Here's what I consider to be the difference between internal and external

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

A running debate amongst kung fu stylists is what exactly constitutes “internal” kung fu from “external.” Many different explanations are heard: some say that internal styles use more yielding, or that they use chi (whatever that means), or that external styles are called external because they have their roots in the martial arts of bodhidharma (an indian, from outside china) rather than from inside china.

I think that the debate over the difference between internal and external has gotten too esoteric and complicated. Here’s what I consider to be the difference between the two:

Imagine that you are a chinese martial artist, circa a hell of a long time ago. To help you get into character, it will help to forget everything you may have picked up from modern science about physiology, body mechanics, and so on.

You have two fighters in front of you - just for fun, we’ll call them Nei and Wei. They have the same height, the same build, are the same age, and weigh the same amount. However, when Nei delivers a certain type of blow, it hits very hard. When Wei delivers the same blow, it doesn’t hit as hard.

The two punches appear identical when watched. They’re thrown from the same angle, both of them appear to use the entire body to deliver force, and they both are thrown at the same speed. Why, then, does one hit so much harder than the other?

Since the external (obvious, visual) qualities of the two punches are the same, the explanation for the difference in power delivered must lie on the inside - and so, the ancient chinese developed the concept of “internal skill.” Nei has more internal skill than Wei, so his punches hit harder.

Felix Trinidad is a skinny guy with skinny arms. He doesn’t look like a knockout puncher. There are probably a hundred puerto ricans whose build, body type and musculature are next to identical to his. But if you ask one of them to throw a left hook that on the outside looks almost identical to Trinidad’s, theirs won’t hit half as hard. Why? If you the ask the chinese guys in the above example, they’ll say that it’s because Trinidad has more internal skill than the other puerto rican guy they pulled off the street.

Internal and external represent two different levels of accomplishment. A student will start training the external qualities of a movement first - that is, what part of the body goes where and when. Once the students knows that part, he or she learns the internal qualities - how to deliver that blow with power. Nearly any martial art becomes internal once the practicioner has reached a high level.

As for how some styles came to be known as “external” and some as “internal,” I don’t know. Maybe someone here knows and will post the reason. Nowadays when we say “internal style,” we’re usually talking about tai chi, bagua, or hsing-i (or liu he ba fa, for those that have heard of it). However, no style or group of styles have a monopoly on internal skill.

2

The standard historical account of the distinction is that the internal arts are based on taoist philosophy and practices, whereas the external arts arise from buddhist philosophy and practices. Other differences follow from this.

Taoism originated in China itself (hence its internal label) whereas Buddhism’s roots are in India (hence external).

Was Mr Nemo playing possum on this one?

3

It was a mistake to make the comparison in the first place :smiley:

Lao Tzu once said “We can neither call it void or not void, but for the purpose of pointing it out, we will call it void”

the India / China thing was made up here in the west, it fits no where in any of the texts that I have seen. This statement just lends more over-mystification to the point at hand.

If you start with “internal exercises” they will lead to “external usage” if you do external you will internalize.
The are the same thing from different approaches.
To over intellectuallize them will only confuse them more. they are folds in the same piece of cloth. You are the cloth.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

4

Mr. Nemo - I’m one of those guys who believes there actually are some unreconcilable differences between the internal and external arts. Although I’ll agree that “external” and “internal” are misleading names for them, since “external” arts can and do contain a rich variety of “internal” exercises; just as “internal” arts can and do contain a rich variety of “external” exercises - but they are nonetheless very different arts (or so I would argue).

Have you done any rooting exercises with your qigong postures yet?

5

Yea!!

“If you start with “internal exercises” they will lead to “external usage” if you do external you will internalize.”
That’s what i’m always saying. Like try doing push-ups without any spirit. Or do them long enough, you will internalize.
…

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

6

HHmmmmm

Quite wrong, you do not train in internal erts do you? You missed have missed all the reasons why some arts are internal and some are external. Qi is intergral to Internal arts and by dismissing it you atuomatically render your arguments facile. And wherever you got the idea that at a certain stage ALL externals arts become internal is ludicrous.

7

there definately are differences. Although I think it is funny how a lot of internal stylists think their art is superior to external arts just because they are studying something internal. It all leads back to the old is it the fighter or the art arguement…

8

welll… the way i see it is that most martial arts start out external and end internal wereas others start out internal from the beggining , internal just means they utilize chi in their attacks.
Its a lot more complex than that but thats how it basically is.

You see even when you bodybuild you send chi to the body part or someone maybe born with excessive power in his arms, like my father his arms hav ethe power of popeye in them, does it mean its his chi ? not really but it could be :slight_smile:

what do bin laden and general custer have in common???
They’re both wondering where the fu(k all of those tomahawks are coming from. - donated by mojo

9

Counter-Hmmmmm

“Quite wrong, you do not train in internal erts do you? You missed have missed all the reasons why some arts are internal and some are external. …ALL externals arts become internal is ludicrous.”
..
Which “ert” wold you be talking about there the in-ert or the ex-ert or the introv-ert? I am a big fan of erts.
…
I know your argument, but we disagree.

Ludicrous? yeah well that’s probably because god likes to laugh a lot, especially when he was making our bodies..

“It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me”

10

The "differences only exist in the stage of development the practitioner is at.

Here is an example- 5 animals Kung Fu- starts out with tiger moves through Crane, then Leopard, then snake then finally to dragon. after much practice the internal power of the dragon manifests itself in all the preceeding.

so, they are not seperate in the least, the are just different “starting” points to understanding the nature of power (Kung).

If you do Tai chi martially, the application is external with the foundation of power coming from within.

To complicate it all with seperation of yin (empty) and yang (full) leads to an even longer learning curve :smiley:

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

11

Here is the real difference…

Those that think they understand internal arts are internal, and everyone they disagree with is ‘external’.

Of course since almost no one agrees, everyone is pretty much ‘external’. :wink:

I am a big beleiver in luck. The more I work, the more luck I have.

12

No Internal No External No South No North.
All is “Relative” rather than absolute.

13

re:Internal/External

Well here goes..I remember seeing in a martial arts magazine about a year or so ago a Chinese man demonstrating chi gong(sp?)..I remember seeing this man doing what was called swallowing his breath I beleive and he was able to extend his stomach to a point that it looked as though he had swallowed a bowling ball..I thought to myself “how odd” and wondered what type of application this could have martial/health…I dont believe an application was given just a demenstration of these internal exercises.I basically forgot about the article until one Day I witnessed my judo instructor while talking about the value of abdominal training open his gi top and lo and behold demonstrate the very same thing!Now this is a man who has been practicing judo since the late 40’s early 50’s and the way he said he developed this was from alot of matwork on the ground and also leg raises(alot of them).The application was when he had you on the ground he he would literally use his stomach to punch you or sort of as a weopon because he could retract and extend his stomach at will and believe me being on the recieving end of a real nose grinder this ability is affective.He also had one of the guys stand on his stomach to demnstrate the power of his abs(he’s 73 years old).Now Im not an expert on internal arts but I do know that he is a person who is slight in build but able to generate alot of power in his techniques(its amazing to me).I guess thats why they call judo the gentle art although I wonder when being thrown or submitted on the mat!

14

External methods become “internalized” with lots of practice. EXTERNAL ARTS train “internal” concepts like spirit, chi (whatever that is), visualization, breathing, etc, as well as “external” things typically associated with the “internal” arts like alignment, relaxation, and yielding.

However, this does not mean that they train the same things the INTERNAL ARTS do. The EXTERNAL ARTS might become “internal” at high levels, but that does not mean they contain the same skills as the INTERNAL ARTS.

The names are misleading; perhaps it would be better to call them category A arts and category B arts. But the logic is pretty simple… train differently and you develop different skills.

I’m not asserting that one method is superior; only that they are different. It has nothing to do with what level you are at. In analogy, someone who’s really good at baseball doesn’t suddenly become a great soccer player as well.

This is the same kind of faulty reasoning that has kungfu people believe they are skilled at groundfighting (for example) just because they feel it is within the philosophy/principles of their art, but when they never practice it! You get good at what you do. Simple. If you want the skills of the internal arts, train in the internal arts.

15

if you diligently practice anything, you will get good at it, no matter what anyone may tell you.

Experience beats theory every time, hands down.

But, with CMA, the external leads to the internal and vice versa in virtually all systems of Martial Arts.

If this is not the case then it is the teacher who is incomplete.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

16

Repulsive Monkey: I train in bagua, an “internal” art. I didn’t dismiss chi, I just didn’t want to bring it into the argument because the word “chi” means so many different things depending on who you ask and I thought using the word would just confuse the issue.

Since you claim I’ve missed all the real differences between internal and external, what do you consider to be the real differences?

Braden: What are the irreconcilable differences between internal and external arts? If they’re prohibitively hard to explain, you don’t have to, but I’d like to know.

Concerning rooting and qigong, could you give an example of what you mean? We do a lot of things in our qigong, some of which could be considered a rooting exercise.

“Those that think they understand internal arts are internal, and everyone they disagree with is ‘external’.”

Monkeyslap Too is way too correct.

By the way, I didn’t just pull this stuff outta my a$$ - I’ve picked it up from reading and listening to the words of internal and external stylists with 10+ years of experience.

Kung Lek: When you say internal leads to the external and vice versa, what do you mean by “internal” and “external”? Could you give an example? I feel like part of the problem with discussing this issue is that the terms are so murky, they render any debate almost useless.

17

Kung Lek - I agree with the first part of that post. That’s my whole point. External stylists aren’t practicing the same things internal stylists are - so what makes you think they’ll somehow “magically” get good at it? Of course, vice versa is also true.

As for the second part, I’ve heard this claimed many times, but I’ve never seen or even heard of any example of an external art becoming an internal art at high levels. Perhaps you could provide an example.

Mr. Nemo - Specifically, have you practiced “accepting force” with neither “resisting” nor “yielding” energy? Another way of putting it is “resisting” without using muscular tension - in the sense that you are not moved, but you do not fight against it.

18

Ok-

an example would be (besides the 5 animal example I gave earlier).

Let’s say a Karate student. Starts and is very rigid, moves rigidly, steps rigidly and strike rigidly. There is force in the strikes, but no penetrating power.

Over time, as the kata become ingrained and the motion becomes second nature in the application, the karateka discovers that it requires less “effort” to achieve the objective. THe energy used to perform kata is the same energy used to walk down the street. THere is fluidity in the mechanics and the power flows from each strike because of the “relaxed” qualitis of the practice.
As the channels open further and further, what was once “external” becomes internal, force and power are not apparent to the person who watches, but the karateka slices through brick like butter using the relaxed and correct mechanics of his own body and the power generated.

On the other side of the coin, a tai chi student begins and in the beginning, mistakenly assumes that “relaxation” is relaxation of musculature and appears “lazy” in motion. Over time, the tai chi student starts to realize that force comes with a little more exertion than has been practiced and starts to put a little force into the strikes. over time. balance is achieved and optimal force is delivered through balance of exertion and relaxation.
once again, the breath pattern is normal and natural and akin to the same breath pattern as is in the unconcious act of walking.

strikes have power with optimum expenditure of energy derived on the shape of the practitioner.

At the apex, the tai chi is not lazy, nor is it rigid, it is optimal delivery of power as well as optimal use of the body in absorption (swallow and spit).

It is only with practice that this realization comes to the prac. whether the practitioner does karate, kung fu, tai chi or any martial art.

Is this close enough to what you are asking? Or do I need to further define it?

peace

this is a great example of a decent topic!

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links

19

In general I share Kung Lek’s opinion, but I think Braden is making some valid points.

One general point I would make is that if you’ve only studied EITHER an internal or external style, or if the sources you’re quoting haven’t studied both in depth, then I would take that opinion with a grain of salt. For me, at least, the opinions of masters who have spent a lifetime studying BOTH internal and external styles carry much more weight and much less uniformed bias.

Again, part of the problem we always have with arguments like this is that we’re all working with different definitions of the basic terms. As my teacher defines them, external arts are those which train the strength, speed and combat techniques first, and later on focus on qi-dominant training and techniques. Internal arts focus on developing qi ciculation first, and later on apply that to the physical combat techniques.

So, as I’ve been taught, it’s not so much a case that internal arts become external, and vice-versa----it’s that hard arts gradually become softer, and soft arts gradually become harder. But, as Braden said, this is not to imply that all arts are going to end up in the exact same place. Certainly hard styles aren’t going to have the same depth of soft techniques if they haven’t been training them for their whole career. And, soft styles do not have the goal of using techniques as “hard” as beginners in hard styles would use. These are all just broad generalizations.

I think if you start to look at the incredible range of CMA—not just between styles, but between different lineages of the same style, and different teachers of the same lineage, then these “internal”/“external” generalizations become so broad that they’re virtually meaningless. From the brief amount of White Crane I’ve studied, I would say that the softer qigong and combat techniques are very similar in theory, depth and subtlety to the Taiji I’ve learned. It’s classified as an external style, but I would be hard pressed to define at as either a soft or hard style.

Again, I agree that different styles have some very different training methods and goals, and every CMA style will not automatically give you the same results just by virtue of studying it long enough-----but I think it would be more useful to compare the specific training methods and curriculum of different styles—say Hung Gar vs. Chen Taiji----rather than wasting much time on “internal” vs. “external”.

20

Braden:
“Specifically, have you practiced “accepting force” with neither “resisting” nor “yielding” energy? Another way of putting it is “resisting” without using muscular tension - in the sense that you are not moved, but you do not fight against it.”

Well, I haven’t used those terms, but it sounds like the you’re referring to what I would call the skill of being dead weight. When someone is trying to push or throw me, I don’t yield or resist (generally), I just try to become the equivalent of a 185-odd lbs. sandbag - very hard to move. Of course, sometimes you want to be live weight - it takes experience to know when being dead weight is appropriate.

I’ve never practiced what you describe in qi gong, but I have practiced it in sparring (and in push hands, back when I did tai chi).

Kung Lek:
Thanks for the examples. It sounds to me like you’re defining external as tense and internal as relaxed, and the goal is to find a happy medium between the two. Or that relaxed force needs a certain amount of tension or vice versa to be effective. If this is what you are saying, then I can see the distinction, but what you describe isn’t what I consider to be the difference between internal and external. What you describe sounds more like the difference between hard and soft. (Again, these are all my terms, you can use your own terms).

Let me state again that the distinction I made between internal and external doesn’t concern “internal styles” vs. “external styles,” it concerns two different kinds of skill.