Low Internal vs. High External

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
1

Just re-read a section in Adam Hsu’s book the sword polisher’s record (great book if you haven’t picked up a copy yet.)

He proports that internal arts like Taiji, Bagua and Hsing-Yi are “higher level” more “mature” arts. But that they are only vaguely linked in mechanics but share similar moral and philosophical background.

Likewise, he says that “external” arts are “lower level” yet “simpler” arts. Not in a condescending way. Just pointing to easier application and execution. He says that these arts can become “internal” arts at a high level. It is just that most practitioners have not recieved the internal methods.

Furthermore, he states that some practioners of “internal” arts may never reach an “internal” level of proficiency. They may remain at an external level even though they practice an “internal” art.

Also, an “internal” artist may never reach a level of fighting capability because they do not understand the fundamentals learned at a more elementary “external” level.

Kind of makes you think the whole “internal/external” question is B.S. Which Adam Hsu says it is. It was an ideal established in the 1600’s.

However, I do think that there some similarities amongst “internal” arts. Specifically, moving from the dan tien is definitely an internal thing. But isn’t it possible that supposedly “external” arts might have developed the same type of movement to some degree, at the higher levels. And that you just don’t see it in lower level forms? Afterall, their is only one human body.

And isn’t it possible that the internal arts just took these “higher level” principles and started developing them earlier on in training and so the level of “internal-ness” developed to a higher degree?

I know that there are a lot of similarities between the Chen Cannon fist and the Shaolin cannon fist. This would support the idea that internal and external were at sometime one thing.

Just a couple of observations and questions.

Fu-Pow

2

“This would support the idea that internal and external were at sometime one thing.”

They still are.

I think the transition from external to internal occurs when you technique has been assimilated by you to the point that is complete natural and reflexive, as opposed to the manifestion of the will to execute a certian technique following a set of mental/physical rules.

It is the combination of all factors (mechanics, intent, mentality, breathing, rooting, observation, sensitivity, etc) so that your technique becomes singular, complete, and as natural as drinking water.

Then whatever you are doing becomes internal. I do not think that this is teachable. That is why it seems lost, but is not.

3

Ok…I can dig that. But then let me ask you a question? What is the external version of Taiji?

What I’m getting at is that Taiji (I can’t necessarily speak for the other two cause I’ve never trained them) has certain rules that force you to move from the center. Do other arts develop this center movement. Only at higher levels? Do they end up at the same place?

Fu-Pow

4

Ok…I can dig that. But then let me ask you a question? What is the external version of Taiji?

The version you do after 3 months of practice.

5

Right, but it is essentially useless because you don’t understand the internal aspects. So Taiji is one of those arts where the internal and external are mutually dependent.

Where as in CLF, for example. You don’t have to understand the “internal principles” to be able to use it. The “internal principles”, if they exist, come later and are added to pre-existing fighting skills.

Fu-Pow

6

Yes, just because you are doing taiji does not mean you are doing anything internal.

The internal arts are called so for many reasons. One is that they attempt to directly address the problem of singular movement. But so do other “external” arts.

Really, I do not belive that there are any external arts at the level of mastery.

Saying that an art is internal is useful as a marketing tool, or as an excuse for an instructor being out of shape, or as an explaination for something that a teacher just can’t seem to articulate.

But really, I think it is a redundency.

7

Fu-Pow

Finally, reason prevails. I want to see this book. I’m delighted.
I can’t feel that the internal arts are more mature. I think I know what he’s trying to say, and I do agree in a way. Yet, if that is saying also that the so-called external arts are necessarily less mature because they seem to begin at the opposite pole, I don’t care for that so much, because the judgment should be made from the vantage point of highest proficiency. If you take high level external and internal masters, the maturity should be equal, at least in terms of the arts. I see both as going to the same place. Maybe it is the wording that has got me going, not the total meaning.

I think this whole internal-external business is a load of bull frankly. Thing is, if you combine the two very early, you have the best possibility of success, but students would need a lot of supervision and training time, and a willingness to face their true natures. The teacher would have to work with this. That would be his responsibility, for the safety of students.

Many of the beautiful differences in the arts are because of the continuum of body types and of personality needs, not an indication of one necessarily being better (biggest bestest) than any other. That’s how I see it. To learn the soft, the hard and one’s self, and have them meet in a controlled fashion.

Cody

8

Yes, definitely, I think external arts can become more “mature.” It is just that they may not reach the level of “internal development” that Taiji players do. But that is because the internal stylists starts to train that from day one. However, he may may not gain valuable fighting
skills from day one.

What I’m curious about is whether the internal torso movmements in Taiji are similar to the internal torso movement in other “external” styles “internal forms” ie does the movmement begin in the dan tien?

Fu-Pow

9

Fu-pow,

I think it depends upon your definition of internal and external. It’s usually very difficult to get people to agree upon a standard definition.

I practice Wing Chun, but when I receive force from my opponent, I root it into the floor. If I can’t root the force (due to my level of skill or if I made a mistake) I change the line to align my body better or to diffuse some of the force. To root the force, I need to make minor adjustments, which may or may not be visible to the naked untrained eye.

I try to remain relaxed to sense and feel. My ideal is to initiate movement from my Dan Tien/center of gravity. My Dan Tien/CoG links my body and creates the path to and from the ground. I use the ground to both absorb the opponent’s force and issue power. I don’t just hit with my arms, but try to hit with my entire coordinated body.

Each change that I make in reponse to my opponent also is initiated with my center to coordinate the body. I try not to use local muscle (shoulders, triceps, etc.) but rather try to let my intention guide my actions based upon the feedback I get.

I was taught this way by my Sifu from the very beginning. From the first day, the emphasis was on dynamic use of the horse and kua to link the upper and lower bodies.

I don’t know if this answers your question, but I suppose you would have to see and feel what I do to determine if it matches YOUR classification of ‘internal’. I suppose from a ‘classical’ Wing Chun perspective, this is just body mechanics, efficiency, and economy of motion. Other WC schools may or may not follow the same principles that I do so I cannot speak for them. Some would say they do the same thing, but when pressured, resort to using muscular strength.

regards,

Dzu

10

Fu-Pow

I’m taking a chance answering you cause my knowledge is not good enough, and it’s hard to verbalize at that. Also, I could go off topic real fast because there is a juncture I don’t understand. But, enough of that.

I do believe that the internal power generation amounts to basically the same for internal and external styles. From my experience, the dan tien has been the beginning focus of both.

That division that you note between the training of internal vs external arts. I think of that as being something possibly made more distinct by public teaching. The old time stance work done, in external arts wasn’t just for leg work. In my opinion the increased division has the scent of a log jam. If you don’t have both internal and external components, you won’t succeed in a martial arts setting of high level.

As T’ai Chi is often taught more as a health related form, rather than preparation for combat, it would be difficult to obtain the training that the old masters had. It is evident to me that push hands with real internal power would be very different from what I see on display.

I experienced real internal power within myself once that I am sure of, during push hands; the oponent slid off 2 or 3 times while trying to push me. I felt intense dan tien movement, but opponent didn’t have a clue, except he would have gone down hard if he hadn’t stopped himself in time. Unfortunately, my training did not proceed along those lines, though frankly, the sensation was unpleasant. I thought my insides were going to rip apart. I worked on other things which I don’t understand and wouldn’t label as internal power.

The internal is sometimes visible in high level practitioners. At first it can be seen as a certain softness, which can be hidden well. That, to me, indicates that there has been training. Then there are other things. You mention CLF. That is exciting cause of the circular quality of that art. I consider it an excellent secondary study to T’ai Chi, if the student is able.

While there are numerous ways of circulating energy, and I’m thinking primarily of directions and endpoints, it appears that there are finite and enduring patterns given that the physical plant is constant in structure. I am sure that on lower levels the concentration is on the dan tien, to build that “fire” and circulate it to the bones, and outward for healing and fighting. Probably that remains the seat of the chi, but I do not know how this functions in a master. I think the basics probably remain, but there is an alchemy and spiritual development that goes beyond the dan tien in my view.

I would guess, that yes, the dan tien is the turbine and a storage area of chi in both internal and external. For instance, if you are able to witness a dragon form done by a Hung Ga master, you will see the inner motion that you are talking about. I find it unfathomable at this point, but know that there must be true internal power and training in softer movements in order for this to appear as it does and for the master not to destroy his body in the process.
It appears that the dan tien is the focus.

Whether the dan tien is always the focus, in Both internal and external arts, is a good question. One thing that comes to mind is that Yang Jwing Ming mentions 3 dan tiens, upper, middle and lower. I am wondering if that is germane to what you are talking about. Honestly don’t know. Never thought of it like that before.

neat discussion,
Cody

11

You finally see the light

Hi Fu Pow,

Read our old posts together. This is what I’ve been saying. I’ll use the analogy of Quantum physics vs. Newtonian physics. Quantum physics is more advanced then Newtonian but if you don’t understand Newtonian, Quantum is just a bunch of math formulas that don’t relate to anything. (Internal folks without external) Like wise, Newtonian physics can solve most real world problems but look at all you miss if you stop there. (External folks who never dive into the internal)

Where is the external in Tai Chi? Look at Chen village for your answer. They learn the forms like everyone else but that’s only 35% of their early training tops. The rest of the time they are throwing down. Basically, external wrestling trying to but the concepts of the form into play. They eventually reach a point where they understand the external and can focus on the internal.

I can’t speak for CLF but I’m sure if you look hard you’ll see how the dan tien can control many of the moves, how body structure is crucial, etc.

One point. “external” styles have moves that are purely external. Not meant to be internally powered at all. This is for fighting situations. Sometimes you can’t align the stars and the moon and you just need to get a break. The Yang classics talk about this.

Other moves look external but have very strong internal principles behind them. For hung gar, look at the double tiger claw. this is brush knee and if you look a Lam Chun Fai (Lum Jo’s Son) you will see his power is generated from the dan tien at a very short distance and not as a long palm strike like you see beginners do. However, if it was taught as a short strike, 99% of the poeple would have a very ineffective strike in the beginning.

12

Thanks for the info Hay Say Fu

Interesting you should mention Lam Chan Fai. I was looking at a clip of his Iron Wire form. There is definitely something going on there besides hard external movements. Its like something is moving him around (whipping him around really) but you just can’t see it. Then it occurred to me that perhaps he was moving from the dan tien. Then I looked at his arm movments and noticed some stuff that looked like “opening and closing” like we have in Taiji. Maybe different maybe the same.

Anyways, CLF has internal forms and “sticky hands.” Probably, not as advanced as in Taiji. Unfortunately these forms are not taught in my lineage. It would be interesting to compare these forms with something like Chen Taiji.

CLF training methodology is definitely different than Taiji. Initially, we are taught 10 simple techniques to batter the opponent into the ground. If there is internal it is taught later on.

Chen Taiji would be the opposite. Starting with the open large movements of the Lao Jia. Then once the internal mechanics are understood, moving on to the Pao Chui or Cannon Fist set.

Also, interestingly CLF and Taiji share common roots in Northern Shaolin. So it is not too far of a stretch to think that maybe at higher levels they have more in commmon than one would first think.

I believe Tit Ki Sam was also a northern stylist. Not sure about that though.

Fu-Pow

http://www.geocities.com/fu_pow/vmrc-halloween-3.jpg

13

i know im jumping in this conv a little late but , for what its worth the way i see it 90% of ma are the same mechanics bodywork etc what makes it internal is the energy what makes it external is useing more physical strength.

Not to be confused with hard and soft, you could say hsing yi is hard internal whereas tai ji is soft internal.

The reason i make these statements is that if you look at all arts from the source i.e a very kosher lineage holder , the way they practise is identical al movement comes from the waist and manifests itself at the extremeties, wether its karate or its tai ji, just tai ji looks soft whereas ive seen internal karate that is as internal as tai ji but still looks hard to the eye just like hsing yi.

if you look deep enough even throws of jujitsu are executed like shuai jiao throws which incoporate things like move from the waist open and close the kua area whilst throwing. just like northern shaolin punches.

when i compare arts i go to the roots of it nowadays as much as possible and if you look at the masters they all move using same bodymechanics.

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