This was a response I posted to the Weijia vs. Neijia article on cyberkwoon. You can read it there if you like. I thought the article was totally off…anyways here’s my response I thought it might be of benefit to some of you other neijia/weijia players.
I think that this article misses some important points. The point of internal arts is that they teach you to strip away uneccessary muscle movement from day one. This is why the internal arts are practiced slowly at first because if you are exerting more muscle tension than necessary it becomes painfully obvious. You should be able to stop at any point in the movement should feel as though you are standing in “Wuji” stance. A natural consequence of this removal of muscle tension (ie sung) is a feeling of “peng” or internal connection. It is a kind of warm buoyant feeling. Once you have achieved this feeling throughout the form, you can increase the speed of the movements and as a consequence the “power”. In the internal arts if one parts move all parts move. Movement begins from the center. This is a natural consequence of being relaxed.
By contrast, external arts utilize more muscle tension. They are less concerned (although not totally unconcerned!) with relaxation/peng and more concerned with the execution of correct technique. In the muscular sense, Choy Lay Fut is more relaxed than an art like karate. But unlike Taiji it would be difficult for us to stop at any point in the form with out using localized muscles to hold our arm or leg in position. In Choy Lay Fut we rely on “centrifugal force” in our movements. This outward force allows us to relax the arm and shoulders in the movement but if we are not moving then it becomes difficult. In addition, it requires some muscular force to get the intial intertia going. Then we are relaxed throught the movement. And we tense slightly at the end of the movment to stop it. It would be very difficult to stop the movement once it was started. That is, if I start to execute a Sao Choy it would be very difficult for me to stop the movement mid flight and hold my arm out straight.
Again, in contrast, in Taiji I should be able to stop at any point in the form and I should be relaxed…as if in Wuji.
“external” and “internal” are very poor ways of describing the systems we have today. many external stylists have far more internal power than many internal stylists. the fundamental difference is how qi is controlled (using mind or slight tension). besides that, in internal styles, you learn to control qi right away. in external styles, this is not taught right away. in the advanced stages, though, both sides are very complex.
it’s a shame that “external” stylists, which have in the past been famous for being able to strike a person without touching him, making their bodies light, or resisting blades, have a generation that is viewed as being a group of dumb jocks.
all styles are internal and external. it’s just when you are taught each part in training, to what degree, and in what manner.
look at tid kiu sam. one of the greatest boxers in china’s history. one of the ten tigers. he practiced a style that he learned from a monk that used tension, relaxation, and sounds to control qi. it’s a pity that he’s looked down upon by people who think that their styles are high and mighty. did i mention his “1000 pound horse stance”? an excellent example of his levels of accomplishment.
everything from stance keeping, xiao zhoutian, da zhoutian, fajin. all of these “internal” buzzwords are in shaolin as well. in china sometimes they say that the energy of taijiquan is like water, xingyiquan is like fire, baguazhang is like a tornado, and shaolin is like lightning. of these, the jin from shaolin is implied to be the most direct and strongest. how can this be if it uses “stupid” strength, or using the muscles is considered to be a poor way of training?
:rolleyes:
it seems that we’re too mature to still believe that there is such a difference in the styles we deem "internal, and the ones deemed “external.”
Chi is a real crappy word because it can mean so many things. I think it often used to describe things when there is not a better word.
External arts are not inferior as far as fighting capability goes. In fact, they are easier to learn and apply. But the fact is that as you age your muscles degenerate. Sad but true. So you have two choices. Either find a way to fight relying very little on muscle power or get your butt kicked by younger, stronger opponents.
Internal arts and exernal arts end up in similar places. That is… relaxed and relatively tension free. Look at most martial arts and you’ll find that at the higher levels things become more circular and relaxed, taking advantage of coiling movements. In addition the higher forms concentrate on hitting precision targets that inflict a lot of pain and damage as opposed to just battering your opponent.
It is just that Taiji start learning to relax first, then add power and speed. Not only that, but they have developed relaxation to the nth degree throught the concept of “peng.”
The Chi concept as used by Tit Kiu Sam is totally different than the concept in Taiji. Iron Wire or Iron Shirt is a combination of breathing and flexing that excites the muscles to higher state of energy. It also closes you off to pressure point attacks. It basically teaches you how to withstand a blow. It would be useless for Taiji because so little muscle is really ever used.
This thread has reminded me. It seems like cyberkwoon is plagarizing a whole lot of articles for it’s site. Which wouldn’t be so bad, except that they DO run it as a profit-making business. This has bothered me since the first time I went there, but I haven’t said anything about it.
Am I crazy, or has someone else noticed this? Do you think it’s appropriate to say anything?
just wanted to try to dispel any notions about some topics before we get a big tangled mess of stuff on the thread.
i don’t say that either side is better. in fact, i don’t really believe in sides, but under the presumption that there are, neither is better in my opinion. the timing of getting “good” at your style is totally different between styles, though.
i agree that qi is used pretty abstractly. i try to use it in a bit of a more narrow way, but it’s tough sometimes. things like luck, presence, liveliness, body temperature, jin, etc. i don’t consider qi. i usually think of qi as being strictly the bioelectromagnetic energy that manifests itself with different sensations to us. the only standard way that i’ve found of sensing it is a sensation of substance. you feel as if something is there, like where your yi is, that area is full and substantial. i’ve felt all sorts of stuff, though, including the shower of qi i got during meditation that opened most every part of me. like my whole body filled with electricity.
Just a side note. When we think of Yi we think of “mind”. When we think of mind we think of “brain.” But to the old chinese the “mind” actually resided in the heart. Therefore, are we really talking about the same thing? Or does the heart lead the mind? If it is the heart. Then alot of martial arts are lead by the heart.
It’s interesting when people claim to practise traditional styles that are both internal and external. I know what that’s meant to mean - that there are internal and external characteristics. Strictly speakin, though, internal arts are of a taoist origin, and external arts are of a buddhist origin. I can’t think of many lineages that blend the two historical sources coherently.
Incidentall, I like your characterisations, Fu Pow - I’ve not considered some of those points before.
I wonder if I might put a slightly more controversial topic to the board - in terms of characteristics rather than origins, do you think that someone who was encountering it for the first time think that Chen style taiji was internal or external?
To my knowledge, traditional Chen Taiji has both a tremendous amount of “internal” training as well as “external” stuff.
Doesn’t the traditional Chen style (as practiced by Chen Xiaowang) feature a lot of the body-hardening exercises similar to those contained in the “Iron Wire” set of Tit Kiu Sam?
As stated above, “internal” and “external” are very poor ways of describing kung fu styles - especially old ones like baji and Seng Men and tongbei and fanzi whose roots go centuries back beyond Choy Li Fut or Taijiquan.
Younger faster opponents are ALWAYS a problem - regardless of who the master or what the style is. And it is simply incorrect to assume that an external master could not take out a younger opponent, particularly since “younger” doesn’t necessarily mean “stronger” in the context of the TCMAs.
That stopping the move in the middle is a characteristic not just of Taiji, but many other old styles as well.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> I wonder if I might put a slightly more controversial topic to the board - in terms of characteristics rather than origins, do you think that someone who was encountering it for the first time think that Chen style taiji was internal or external?
[/quote]
Depends on how you define encountering. If someone was to watch chen taiji performed they would think it was external, flowery and probably not very useful. However, if they got hit full force by a Chen Taiji practitioner they might have a little bit different story. There is a lot of stuff going on “inside” the Chen form (ie body mechanics) that is not readily observable…internal “mechanations” …that gives it an “unseen” power. These internal mechanations result from attempting to keep the muscles relaxed. You have to find another way to move.
Choy Lay Fut on the other hand is like a system of spinning weights and levers. There is not a lot that is unseen. Choy Lay Fut is in a sense, fluid, but it is more like an overpowering wave. Once it starts it is hard to stop. It crashes down on you with its own momentum.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> Doesn’t the traditional Chen style (as practiced by Chen Xiaowang) feature a lot of the body-hardening exercises similar to those contained in the “Iron Wire” set of Tit Kiu Sam?
[/quote]
I don’t think so. But I’m not an expert by anymeans. This kind of training seems like it might be kind of antithetical to Taiji. Force vs. Force I mean.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>As stated above, “internal” and “external” are very poor ways of describing kung fu styles - especially old ones like baji and Seng Men and tongbei and fanzi whose roots go centuries back beyond Choy Li Fut or Taijiquan.
[/quote]
I don’t know alot about other styles only the ones that I’ve practiced which are Tae kwon do, a little aikido, Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut and Chen Taiji. These are just differences that I’ve noticed between CLF and Taiji. They have been classified as external and internal by somebody else. There are differences. I have heard that arts like Tongbei are somewhere in between. Maybe more muscle tension than Taiji but less than Choy Lay Fut. Or something like that.
There are movements that we do in CLF that would be considered an “error” in Taiji. Mainly because they rely on muscle. I could theoretically modify my CLF forms to conform to the principles of Taiji, but it would probably end up looking something like Taiji (ie I would no longer be doing CLF.) Rest assured I have no intention of doing that.
First and foremost, Iron Wire and Iron Shirt are two totally different things. Iron Wire is nei gung oriented. Iron shirt (ala golden bell, etc) is a means to an end. When we practice iron wire, we do not practice for iron shirt ability, we practice it for internal cultivation.
As for stopping in mid move and going back to wu chi, that is only within the context of the form. Try and perform the move in real life in a dynamic situation, you wont be able to stop it either. That is the distinction between “external” really. Most “external” systems have fighting forms which are performed at fighting speed. For an “internal” example of this, check out the Wu style fast form.
The speed of something, softness, fluidness. Doesn’t matter much. Although some types of training may tend to emphasize the development of LI (strength) is this bad? I think only when a person uses LI and says this is internal strength.
We seem to want to be able to define things into a very ridged fixed state. From my experience CMA is not so neatly divided. It seems that we tend to focus on the part that we can see and label it. With out really having a common understanding.
Very hard to do in this medium, I think this is an understanding that can only be arrived at by experience and practice. Some may never, be able to really use this type of energy, why? There are many reasons but I think the most basic one is that they don’t believe it and have no direct experience with someone who can do it.
Most CMA talk about Shen(sprit) YI(mind) and CHI(inner engery) these are very high level concepts, I believe that they can only be addressed by direct experience. Only those that have had this experience can really appreciate the difficulty in addressing this idea in this format. I feel that many here really believe they have this experience but find it difficult to express.
Dose one make you better then the other seems to be the real unspoken question. My own answer would be what can you really do. This is called searching for the far, and missing the near. What you can do and understand will be the way your training takes you.
Chen Taijiquan DEFINITELY has its hard elements, Fu-Pow.
The traditional Chen style as practiced today by Chen Xiaowang and Ren Guanyi are filled with powerful fa-jing throughout the sets.
I don’t see why practicing powerful fa-jing and resistance to body blows are antithetical to Taijiquan, particularly because those two aspects are HALLMARKS of not just Chen, but Yang and Wu styles. Just look at Nigel Sutton’s book “Applied Tai Chi Chuan” to see this in practice.
“Force vs. force” is often necessary, especially in the context of a real fight. Taijiquan practitioners retain the ability to sink their qi to resist being forced out of their root by opponents.
Then there are arts like HsingYiQuan that are called “internal” but have obvious “external” traits.
This is why the “internal” vs. “external” thing can never be resolved.
This is why the “internal” vs. “external” thing can never be resolved.
What is there to resolve? Those that really know it have nothing to resolve.
Those that do not, cannot understand it except by direct experience. Even then they may never be able to do it,they seek the far overlooking the near. Or some might say the result with out the real practice.
I can see that once again that this has been reduced to a “you can’t define internal/external” argument. Well, I completely disagree and say that you can. Why? Because I’ve been studying 2 different arts. One is categorized as internal the other external. They are very different. How many of you guys seriously study arts that are placed in both categories? I know Illusionfist is a Hung Ga player. What experience do you have in “internal arts”?
I also have studied in both categories, and I feel that there is a difference. External arts can claim that they are relaxed, but some of them are not “relaxed” as in the internal arts. They probably have some area of tension that they’re not aware of. Or they actually tense up at the point of contact, thus losing the peng path.
They also claim that they use the ground when in effect it’s more like external stylist use the ground for support or to push off of to get the power of the strikes and not actually use the ground (or actually “be” the ground as Yan GaoFei puts it).
