The deeper I’m getting into my training, the more I’m beginning to feel that the whole Internal/External Art thing is a bunch of crap.
What do you think? Why?
Although there are many styles, they all depend on the strong beating the weak and the slow falling to the quick. These are not related to the power that must be learned – Taiji Classics
Not necessaily
depends on the degree of wai gung or nei gung in the system you are learning.
for example alot of taiji styles teach soft and relaxed in the beginning and relax the muscels to understand chi circulation. later when a master introduces them to a faster or second form like in several taiji styles have a fast or cannon form, they add the chi power with muscel power, but the mechanics and principles must be ingrained in the student, developed by long term understanding of the first form.
I understand but…
Doesn’t Taiji stress Wei Gong? (Stance work, stepping, correct alignment?)
I’m learning a lot of external stuff now from my Shuai Chiao teacher. What surprised the hell out of me was the emphasis on relaxation. Not softness per se, but relaxation as in NO TENSION.
Next question, is Taiji soft unconditionally, or just soft compared to harder styles? Let’s use Hsing Yi as an example.
Although there are many styles, they all depend on the strong beating the weak and the slow falling to the quick. These are not related to the power that must be learned – Taiji Classics
Doesn’t Taiji stress Wei Gong? (Stance work, stepping, correct alignment?)
of course- wai gong is using Li strength- li is bones and muscels, but the attempt is to make it relax so that i (pronounced-ee)aka- will or intention can direct chi (vital energy)with relaxed li.
Next question, is Taiji soft unconditionally, or just soft compared to harder styles? Let’s use Hsing Yi as an example.
the answer lies within the taiji symbol or philosophy “when we come to the peak of hardness we are already reaching the peak of softnesss and vice versa, or when the day reaches noon it is already moving towards the peak of night.” Ultimately the softer you can become in internal arts it allows you to become solid like ‘steel wrapped in cotton.’
Hmm, for me its just the opposite. The longer I study, the more difference I see between the two. Go figure!
“Ninja!..NINJA!”-Christopher George, from “Enter the Ninja”
2 True
I completely concur with you Cowboy. If one cannot tell the difference then they ought to question their art or teachings very seriously, because there is a big difference between the two.
I’m still confused…
Where are these differences?
Is it in the Wei Gong (Stance Work, Steppings, Body Alignments)
Is it in the Nei Gong (Basic Power development)
Is it in the Qi Gong (Breath and energy work)
Why would Hsing Yi which is “hard” be internal and Long Fist which contains all of the above methods be external?
Although there are many styles, they all depend on the strong beating the weak and the slow falling to the quick. These are not related to the power that must be learned – Taiji Classics
Check out the xingyi page at www.emptyflower.com. There is a good article by Ken Fish there on what “internal” gong fu means. There are also some other archived articles discussing different aspects of it. These are insights based on long experience in both practicing and teaching internal martial arts.
I agree to some extent with that article by Ken Fish, at least in regards to defining “internal”.
[This message was edited by Ky-Fi on 05-17-01 at 09:42 AM.]
you’re looking at a finger
Hi WaterDragon,
I used to get into this debate all the time. I’m a firm believer you are right. At the high levels, TCMA is “internal” by the definition that the TaiChi and XingYi folks say about relax, full body, blah, blah.
I used to think it was all going up the same mountain just taking different paths. I’ve since modified my analogy. It’s the same mountain but TaiChi starts at a point higher up the mountain.
So for “external” folks, they get to a certain point on the mountain and feel, it’s pretty high up and decide to rest there. That’s why you get many “external masters” not looking very internal.
For “internal” folks, they are standing at the bottom of the mountain using a map that starts somewhere in the middle. So they wander around paths they think are taking them to the top but really don’t get off the ground.
Now for my subject title. The distinction internal/external is a red herring. It’s the finger pointing to the moon. It doesn’t matter which finger you use to point at the moon, the point is that you look at the moon and not the finger. (or you will miss all that heavenly glory)
If some folks tell you that your pinky will never point at the moon, then why argue. If you see the moon that’s all that matters.
Also, the burden of proof is in the internal guys. If you have seen even one person that has internal qualities from just practicing an “external” style, then you win the argument because it doesn’t matter that everyone else stopped halfway up the mountain. It’s proof that the can path get you there. It’s up to you to follow the path.
I provided the direct Lam Family for Hung Gar to not only show that internal qualities exist at the high levels but that it’s repeatable in the lineage.
I’m sure that the other “external” styles have their role models too.
Hasyafu
I see what you’re saying and it makes sense but…
Using your analogy, I’ve found that I’ve had to go back down to the base of the mountain because I forgot all my gear 
I don’t know what this means yet but hopefully I’ll end up a lot higher up when I get all my gear packed.
Does your experience point to this?
Although there are many styles, they all depend on the strong beating the weak and the slow falling to the quick. These are not related to the power that must be learned – Taiji Classics
you’ve taken the pebble from my hand
Any more movie cliche’s I can butcher?
Yes grasshopper, some paths up the mountain (by teacher not inherently by style) will lead you to a dead end. Then you have to climb down a bit and take a different path.
Here’s where the analogy falls apart but I attibute it to the nature of transmission. A student can only absorb so much in a given time. They emphasize certain things but not the whole picture. Add that some folks go out and teach after 5-6 years of just learning sets and what do you have? Do that for a few generations and entire pieces of the style is gone unless someone goes back to the source and finds it.
That said, one should never really have to go down to the bottom of the mountain. Your training adds to your understanding compared to someone who started fresh. Now I know I’ll get someone who says, I got to break all these bad habits from external guys learning but what can I say. They are right. Some folks don’t follow the path or just mis read the map.
hmm…
from my limited experiences:
a good practitioner of any gongfu style has both li and qi, and uses them how he wishes in his jin. i don’t believe that the internal and external are the same, but that they can be mixed in different ways and refined into different things.
i think that you are right in the way that changquan can be as internal as xingyiquan, but it mostly depends on the practitioner. the forms in xingyi, however, are quite complex in how they move qi. an example of this is the eagle form, and how it moves qi to the eyes, so sight is clear.
just my experiences. take them with a grain of salt, if you want to.
p.s. for the taiji softness thing, everything in taiji is in relation to something else.
The difference
The difference between Hsing-yi and Long Fist is ward off energy or peng jing.
when a fight occurs…
…internal and external dont matter, they become united as part of the human experience. Intellectualize all you want, but stay true to what you know. what I know is stay soft and relax as much as possible in my life and when it comes to a time where a fight occurs, I will rage and put some external force (unconsciously combines with internal power) on someone, then go back to being soft again.
Is there a difference between internal and external? I’m dividing this reply into two parts. First is the high level view, which approaches this question from the abstract philosophical view of the traditional Chinese approach to martial arts. The second and much longer answer will view question from the nuts and bolts perspective-- examining the actual methodology of neija vs. waijia training.
I have heard it said that at the highest level there is no difference between neijia and waijia. People often mistakenly believe that this means training methodologies are the same; this is not what is meant.
Due to a cultural emphasis on literacy, there has developed within China a large body of philosophical-strategic writings on martial arts, the most famous of which is Sun Tzu’s Art of War, but there many others. This body of writings has influenced nearly all the martial arts of China, and this is why if you spend some time studying the songs of different schools you’ll find the same sayings popping up again and again…
“1 ounce to deflect 100 pounds”, “seize control of the center line”, “know your opponent but don’t let them know you” etc.
Ultimately these writings led scholars to develop the notion that all martial arts must answer the same problems. This is one of the core ideas of traditional Chinese martial arts-- that strategically all martial arts must answer the same problems. Once they knew that all martial arts have the same problems to solve, the scholars said that at a high level all martial arts must develop the same answer, the best answer to each problem. Thus, at a high level there is no internal or external only better and worse ways for each individual to execute the correct technique.
I should note that I’m not Chinese Language Scholar-- rather I’m repeating a traditional argument as some one quite knowledgeable explained it to me. I unfortunately don’t have the necessary knowledge to argue for or against this idea. I’ve simply provided it as food for thought for those interested in traditional views of Chinese martial arts. The Second part of this reply will contain my personal argument.
Do not attempt to share your interest in martial arts with pedantic, narrow-minded scholars. As soon as they find out, they will quote from the classics and regale you with all kinds of irrelevant non-sense. This is infuriating. You can deal with this by either avoiding them or keeping your art secret.
–Ch’ang Nai-chou
Part of the difference to me is that internal arts place an emphasis on proper structure, whole-body power, rooting, relaxation, and redirection along the line that uses only the least amount of energy needed to get the job done. The strikes are just as strong (or stronger) and usually more painful.
“Ninja!..NINJA!”-Christopher George, from “Enter the Ninja”
Call me biased, but I’m rather fond of my Sifu’s opinion on this point. He says that if there is struggle, then your art is external. Internal arts accomplish their goals without struggle.
Makes for a nice change from the long-winded dissertations we’re used to seeing on this point, IMHO.
Amen!
“Ninja!..NINJA!”-Christopher George, from “Enter the Ninja”
structure common to all CMA
Pardon me cowboy, but external arts all teach, or claim to teach, proper structure, whole body power, rooting, relaxation and redirection, as well as using the least amount of energy possible.
These things are common to all Chinese martial arts.
Personally I find it unproductive ask this question. I have been beaten up by external as well as internal practitioners, and have learned something everytime. If there is a difference, it is for men of greater talent than myself to articulate.
-Jess
Part of the difference to me is that internal arts place an emphasis on proper structure, whole-body power, rooting, relaxation, and
redirection along the line that uses only the least amount of energy needed to get the job done. The strikes are just as strong (or
stronger) and usually more painful