vague as “internal power” feels like or where it comes from, the topic is “Definition and history”. THOSE are easy, or at least a historical definition is easy. I prented a link with 4 good ones. They are not subjective. They are common use and historical definitions. It’s onlu when you venture out into the descriptive that you get on shaky ground.
-
I never represented my definition of “internal” as authoritative. You’re putting words on the page for me.
-
The original question was not…" what is a linguistic history of the word “internal” (ie Nei) in relation to martial arts?" It wasn’t “what does Nei or Nei Jia or Nei Gong mean?”
It was and I quote directly:
While we’re at it, if anybody else wants to have a stab at defining “internal” (again! ) 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.
I think its pretty clear from the author’s “stab” at it what he’s looking for and that’s what I gave him. So if you want to start a historical discussion of the word Nei in relation to martial arts why don’t you start your own thread?
While we’re at it, if anybody else wants to have a stab at defining “internal” (again! ) please go ahead!
I’ve got one. It’s when you take your intestines out, and the other person takes theirs out, and you slap each other with them until one of you falls over. 
This thread is pretty informative. I’ve learned about 80 different ways of spelling Tai Chi.
But in all seriousness, this thread really is very informative. Basically what I’m getting mostly is that “internal” describes something more nebulous–not imprecise by any means, but harder to put your finger on. I’m not saying this about the reality of this or the results, but just the definition. All I can really add is that I enjoy it in class, and somehow feel better the rest of the night afterwards.
~~J
Cheers for your answers Mr Pow, but in fact the original question was about an article explaining the use of the words, so Omar has it so far (and cheers Omar).
My addition of having a stab at defining it was because I knew that we’d have a lot of people misreading the question and defining it, which would evolve into a phenomenal flame war as usual (sorry: reasoned discussion!) so I thought I’d set the ball rolling 
.
I do like some of your answers though, not bad at explaining internal again. Although, your understanding of external seems to be lacking with the following statement:
Are you saying boxers don’t have body unity? If so, I’ll fight your entire family and pets and your master.
LOL at Jules: you gotta lotta guts!
Ok here we go internal is breathing in external is breathing out jeeze guys keep it simple, I read CJ’s explanation and well I got to back to school just to keep up with his dissatation of chi. Most people aren’t that smart.:o
Well, we don’t know the content of “the article.” Was it historical? Was it technical? Was it descriptive?
All I know is someone jumped down my throat for what I thought to be an appropriate response.
Are you saying boxers don’t have body unity? If so, I’ll fight your entire family and pets and your master.
Are you talking about a bad boxer or a good boxer? Good boxer would but IMO except for rare cases still would not = the same level of unity that internal arts strive for. Just as most kung fu styles do not reach that level of unity. However, its not really required because the strategy of, for example, boxing and Taiji are very different.
Holy sh)t. I’m gonna have a take a few days and dissect this.:eek:
Alright, I overstepped it a bit. Looking back I can see Mat DID open the door for people to try and explain what it means to them and get tangled up in what makes a style “internal” according to the common present day understanding of the term.
Mat,
Thank you for posting and clearing that up a bit.
I’ll cool off on Fu Pow for now.
Well, we don’t know the content of “the article.” Was it historical? Was it technical? Was it descriptive?
The article I referenced anyways was technical and descriptive. The writers it referenced, Wang Zongxi and Wang Baijia are apparently very famous withing certain circles and are widely given credit for coining the term. The two of them, father and son, can be researched easily enough by Chinese readers. The idea of “neijia”, the internal style, I am learning goes back much further though but not really with specific attatchment to martial arts so the Wang’s may have just been the first recorded instance of using the terminology to describe MA. There’s a pretty extensive elaboration of the subject over at emptyflower on this thread:
http://www.emptyflower.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=Xing;action=display;num=1139438383
I think Bamboo Leaf does the best job of summarizing what the traits are in the way that Fu Pow is attempting to describe. His views are clearly quite different but they are closer to mine than the rather mechanistic ideas being put forth on this thread so far. Bob (aka RAF on this board) has presented probably the most thourough scholarly analysis of the term in the way I was trying to summarize here. So there it is from both perspectives.
The thread over there gets a little dense but is well worth it. It’s only two pages long but 2 very good pages IMHO.
Beautiful!
http://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html
sheds some light on internal VS. external
I’ll redirect the question:
How is basic skill training and physical preparation different in “Internal” systems (Xingyiquan, Bagua, Ba Ji, Taiji) as compared to Hung Gar, Lama Pai, or Shotokan Karate?
What are the fundamental (learned before all others) skills and principles?
Greetings..
First, i don’t think the differences between internal and external can be summarized by description.. it’s something that has to be experienced.
My own understanding is that Taiji or the internal arts are a bit more holistic, engaging the subtle complexities of the body and its various systems.. internal arts look beyond simple cause and effect (ie: big muscles=big power).. Internal arts make use of inherent knowledge, things we “know” by experience but that elude current standards of measurement.. yes, i’m referring to Qi or energy or life-force.. that’ll bring out the nay-sayers.. internal arts are keenely aware of structure and alignment as pathways for expressing maximum energy application with minimum energy output.. Internal arts are more concerned with the complete person rather than the single focus of fighting prowess.. which is circular in nature becaues the better the complete person is, the better the martial aspect will be..
I think we distract ourselves with quests of historical verification.. the efficacy/validity of a system is evident in its current manifestation.. the founders were not so different than many in our arts today, they had a passion for discovery of the human potential.. detailed observation, trial and error, and dedication with an open mind were the fertile fields that allowed Taiji to grow into such a profound art.. As much as some will disagree with me, i see Taiji as a much less systemized art than external arts, it is more about the basic principles as applied to any situation than the choreography of the dance..
I have no doubt that internal arts will continue to evolve far beyond its humble beginnings. Advances in physics, medicine, physiology and consciousness will illuminate deeper and even more profound Taiji manifestations..
These are my opinions, and i am no “authority”.. my contribution is subject to change upon evidence presented that is sufficient to convince me differently.. it is more important to discover closer approaches to “truth” than it is to be “right”..
Be well..
I don’t distract and I don’t verify. I duck the issue.
The historical definitions are the only one’s we can agree on. The things you are talking about, as you said, need to be experienced. There’s no real point in trying to pin it down online. I could offer a fairly pat definition of what you are talking about and it would still be meaningless because it would only create 3 more equally troublesome questions of definitions. We’d then have to explain not only “qi” but “yi” and “shen” as well. It’s a pointless discussion that goes nowhere. It is a complete waste of time to discuss it outside of an actual practice. You may as well be dicussing colors with the blind from birth. So I stick to the historical definitions as they can be pinned down and are not contraversial. They are there in print in multiple sources and there is a strong consensus on them.
So I am not distracting myself. I am trying to distract everyone else. 
Greetings..
Histories and lineages are as shrouded in mystery as any other aspect of the Art.. what we are left with are the accounts that have some level of consistency.. there are many more accounts, however incongruous, of much earlier origins and creators.. the current historical landscape is not unlike the historical landscape of the Bible.. selective editing of numerous accounts into a plausible scenario, a scenario based on the agendas of editors… no biggie, though.. i am much more concerned with Taiji’s future than its past..
Be well..